A reponse to the comment by Altercation
‘You’ve compared the number of deaths due to alcohol and tobacco with the number deaths due to illegal drugs. However, I don’t think this is proportionate. If heroin was legal, then more people would use it and there would be more deaths.’

Deaths from heroin are substancially higher under prohibition than they ever would be in a regulated market due to a complete lack of quality control.

The results shown by the model used in switzerland suggests not only that deaths from overdose can be avoided but also how a problematic user can be re intergrated into society once the drug becomes ‘affordable’.

Wheras I agree to a certain extent that herion use would increase (slightly – there has been more evidence suggesting the average citizen would not use heroin even it was legal to do so…).
It should be made apparent just how much safer the conditions regarding the consumption of heroin would become under regulation. A higher consumption rate is almost a moot point when weighed up against the positives of a regulated market combined with appropriate medical assistance.

but more importantly, as the original post states, they wouldn’t be bashing your granny over the head to fund their next fix

Can a society exist where people can take whatever drug they choose? Well, clearly it can because that’s the situation where we are now. But what if it were legal (in some fashion)? Well heroin was available over the counter in the 19th century in the form of cough drops and painkillers. And we still went on to rule one third of the world.

It would be fair to compare the percentage of illegal drug users who die as a result of using illegal drugs with the number of alcohol users who die as a result of their alcohol use.

I wonder though, what would the main crime be after drugs though? Would there be an increase in other areas as drug dealers become unemployed? Would these ruthless characters replace the addicts as the criminals in muggings and thefts? Seems unlikely in those scenarios, but would they be the perpetrators of larger, higher risk crimes?

1. A lot more people will take drugs – but frankly, that’s their look out.

2. If GB went alone on this, we’d become a magnet for every smack addict in the Western world.

Other reasons for no legalising do not include those above. Plodnomore’s example for instance. My dentist does not refrain from taking smack while at work becasue its illegal. It is not illegal for him to have a tumbler of brandy in the morning, but he doesn’t do that. Likewise (I assume) your duty inspector.

Agent D’s point also is a nonsense. He doesn’t say WHY we should be attempting to control drug use. There are clearly a number of Daily Mail types who believe that drug-use is immoral, but I can’t see where they derive their moral compasses from.

and how long do you propose ‘trying’ it…don’t you think 40 years is enough, how much money should we spend and how much misery should we subject our citizens to while we keep trying?