If you think drugs should be legalised..

[Playingvideogames]

Do you think soliciting prostitutes/kerb crawling should be as well?

Personally I think both should be illegal. But the arguments on here for legalising drugs (‘they’ll do it anyway’ ‘at least then we can regulate it’ ‘the current system isn’t working’) can also apply to kerb crawling/soliciting.

Both are also industries heavy on using trafficked and exploited people.

Yes there are some drugs that shouldn’t be legalised, crack cocaine, The crazy strong weed variations that are around today, and those “legal highs” from a few years back. I’ve not been involved in anyone taking speed for years, I remember the come
down being really difficult though!

I’ve never known anyone having any addictive issue with mdma though and I’ve got numerous friends with cocaine, ketamine, alcohol, nicotine, chocolate, sex addictions!

@Nincompoo oh speed comedowns I know about I was using 7G of base amphetamine a weekend in the end my MH was shot .
Agree on crack ,super weed and the legal highs why would you.
Laughed at the chocolate 👍😁
Take care👍

It is possible to be poorer and to have a better infrastructure. We have a lot of waste and mismanagement in our systems. I can only talk about what I have read over the years.

Zac doesn't care about the tools and infrastructure required to make this work, he just wants votes.

And you too ❤️

I don’t disagree but what I mean is when you do have the resources it’s simply a choice as to how you use them.

no one would argue Tibet/ Liberia/ Bangladesh can put that infrastructure in place. But the uk certainly can

Well, why not have a rebrand? Roll it out in schools and career fairs:
Drug dealing = "drug work"
Prostitution = "sex work"

And, from what I know from someone who works in an authority against people trafficking is that organ harvesting is always happening.

Organ harvesting = "organ work"

Drug dealers have to keep finding new merchandise to sell. With prostitution/human trafficking, the dealers have merchandise (a human body) that they can sell and sell and sell over and over and over.

You could scarecrow an entire Harve with those strawman.

Which part of the evidence showing clearly that we'll managed decriminalisation of drug use works do you not understand?

Ah, I see. This is a Green Party idea, therefore it must be bad and insincere.

The Green Party is the same as every other party. Style over substance. Who know it would be so difficult to have someone decent to vote for.

So if a new party mooted this policy as an idea, along the lines of the Portugal model, you'd support it because there is evidence of its effectiveness?

You draw some very odd and false comparisons.

You can make drugs legal without making it acceptable to turn up to work high as a kite.

When would people do drugs, well same as a lot of people do now, evenings/weekends/holidays. Just as you could reasonably be fired for turning up to work drunk or lose your licence/get a fine/go to prison for driving drunk, the same could apply to other drugs. Why would you assume it wouldn't be?

You could decriminalise soliciting via certain means (ie, finding someone on an adult-work website) without legalising kerb-crawling. You could decriminalise prostitution without legalising street walking.

I am very pro making drugs legal, because you can then control quality and supply and take so much of the associated illegal activity out of the equation. We already have working models for this with alcohol and tobacco, and for other drugs in other countries.

Why do you assume legalising something means its then a complete free for all, no control, no consequences for misuse/inappropriate use? Thats a strange approach to take when starting a debate.

Not if it's all talk - if you are going to legalise drugs show me a well thought out properly costed plan which takes into account the similarities and differences between our country and Portugal. It won't be plug and play, there will be nuances which will be the difference between success and failure.

I have had enough of kicking the can down the road, selling off of the family silver, burdening the young people with debt and so called 'fully costed policies, no if and buts' to last a life time.

They are all dreadful.

Of course both should be regulated. Surely that's a no brainer?

It's the lack of regulation that creates a black market, traffickers and all of the associated problems that come with it.

But being drunk is legal, who gets drunk legally and when?

I think OPs view seems to be all drugs = long term physically addicted heroin addict

How many heroin addicts do you know out of interest?

I think alcohol is a false equivalence.

Firstly, alcohol is a known quantity that has been around for hundreds of years. People know their limits, they know different types of drinks, and ultimately a couple of beers isn’t going to have the effect of an MDMA bomb.

Secondly, look at all the crime caused by alcohol despite its legalisation and regulation. Street violence, alcoholism, drunk driving and ensuing RTAs, neglectful parenting. Why do you think legalising another whole cache of intoxicants would lead to different results? Crime would be through the roof.

Thirdly, people are fairly au fait with how long it takes to sober up and the effect alcohol generally has on them. Do you think people taking drugs which can cause psychotic effects, in an experimental manner to ‘try them’, en masse is a good idea? For example, we know there is a link between cannabis and schizophrenia. Would you want to live next to a paranoid schizophrenic who was smoking cannabis every day?

Can you explain the relevance of the question? The thread isn’t about heroin addicts

If drugs were legalised in 2030 there would be a period of adjustment, but they would presumably, be legal forever, so you would get the benefits long term.

This is a long term decision that you don’t make by looking at whether 18 year olds today “know their limit”

you can see from the Portuguese example (which I don’t think we should focus too much as they haven’t legalised drugs) that it took a decade to start seeing real benefits. Things don’t change immediately in policy.

look at smoking. 20 years ago increased taxes and public information wasn’t really stopping people smoking. The mass shift has been the lack of new 16 year olds taking up smoking. We can assume the same pattern of benefits for drugs.

Ok, so you don’t know any. You just know the palatable users, the ones who have a spliff after work to ‘wind down’. Makes sense.

Yes, I find it interesting that MN is vociferously anti legalising soliciting/kerb crawling and regulating prostitution as sex work for fairly parallel reasons to legalising drugs. Yet legalising drugs doesn’t attract the same scrutiny, it’s all just ‘sure why not, we can regulate it just like alcohol; happy days’

Drugs and prostitution are different issues. I support decriminalisation of drugs but not of purchasing sexual services. I don't support people selling sex being criminalised but buying? Absolutely

It doesn’t make sense. we are not all blinkered by our lives and understand there is a wide range of experiences in life but laws and policy are not based on either.

People who know loads of heroin addicts or loads of weekend spliff smokers are similarly unqualified to decide on something as difficult and complex as this.

do you get that? That you might have opinions, like me, but they don’t actually mean anything. You’re not “right”.

you’re also not winning some competition by deciding “mumsnet” is some homogenous group who need to be challenged about why they think x instead of Y. You’re making an interesting discussion childish and unproductive

OP isn't interested in explaining anything, just endless straw-manning.

The difference is the product. One is a powder, or crystal, or leaves, the other is a human being.

Worked in nhs mental health for way too many years. So I have come across herion addicts, paranoid schizophrenics and pretty much any other groups you will ask.
Drugs of all sorts affect some people instantly in a way that can mess up their lives, for most people who end up in a poor mental health situation there is an insidious creep into the position they find themselves.
Heroin isn't immediately addictive so if it was decriminalised and the taboo of feelings around it was broken , then maybe the reasons someone feels the need for it could be addressed.
(It won't ever happen- not enough resources available).
To say - all Drugs available and being taken all the time by everyone would be the outcome of decriminalising/legalising (and there is a huge difference which it would be) is absolutely unrealistic.
Yes alcohol for most people is manageable but for some people it really isn't and unfortunately you may not know that until you try it.
Cannabis for most people would be manageable- for some it won't etc.
But to start saying fentanyl would be acceptable just before school working is such a pointless statement that it stops all meaningful conversations.