“The Home Office has quickly rejected a call from the government’s official drug advisers to decriminalise the personal possession of all illegal drugs, including heroin and cocaine.
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) has said it would be better if the tens of thousands of people caught with illicit drugs were sent on drug education and awareness courses rather than punished with fines and other penalties, up to imprisonment.
The call by the ACMD made earlier this summer echoes the vote by the Liberal Democrat conference to endorse a similar decriminalisation approach to personal possession. Portugal became the first European country in 2001 to replace criminal penalties for possession with administrative fines, similar to parking tickets, combined with treatment and education courses.”
Source – The Guardian
The Home Office mandate is to create a safe, just and fair society. Clearly laws the punish individuals for committing no moral wrong, using them as examples to try to deter others (an approach that obviously isn’t working) in the name of a social engineering project, is not just. It is not fair to that individual, nor is it fair to the wider population to use the criminal justice system to bully them out of exercising their God-given right to cognitive liberty. As for safety they say:
“We have no intention of liberalising our drugs laws. Drugs are illegal because they are harmful – they destroy lives and cause untold misery to families and communities.”
News flash: heroin and crack are already destroying lives, their criminal status contributes to the problem by pushing supplies underground, and making usage more dangerous than it needs to be, and making criminals rich in the process. Decriminalisation has been shown to reduce use in Portugal.
The Home Office continues to ignore >the clear evidence< that some drugs are less harmful than tobacco and alcohol and that some drugs (LSD for example) pose minimal risk. The fact is that drug laws fail to deter use; through their application the laws themselves “destroy lives and cause untold misery to families and communities”.
The home office fail to acknowledge the many benefits that come from using some of the drugs currently banned.
If drug laws are about protecting people from harm, why don’t they cohere with scientific evaluation of drug-harms?
“Those caught in the cycle of dependency must be supported to live drug-free lives, but giving people a green light to possess drugs through decriminalisation is clearly not the answer.”
Psychedelics do not cause dependency. In fact, LSD therapy can be used to treat drug (alcohol) dependency. Those who fall victim to the drugs that do cause dependency are clearly not given the treatment they need in prisons they simply have their lives derailed by being punished for having done nothing morally wrong. Drug addicts are pushed away from treatment by the current system.
“We are taking action through tough enforcement, both inland and abroad, alongside introducing temporary banning powers and robust treatment programmes that lead people into drug-free recovery.”
Good for you. Well done for continuing to enforce a strategy that clearly doesn’t work. You are paternalistic fascists who have no regard for the liberties of the people you claim to be serving. Putting recreational drug users in prison and miring their employment prospects with criminal records is clearly a great way to make them tax-paying citizens, it’s a great way to help them. (end slow clap)
The Home Office is stuck in the past. It is locked in by politics and self-interest so that it cannot take a fresh perspective on the issue: it is forced to regurgitate the increasingly unconvincing misinformation and propaganda that governments have been spewing out since the 60s. Your policies are not working: drug use continues, you cannot take people’s cognitive liberty away no matter how hard you try.
It is so obvious that the Home Office are too blinkered to see the double-standards underpinning their attitude towards drug policy. It is a double standard because they wouldn’t dream of criminalising mountain-climbing, horse-riding or other high risk activities, even if they carry a greater risk than certain drugs. People wouldn’t settle for having their freedom taken away and yet, blinded by fear and misinformation, people take it as a given that the government should deprive them of their most fundamental freedom, the freedom of sovereignty over their own mind.
Once again, the basic issue of cognitive freedom hasn’t been mentioned by The Home Office or the mainstream media.
How many people are making their livings by prosecuting and locking up people who have committed no moral wrong? Are politicians doing what is right, or what is easy? Is the Home Office really making an objective analysis of the situation based on the latest scientific evidence? If not, on what are they basing their claims?
Since the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs consists of scientific experts, why are the home office ignoring them? If they are ignoring them,why does the ACMD exist in the first place?
Basing our drug policy on scientific evidence is a simple, reasonable and fair request. The coalition government need to acknowledge that drug policy, in its current form, is not in line with scientific evidence and provide a justification for their choice to continue to ignore it.