I think a society with legalised drugs would be a nightmare ... the effects of smoking and alcohol no society are bad enough.
Come to Holland; cannabis has been effectively legal for years (you can buy it in licensed shops and possession or growth of reasonable amounts (5 grams/5 plants) is tolerated.
Compare Holland to England; although a few percent more teenagers in Holland TRY pot, there are more regular teenage USERS in England.
Look at Heroin. The average age of a Heroin user in England has stayed roughly static for years, even gone down. The old ones die, and new ones are 'recruited'. In Holland, the average age of a Heroin user has climbed. Older ones are more healthy (controlled distribution) and younger ones don't mix with drug dealers even IF they do smoke pot (the shops where you buy pot from have strict no hard drugs policies), and thus are less likely to be pursuaded to try some.
Sounds like England is living the nightmare NOW Simon. Is this an opinion of yours that you have examined extensively with your post JW mindset, or is it a long standing opinion?
We haven't faught any war on drugs, just pretended to. We look at drugs in isolation and miss the bigger picture. Why do people grow drugs? Because they can't make a living growing proper crops. So pressured people in places like Afghanistan try to survive.
I partially agree with you. People grow drugs as it is profitable for them to do so. Yup, that's true. But drugs are profitable BECAUSE THEY ARE ILLEGAL AND BECAUSE PEOPLE STILL WANT THEM. Fair trade would not end the growing of drugs Simon. Demand creates supply.
During prohibition in the USA consumption of alcohol went UP I believe, and the money made on illegal distribution founded crime organisations. When prohibition ended, these crime familes diversified into racketeering, prostitution, other recreational chemicals, etc.
Likewise, massive crime organisations have developed with the money they are able to make using something that grown commercially only costs $10 a gram - if that.
Remove the illegality, create a framework of controlled supply, and the profits dwindle, the police have vast amounts of time freed from pursuing drug USERS, the drugs dealers stop fighting each other as it's not worth it, freeing up even police time, and drug users who would otherwise commit crime to finance their habit don't have to, freeing up yet more police time.
Legalise drugs in a sensible and controlled manner and the only risk is WHAT the crime organsiations would diversify into after their revenue stream from drugs has gone. I have a cynical half-serious opinion that this is why drugs remain illegal; the government prefers the devil it knows to the devil it don't.
I think a lot of agencies and managers have big budgets and jobs thanks to drugs ... they don't want to end it all so preserve the balance.
This is a very believable idea, and the pathetic joke of the 'War on Drugs' in America (drugs are now cheaper and more widely available than before it started: the War on Drugs makes Vietnam look like Little Big Horn from the winning side in comparison) goes to back it.
But essentially, if I don't harm another person by what I do, then recreational drugs are no more or less right than other recreational activities that carry some form of risk; for example, you are more likey to die if you ride a horse once a week than if you take Ecstasy once a week.
In other words, if I'm not commiting any other crime, controlling what substances I take into my body is an unjustifiable invasion of my human rights, no more valid than a bunch of Jews telling everyone not to eat pork, or a bunch of Catholics telling people not to eat meat on Friday; statements which are valid to those that make them but which are irrelevent to anyone not sharing their beliefs.
Seven die in Chicago shooting
A man has opened fire at a car parts warehouse in Chicago, killing at least six people, before being shot dead by police.