>How can such a broad question be answered?Some drugs are very powerful and addictive anddestructive : some are not.Would it be bettter to ask should mild and non-addictive drugshave been illegalised.Drug trafficking is out of the hands of government anyway andcould never be completely controlled.The main reason most drugs are soughtto be controlled is the the missing revenue-which no government will ever be able to recoup. It's not for the safety of the citizens. The Emporer Wears No Clothes!
>Sorry I meant to add 'all' into the question. I have done that now.I share your opinion that drug trafficking can never be completely controlled. This is because of a very basic law of economics: where demand exists supply will too.However governments clearly can control the amount of drugs in circulation to some extent. This is why I would suggest creating areas where drugs are legalised (except those which could cause death instantly). In these areas dosages and quantities could be controlled. We could have the best police force and health care ready to help, and hopefully allow decent, honest companies to beat criminals out of the market place.
>Shooting gallery coffee shop health spathen?Would not criminals just work outsidesuch a system? If drugs were taxed etc…I don't really wish to be negative but I guess I still have trad parties as a model.Perhaps a different kind of governmentcould achieve such a change.
>Of course criminals would try to work outside such a system. They would also try to work inside such a system i.e. some would try and go legitimate.It's all about markets. In order to be succesful customers would have to see legal drug use in these specified places as much more preferrable than going to illegal suppliers. This would be achieved through:1. Ensurance of safety: Regulation would ensure safe and pure (i.e. not dirty) doses.2. Increased business: Not having to dodge the police at every turn and being able to act out in the open means a lot more time can be spent, in a much more efficient manner, running the business and appealing to customers. Those who hit the market place first will also benefit from bulk purchase as their business grows while illegal dealers are still dodging the police. Also, such regions could attract tourism and investment in other fields (taking Amsterdam as a model), further giving an economic boost to the region.3. Customers moving from now relatively expensive and unsafe illegal dealers to legal companies within regulated districts.In addition, we could provide those who want to get off of drugs and alcohol, and those who need psychological help with world-class healthcare services.Would it work? There are no guarantees, and this is why only implementing it in certain regions would be a good test-run. In addition, it is very likely to beat all local dealers out of the market place but its effect will lessen as you move further and further away from the regions. Yet if the plan was succesful then we could create new regions.
>CNBC keeps advertising programs about the multi-billion dollar marijuana industry but it's never on at a proper time to allow me to see it. should get sky+ i guess.Anyway, the show is about California's marijuana trade, and it will serve as a good test case for the effects of moving from illegal to legal.Obviously a pragmatic way of legalising drugs would be to do it on a lesser drug first basis, i.e. class C first, then class B, etc,.I think once California goes legit on dope many U.S. states will start to follow. Once the U.S. is predominantly legit on dope then countries like NZ, Aus, etc will start to follow as well.I think one problem is that Amsterdam has a culture that is blase about dope, whereas countries that have banned dope may experience an initial period of turbulence. It will be interesting to see how cultures adapt to being given greater freedom. Of course there will be conservatives who take rises in abortions and any other statistic they can, and seek to tie it back to legalisation on dope.As for the theory of 'should we legalise all drugs', i'm not sure.On the one hand, i don't think there is any mandate for the legalisation of heroin etc,. On the other hand, if drugs were legal then it would be a market controlled by businesses. Businesses need to be certified and regulated, so in this way they could be held liable for any negative effects of new party drugs that have not been properly tested, etc.E.g. pharmacies cannot sell prescription drugs that have not passed FDA (or equivalent) trials, so drug businesses would not be allowed to sell any new drugs until trials had been completed.For the rest off the pros and cons, i'm going to have to do more thinking.
>Completely agree! Yes starting with class C drugs first would probably be the pragmatic, and also most supportable way to go about it (I'm now stealing that idea to add to my policy manifesto if u don't mind).And then with the harder drugs you're again completely right on the two sides to the argument. I think we have to leave these drugs out for two reasons though: there's unlikely to ever be a democratic mandate for the legalisation of extremely hardcore drugs; and secondly it would simply not pass through the legislature in almost any country.
>Ok, so Class C is ok, and any business that sells one class C listed drug would be required to only sell other drugs that have been approved by the government, including 'herbal' drugs.In effect, that would be all Class C drugs with the exception of the new variants taht are constantly springing up. Any business or producer who wants to get there drug in the shops will need to prove that the side effects are within the accepted class C limits.Some people may say that this will force the new drugs to go underground and thereby defeat the whole purpose. I disagree, as consumers will have such a wide range of approved drugs to choose from that any substitute drug will have an uphill battle to win over consumers.But what about Class B and A. Could the government sell them to addicts on a prescription basis, to be consumed on supervised premises ?To be classed as an addict would obvisouly require doctor certification. Then with the government supplying class A at below market cost (rendering the free market operators unprofitable) and in a supervised environment (reducing the possibility of harm to the addict or the public), then the criminal market which survives on this trade will suffer a huge recession and all its effects.The cost to the government of running centres and growing/making their own class A would surely come in at a net surplus when the costs of all the effects that are currently a result of drugs and drug use are taken into acount.I.e. reduced police force, reduced violence, theft, other criminal activity, and reduced medical costs.
>"Ok, so Class C is ok". I'd still say this should be restricted to those certain areas though.I agree on everything here too, and have also stolen the idea about providing addicts with drugs below market price and on a supervised basis. However just one addition/change: I'd say it should be an independent or healthcare body regulated and funded by the Government, but not subject to constant changes based on politically motivated whims.
Battison's Blog 
>How can such a broad question be answered?Some drugs are very powerful and addictive anddestructive : some are not.Would it be bettter to ask should mild and non-addictive drugshave been illegalised.Drug trafficking is out of the hands of government anyway andcould never be completely controlled.The main reason most drugs are soughtto be controlled is the the missing revenue-which no government will ever be able to recoup. It's not for the safety of the citizens. The Emporer Wears No Clothes!
>Sorry I meant to add 'all' into the question. I have done that now.I share your opinion that drug trafficking can never be completely controlled. This is because of a very basic law of economics: where demand exists supply will too.However governments clearly can control the amount of drugs in circulation to some extent. This is why I would suggest creating areas where drugs are legalised (except those which could cause death instantly). In these areas dosages and quantities could be controlled. We could have the best police force and health care ready to help, and hopefully allow decent, honest companies to beat criminals out of the market place.
>Shooting gallery coffee shop health spathen?Would not criminals just work outsidesuch a system? If drugs were taxed etc…I don't really wish to be negative but I guess I still have trad parties as a model.Perhaps a different kind of governmentcould achieve such a change.
>Of course criminals would try to work outside such a system. They would also try to work inside such a system i.e. some would try and go legitimate.It's all about markets. In order to be succesful customers would have to see legal drug use in these specified places as much more preferrable than going to illegal suppliers. This would be achieved through:1. Ensurance of safety: Regulation would ensure safe and pure (i.e. not dirty) doses.2. Increased business: Not having to dodge the police at every turn and being able to act out in the open means a lot more time can be spent, in a much more efficient manner, running the business and appealing to customers. Those who hit the market place first will also benefit from bulk purchase as their business grows while illegal dealers are still dodging the police. Also, such regions could attract tourism and investment in other fields (taking Amsterdam as a model), further giving an economic boost to the region.3. Customers moving from now relatively expensive and unsafe illegal dealers to legal companies within regulated districts.In addition, we could provide those who want to get off of drugs and alcohol, and those who need psychological help with world-class healthcare services.Would it work? There are no guarantees, and this is why only implementing it in certain regions would be a good test-run. In addition, it is very likely to beat all local dealers out of the market place but its effect will lessen as you move further and further away from the regions. Yet if the plan was succesful then we could create new regions.
>CNBC keeps advertising programs about the multi-billion dollar marijuana industry but it's never on at a proper time to allow me to see it. should get sky+ i guess.Anyway, the show is about California's marijuana trade, and it will serve as a good test case for the effects of moving from illegal to legal.Obviously a pragmatic way of legalising drugs would be to do it on a lesser drug first basis, i.e. class C first, then class B, etc,.I think once California goes legit on dope many U.S. states will start to follow. Once the U.S. is predominantly legit on dope then countries like NZ, Aus, etc will start to follow as well.I think one problem is that Amsterdam has a culture that is blase about dope, whereas countries that have banned dope may experience an initial period of turbulence. It will be interesting to see how cultures adapt to being given greater freedom. Of course there will be conservatives who take rises in abortions and any other statistic they can, and seek to tie it back to legalisation on dope.As for the theory of 'should we legalise all drugs', i'm not sure.On the one hand, i don't think there is any mandate for the legalisation of heroin etc,. On the other hand, if drugs were legal then it would be a market controlled by businesses. Businesses need to be certified and regulated, so in this way they could be held liable for any negative effects of new party drugs that have not been properly tested, etc.E.g. pharmacies cannot sell prescription drugs that have not passed FDA (or equivalent) trials, so drug businesses would not be allowed to sell any new drugs until trials had been completed.For the rest off the pros and cons, i'm going to have to do more thinking.
>Completely agree! Yes starting with class C drugs first would probably be the pragmatic, and also most supportable way to go about it (I'm now stealing that idea to add to my policy manifesto if u don't mind).And then with the harder drugs you're again completely right on the two sides to the argument. I think we have to leave these drugs out for two reasons though: there's unlikely to ever be a democratic mandate for the legalisation of extremely hardcore drugs; and secondly it would simply not pass through the legislature in almost any country.
>Ok, so Class C is ok, and any business that sells one class C listed drug would be required to only sell other drugs that have been approved by the government, including 'herbal' drugs.In effect, that would be all Class C drugs with the exception of the new variants taht are constantly springing up. Any business or producer who wants to get there drug in the shops will need to prove that the side effects are within the accepted class C limits.Some people may say that this will force the new drugs to go underground and thereby defeat the whole purpose. I disagree, as consumers will have such a wide range of approved drugs to choose from that any substitute drug will have an uphill battle to win over consumers.But what about Class B and A. Could the government sell them to addicts on a prescription basis, to be consumed on supervised premises ?To be classed as an addict would obvisouly require doctor certification. Then with the government supplying class A at below market cost (rendering the free market operators unprofitable) and in a supervised environment (reducing the possibility of harm to the addict or the public), then the criminal market which survives on this trade will suffer a huge recession and all its effects.The cost to the government of running centres and growing/making their own class A would surely come in at a net surplus when the costs of all the effects that are currently a result of drugs and drug use are taken into acount.I.e. reduced police force, reduced violence, theft, other criminal activity, and reduced medical costs.
>"Ok, so Class C is ok". I'd still say this should be restricted to those certain areas though.I agree on everything here too, and have also stolen the idea about providing addicts with drugs below market price and on a supervised basis. However just one addition/change: I'd say it should be an independent or healthcare body regulated and funded by the Government, but not subject to constant changes based on politically motivated whims.
>So you're writing your own manifesto ? Are you running for a British seat, Luxembourgish one, or EU one ?
>None yet. I'm planning on running for a British seat in about 10 or 20 years, after I've gotten more experience, knowledge, contacts and money. Though I'm starting to get involved with a group that's aiming to start a new party in Britain: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=76377012419 (I'm hoping I can persuade that group to take some of my ideas).If you want to see those ideas they're displayed here: http://www.thebigqs.co.uk/Articles/Politics/Proposals%20for%20reform.pdf