Nuala Reece
Caldari
Starlancers
Insurgency
   |
Posted - 2007.10.15 22:43:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: lofty29
Problem is that for the first few years you'll get a bunch of kids going 'WEED/LSD/******/SPEED/***** YAY!!11!'. They die and a large % of the population dies. Large sums of money disappear from government funds because of this, and as such, huge economical raeptrain is created.
Last time I heard stats on drug related deaths (from a Drugs, Alcohol and HIV Forum meeting in Scotland) they suggested that around 120 people die every year in Scotland from illicit drug use. Out of a population of just over 5 million that's around 0.0024%. Even if legalisation resulted in a tenfold increase in use and resulting deaths (1200 deaths per year, 0.024%) that would still be only half of the deaths the country sees as a result of alcohol use. From my point of view, the death rate from illegal drug use is hugely over played because, in the words of one of the Forum members, 'politically speaking drugs are sexy'. It's for that reason, and people's natural tendency toward conservatism (in England at least) that the evidence in favour of changing drug legislation is frequently ignored in favour of 'common sense' ideas with little or no evidence to back them up.
There's already a good amount of evidence for the economic benefits of at least decriminalising drug use. Other countries have seen overall drug use decrease after a brief increase folowing legalisation or deciminalisation for so-called 'soft' drugs. For 'hard' drugs there's even better evidence - a test study in Liverpool in the early 90's, where addicts were able to get smack on prescription on condition they attended drug counselling regularly, had pretty dramatic results. An area with high levels of crime - theft, violence and prostitution - was virtually transformed as a result of the test. Most of the theft and prostitution was a result of people needing money to fund their habit, money they didn't need once their drugs were free on prescription (gods bless the NHS). The cost on the NHS also dropped becasue the drugs they were using were medical grade rather than street-style cut with brick dust stuff - high quality gear combined with regular medical and counselling contact and more disposable income led to users being much more healthy. It also led to them being able to stabilize their lives, increasing their chances of legal employment and reducing the cost on the benefits system. Dealers had less customers and so moved away, dramatically reducing the level of violence on the streets, and punters went elsewhere allowing locals to feel more safe and have more ownership of their own streets. People were also more likely to get themselves off the drugs than the current preferred method of giving them a significantly more addictive drug as a replacement therapy (methadone).
Basically the evidence available suggests we spend far more money at the moment pursuing the war on drugs, sorry the War On Drugs!, than we would if we, well, smoked a joint and just chilled out dude 
Summary - War On Drugs! is a massive waste of money with very little significant result other than to maintain the staus quo, but a great political tool for scaring people on a local level when they're too smart to fall for the larger scare stories. Until that changes we're pretty unlikely to see any kind of real change to the law towards something that might actually benefit drug users, drug addicts, the health service, the benefits system and society in general.
Starlancers
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/NualaReece/starlancers_ad.avi |