Drugs: Arguments against the end of prohibition that miss the point entirely

Drink & Drugs by Tom NashDrugs. Apart from ‘Big Fat Gypsy Weddings’ and whether Lady Gaga is bangable or not, nothing divides opinion more. Unfortunately, no subject seems to bypass rationality and common sense quite like the whole narcotic prohibition debate either.

Of course it makes good copy when some bell-end who can’t handle their shit takes something and dies but that doesn’t account for the millions of people who take some form of drug every weekend and have what can only be described as ‘a really fucking good time’. I’ll let Bill Hicks get the point across better.

Anyway, here’s some of things people who still deny the fact that drug prohibition has failed screech irrationally whenever the subject comes up:

Everyone on drugs is on benefits
Over to Bill again: “If you don’t think drugs have done good things for us, then take all of your records, tapes and CDs and burn them.”

Unless you listen to one of those squeaky clean manufactured boy bands…In which case, you really should try a spliff, at least. Go on.

Isn’t it funny that research shows that an increasing number of addicts work in respectable jobs then…?

Well. I. Never.

If drugs are legalised, ‘the crime rate will go up’
Why? If it’s not illegal to possess or take drugs and the sale and quality is regulated, why would crime go up?

State-owned vendors would be able to undercut the price illegal dealers charge and control quality, as well as supply, so ‘droughts’ that raise prices would become a thing of the past too. If there’s no blackmarket to influence the price of these (often dangerously unpure) substances, why would anyone need to rob or steal to fund their habit?

People who sell a bit of weed or toot a line every now and then wouldn’t be locked up at the expense of the tax payer if caught in possession and the money saved could go toward funding the public services that are currently being cut left, right and centre, as could the proceeds of selling it.

Free from carrying out pricey raids on suppliers (have you seen how many coppers take part in raids? How is that cost effective if they only recover an ounce of hash?) and nicking people who have a couple of spliffs on their person, the police could actually do some police work. I bet they’d even be thankful.

‘I know someone who smoked a joint then murdered his mum.’
OK. So by that logic relationships should be banned- plenty more people have chased the dragon of love (did I really just write that?) and done stupid things as a result.

I’m not denying that some people shouldn’t do drugs. If you can’t sit in a quiet room on your own without bursting into tears or you often find yourself arguing with dustbins then I agree; mind-altering substances are probably best avoided… But some people are just batshit- drugs or no drugs.

That goes for booze too really though, doesn’t it? If you end every night out in tears or fighting with other drunken dipshits, it’s arguable you can’t handle your drink. Well, it’s more than arguable. Just because you ‘can’ neck a fuck-ton of pints or shots does not mean you do it well… But you enjoy a drink so it’s OK, right?

Because one person couldn’t handle a puff on a spliff or had a bad reaction to a pill is no reason to stop everyone else doing it. I feel a bit murder-y every time X Factor, Big Brother or that retarded Essex programme is on the telly, but I’m not calling for them to be banned and citing made-up evidence to prove I’m right.

If drug use was reclassified as a health and social issue, formal research into the long term effects of drugs could be more widespread, which could improve everything from cancer treatment, to the way mental illnesses are diagnosed.

What’s that? Cannabis can improve the effectiveness of chemotherapy and suppress the nausea that the majority of patients suffer from after? Doesn’t fucking matter, I heard a scary story once so it’s BAD. Right? Fuck people with cancer. Right?

Regulating the sale of drugs will lead to more addicts
Because the only thing stopping society from going on a massive crack and skag binge is the legal implications, right?

Give us more credit than that, will you?

By all means find drug users abhorrent and offensive- that’s your right. Just as it’s my right to find Daily Mail readers, ‘pro-lifers’ and everything right-wing groups like the EDL stand for abhorrent and offensive but can’t we all be grown up for a minute and accept that the war on drugs has failed?

As the economy is fucked (technical term) shouldn’t it be a priority of those in charge to find new income streams?

Well here’s news: illegal or not PEOPLE ARE GOING TO TAKE DRUGS. Whether it’s booze, biftas, bugle or something beginning with B that heroin is called, why not legalise the lot and start making some money?

I’m not the first to suggest it. £14 billion is a lot of money and that was suggested in 2009. What’s the current deficit?

Isn’t it about time we treat adults like adults and let them make their own decisions about what to put in their bodies?