Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Friday June 12 2015, @06:54PM   Printer-friendly
from the no-more-drug-war dept.

UK Home Secretary Theresa May is continuing a trend of ignoring science advisers when it comes to drug policy:

Home Secretary Theresa May and her statutory advisers on drug policy look to be heading for a showdown over government plans to deal with so-called "legal highs". Some members of The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) are understood to be furious that they were not consulted on proposed legislation for a blanket ban on psychoactive substances. The relationship between the ACMD and ministers in various governments has long been strained. There have been sackings and mass resignations in the last few years, amid claims that expert scientists were being bullied and ignored because their advice didn't coincide with government policy.

Questions are now being asked as to whether the ACMD is being edged out of the drugs debate - 44 years after a Conservative government set it up to ensure science rather than politics dictated policy. In the House of Lords yesterday, a number of peers demanded to know why ministers had not asked the ACMD's opinion before drawing up the controversial Psychoactive Substances Bill.

"It is actually a legal requirement set out in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 that the ACMD must be consulted before alterations to the Act or new legislation is brought in," Labour peer Lord Rea told the House. "Instead, a specially appointed expert panel was set up by the Home Office. I can only suggest that this was done because the opinion of the ACMD is often not exactly welcomed by the Home Office".

The principle which underpinned the drugs debate in the UK at that time [in 1971] was the longstanding and broadly accepted view that addicts were ill and required treatment rather than punishment. Known as the "British system", ministers felt a medical science-led approach was preferable to US-style prohibition. Roll the clock forward four decades and the government view seems to have turned around entirely in responding to the threat from so-called "legal highs". The bill to outlaw NPS prohibits everything "capable of producing a psychoactive effect" unless it is specifically exempted - and there are concerns that the proposals are being introduced without proper consultation with health experts.

A blanket ban on psychoactive legal highs with prison sentences of up to seven years was featured in the Conservative Party's election manifesto and the Queen's Speech.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Zz9zZ on Friday June 12 2015, @07:46PM

    by Zz9zZ (1348) on Friday June 12 2015, @07:46PM (#195504)

    Your stance seems very reasonable to me, but the propaganda against drugs runs deep. For most it becomes a debate of good vs. evil, reason doesn't enter into it. The demographics are changing, so hopefully in the not too distant future the drug agenda will move into the social sphere and not the legal one.

    Another possible reason for legalization is that it should make it safer for users. If we have companies that create the drugs, then they'll suddenly have a public reputation. Cutting drugs with harmful chemicals will become less common, hopefully reducing overdoses and complications.

    From my armchair it seems that legalization measure have resulted in less crime without major social upheaval. Prohibition measures result in more crime and social unrest.

    --
    ~Tilting at windmills~
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=3, Total=4
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by KGIII on Saturday June 13 2015, @04:01AM

    by KGIII (5261) on Saturday June 13 2015, @04:01AM (#195634) Journal

    I do strongly support the legalization of all drugs. The government should not be preventing those who have reached the age of majority from doing what they will with their own body provided it does not risk other people beyond the user. Now, I do mean all drugs - not just the ones that you like. Taking the crime out of possession, consumption, and sale is a way to reduce crime - especially violent crime. The fact that they are illicit is a draw for some people. People are not going to suddenly decide that they are going to go out and start a heroin addiction just because heroin is legal.

    People will not suddenly use because of the changes to the law - they may report their use in studies or such because it is now legal. People who want drugs are not stopped by the law. If people could not get drugs we would not have this "drug problem," would we? So, yes, anyone who wants drugs can already get drugs. The only way we can affect change in any meaningful and non-draconian way is to simply legalize them and use the war on drugs money to educate and rehabilitate.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Sunday June 14 2015, @08:47PM

      by TheRaven (270) on Sunday June 14 2015, @08:47PM (#196237) Journal
      Add to that, there's the question of tax revenue. If I buy a pint of beer or a pack of cigarettes, I pay VAT and other taxes. If I buy a bag of cannabis (or any other illegal drug), I pay no tax. This means that the current system is actually penalising users of legal drugs. I'm in favour of banning smoking (of anything) in public though because your right to put whatever crap you want to in your body does not extend to a right to put it in mine just because we're standing near each other.
      --
      sudo mod me up
      • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday June 15 2015, @03:24PM

        by urza9814 (3954) on Monday June 15 2015, @03:24PM (#196536) Journal

        I'm in favour of banning smoking (of anything) in public though because your right to put whatever crap you want to in your body does not extend to a right to put it in mine just because we're standing near each other.

        I'm inclined to agree with such arguments, but the problem is that "public" rarely ever means public. Do you actually mean just the streets (the one place most people feel no need to ban it) and the courthouse, or do you mean every private bar or restaurant?

        • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday June 16 2015, @01:58PM

          by TheRaven (270) on Tuesday June 16 2015, @01:58PM (#196849) Journal
          I'd include bars and restaurants, in part because these places have staff and I don't believe that 'you have to take random drugs' should be part of any employment contract. If these places want to have dedicated smoking rooms that are not staffed, then that would be fine.
          --
          sudo mod me up
          • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday June 16 2015, @03:21PM

            by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday June 16 2015, @03:21PM (#196892) Journal

            I'd include bars and restaurants, in part because these places have staff and I don't believe that 'you have to take random drugs' should be part of any employment contract. If these places want to have dedicated smoking rooms that are not staffed, then that would be fine.

            What about hookah bars or cigar shops? Can you smoke there? Is it only allowed if they refuse to give you a glass of water with the hookah? Or maybe the water is OK if they don't charge for it? Around here it's quite common for such establishments to also serve alcohol; sometimes food too. Is that banned? Or can we have a hookah lounge that is also a bar, just not a bar that is also a hookah lounge??

            How about we just say it's a private business, and they can do what they want. If you get a job or go out to eat at a smokers' bar, you don't really have any right to complain about people smoking IMO. Perhaps there's a need for some regulation if an establishment would like to start to allow smoking where they didn't previously (ie, offer a severance package to any employees who choose to leave because of it) but if you've got a bar where people have smoked inside for the past decade, I don't see how you can claim *anyone* present is being "forced" to inhale that smoke. If you don't like it, just don't eat there. Vote with your wallet.

            Besides, banning it in bars and restaurants is a wholly different concept than banning it in public; and in fact I'd say the two are mutually exclusive. If you ban it in bars, people have to step outside into the public street to smoke. Keep it legal in the bars, and you can ban it on the streets and tell smokers to go indoors if they want to smoke. Ban it in all commercial establishments, all industrial establishments, AND all public places and you might as well just place all nicotine addicts under house arrest as it's the same end result.