Amsterdam Coffeeshop Directory Forums

TRANSFORM REPORT: LEGALISATION COULD SAVE UK £14bn
07 April 2009

The regulated legalisation of drugs would have major benefits for taxpayers, victims of crime, local communities and the criminal justice system, according to the first comprehensive comparison between the cost-effectiveness of legalisation and prohibition. The authors of the report, which is due to be published today, suggest that a legalised, regulated market could save the country around £14bn.

For many years the government has been under pressure to conduct an objective cost-benefit analysis of the current drugs policy, but has failed to do so despite calls from MPs. Now the drugs reform charity, Transform, has commissioned its own report, examining all aspects of prohibition from the costs of policing and investigating drugs users and dealers to processing them through the courts and their eventual incarceration.

As well as such savings is the likely taxation revenue in a regulated market. However, there are also the potential costs of increased drug treatment, education and public information campaigns about the risks and dangers of drugs, similar to those for tobacco and alcohol, and the costs of running a regulated system.

The report looked at four potential scenarios, ranging from no increase in drugs use to a 100% rise as they become more readily available.

"The conclusion is that regulating the drugs market is a dramatically more cost-effective policy than prohibition and that moving from prohibition to regulated drugs markets in England and Wales would provide a net saving to taxpayers, victims of crime, communities, the criminal justice system and drug users of somewhere within the range of, for the four scenarios, £13.9bn, £10.8bn, £7.7bn, £4.6bn."

Titled a Comparison of the Cost-effectiveness of the Prohibition and Regulation of Drugs, the report uses government figures on the costs of crime to assess the potential benefits and disadvantages of change. The document, co-written by Steve Rolles, head of research at Transform, uses home office and No 10 strategy unit reports to form its conclusions.

It finds: "The government specifically claims the benefits of any move away from prohibition towards legal regulation would be outweighed by the costs. No such cost-benefit analysis, or even a proper impact assessment of existing enforcement policy and legislation has ever been carried out here or anywhere else in the world."

Taxing drugs would also provide big revenue gains, says the survey. An Independent Drug Monitoring Unit estimate, quoted in the report, suggests up to £1.3bn could be generated by a £1 per gram tax on cannabis resin and £2 per gram on skunk.

The report follows calls for legalisation or a full debate on reform. Last month, the Economist concluded: "Prohibition has failed; legalisation is the least bad solution."

Source

I've been waiting for this to appear on the BBC's radar. Channel 4 and the Guardian both discussed it on Monday or Tuesday, but the BBC?

As prohibition does not have a single positive ramification - I do wonder why we've been subjected to it for tens of years and at such a massive cost to society.

doobydave wrote:I've been waiting for this to appear on the BBC's radar. Channel 4 and the Guardian both discussed it on Monday or Tuesday, but the BBC?

As prohibition does not have a single positive ramification - I do wonder why we've been subjected to it for tens of years and at such a massive cost to society.

Not to get into a debate here again but in your view prohibition does not have any positive aspects, that may not be the case, in the previous thread there were some good points put forward and i think a sensible conculsion of prohibition is apporiate in regards to certain drugs.

But it will be interesting to see the turn out at Pinkys protest, its all good writing about how much prohibition sucks on a forum, but the protests is what matters. I will bet there will be no more than 100 people at the protest, so theres no pessure. It is rather disappointing to be honset.

in the previous thread there were some good points put forward and i think a sensible conculsion of prohibition is apporiate in regards to certain drugs.

No there weren't.

I in fact decide to drop the discussion with you after you said you would prefer to see innocent people hurt/killed rather than adopt a level of tolerance that would see these bloody turf wars end.

But it will be interesting to see the turn out at Pinkys protest, its all good writing about how much prohibition sucks on a forum, but the protests is what matters. I will bet there will be no more than 100 people at the protest, so theres no pessure. It is rather disappointing to be honset.

I suspect you're right. I have less to lose than you, but I probably won't be there.

doobydave wrote:
I suspect you're right. I have less to lose than you, but I probably won't be there.

then go with a mask.....I can understand 100% that you are afraid someone from your work or something else could see you, or maybe you are a dealer who is afraid the police will see him....hide your face and its all good

DoobyDave again thats your view point. Even the poll you created showed a 50/50 split, so i dont know have you will be able to change that to fit your argument but im sure you'll try. Again i do not want to enter a debate, you have your point of view, i have mine, it is however deeply disrespectful to assume that your viewpoint is better than mine. I never said i would rather see ' innocent people' ( strange use of the phase there as its not like there an innocent catching a stray bullet they decide to stick the needle in their arm.) Hurt or killed, to mis-interpret my posts intentionally shows flaws in your own arguement, as does stating a blanket solution for drugs does not work, but then suggesting your blanket solution would work.I fear this is going to turn to me and you pissing at each other back and forth so i will drop it. But to post things that i did not say out of context is not going to fly really man, opposing point of views are a good thing, it is in the debate and the middle ground of those apposing point of views the right answer is usually found. Please do not mis-quote me and state things that i did not say, or provide quotes without stating context.

Peace

The fact that 50% were able to vote for the prohibition of some drugs without being able to give a valid example of a what benefit it would have over legalistaion does not make the arguments for legalisation any less valid.

When I use the term 'innocent person', that is exactly what I am referring to. Some poor person caught up in the violence of others who are trying to protect their (illegal) livelihoods.

SirNiall wrote:Fair point, i feel for those innocently caught up in the violence perpetuated by drugs. For those who are killed dealing or defending territory for drugs i have no sympathy, it is their decision to enter the world of drugs and to attempt to be a gangster. I would of course try to talk them out of it given half a chance, but it is a death sentence they signed themselves in my view.

I'm sure anyone who has lost anyone to gangland violence will be most grateful for your sympathy - be they guilty of alternative drug-use to yourself, or not.

Nice find puffin, thanks for sharing

doobydave wrote:The fact that 50% were able to vote for the prohibition of some drugs without being able to give a valid example of a what benefit it would have over legalistaion does not make the arguments for legalisation any less valid.

When I use the term 'innocent person', that is exactly what I am referring to. Some poor person caught up in the violence of others who are trying to protect their (illegal) livelihoods.

SirNiall wrote:Fair point, i feel for those innocently caught up in the violence perpetuated by drugs. For those who are killed dealing or defending territory for drugs i have no sympathy, it is their decision to enter the world of drugs and to attempt to be a gangster. I would of course try to talk them out of it given half a chance, but it is a death sentence they signed themselves in my view.

I'm sure anyone who has lost anyone to gangland violence will be most grateful for your sympathy - be they guilty of alternative drug-use to yourself, or not.

Dave you are once again claiming noone provided any points to counter your arguements, this logic of putting your fingers in your ears and singing loudly when other points of view are put forward is characterist of both the posts you have started, you claim no-one put any reason forward...

I personally think NO recreational drug shold be legalised. If the powers that be stopped fukin everything up, we wouldn't want and/or need them. They serve as a distraction from the rules and regulations that addicts of bigger drugs like Religion, Politics and Money have place upon the rest of us. When the Power junkies eventually get removed, whatever is left of the human race will look at the future with crystal clear clarity.... not through a smoke filled haze. For this time and age, maybe they should be legalised but that's only because this time and age is fukt up.

Provided by DC.

Catona offered personal experience of drug addicts and how it is clear greater access to drugs would not help. You ommited you have no experience with drug addicts except for a smack head you met at a party. So therefore is Catonas reason not good enough, how can you deney he has given a reason? That is simply stupid, he has given a reason clearly.

The poll reads atm as 51 to 48 in favour of not legalising all recreational drugs. This is of course the second post you started as the first one had to be re-worded and manipulated to fit your logic and reasoning. Perhaps you should try to fit your logic around the issue, rather than the issue around your logic?

To trivalise all gang disputes to simple drug reasons is to mis-understand the nature of gangs but also basic pyschological understanding of mob mentality and therefore gang mentality. I never said i wanted people to be killed, i said for those who die due to their own personal choice to join gangs and sell drugs i have no sympathy. This is because they make a personal choice, which has consequences, to remove any responsibilty because of someones personal choice is a dangerous thing.

Im sure anyone with half a brain can see that reasons were given, and will not fall for you simply saying there were no reasons. Im sure anyone with half a brain will also be able to see that to simply say or believe something does not make it true, which is the logic you use with points of views against yours.

Enjoy the last word, i hope its sweet.

Peace

I am dropping this as of this point

lampshade wrote:Nice find puffin, thanks for sharing

Most welcome, lampshade.

I am sorry Puffin, but.......

SirNiall wrote:Dave you are once again claiming noone provided any points to counter your arguements, this logic of putting your fingers in your ears and singing loudly when other points of view are put forward is characterist of both the posts you have started, you claim no-one put any reason forward...

Quote:
I personally think NO recreational drug shold be legalised. If the powers that be stopped fukin everything up, we wouldn't want and/or need them. They serve as a distraction from the rules and regulations that addicts of bigger drugs like Religion, Politics and Money have place upon the rest of us. When the Power junkies eventually get removed, whatever is left of the human race will look at the future with crystal clear clarity.... not through a smoke filled haze. For this time and age, maybe they should be legalised but that's only because this time and age is fukt up.


Provided by DC.

Why do you quote such garbage? If this is the best reason you can come up with (and not even all on your own), then you might as well give up now.

The funny thing is, you made jokes about me being a smakie-lover when in reality it is you who want to protect people from what you deem to be evil - I couldn't give much of a shit if someone gets addicted to smack and ruins their life, but I am happy for them not to be labeled as a criminal and forced to pay 20x more for what they desire especially as this will most often be funded by crime.

Sorry for hi-jacking this post puffin, it is a very good post. Where would i be without the constant updates from you.

Dave read the post another reason was given, it was the first i come across in the oringal post, it had nothing to do with the quality of it etc, i was just surprised how easy it was to find a reason anti-legalisation as according to you none was given.

If you care to find the oringinal post you started, you will see my objections outlined clearly. EDIT such as your point of it will be 20x cheaper so there will be less crime. Simply ingoring the nature of tolernece in the bodies reaction to substances, so it may be 20 x cheaper but the addict will do more, buliding up tolerence, and therefore needing more for a hit. Which will eventually put him in the same postion as before of not being able to afford the of smack he needs. This is all outlined in the oringial post, if you want to reply.

Interesting read Puffin
and TBH much that I agree with

Last month, the Economist concluded: "Prohibition has failed; legalisation is the least bad solution."

Prohibition failed in the past and is failing now.
to qualify
The alcohol prohibition in the US not only did not work but produced the gangland warfare with al capone etc it did not stop the speakeasy's or the consumption of alcohol.
Very similar to the current results of the US drug prohibiton when you consider the amount of deaths in mexico etc and the gang/gun culture surrounding it.

It is time our governments woke up to the facts of the expense in policing thier drug policies and the expense in human life and needless suffering.
To my mind any hazardous or dangerous substance should be regulated and controlled, just like any other hazardous chemicals, so the smack addict can get clean predictable quality of supply without the need to theive to pay for it. Yes there should be help for addicts but the whole issue needs removing from the criminal aspects that rule it at present.

This is important as the criminalisation of drug use and supply ensures that society has to pay the very high price of policing existing policies and incarcarting offenders, let alone the costs in drug related violence to the participants and innocent by standers.

Prohibition is a nonsense that resolves nothing and perpetuates the criminal supply, costs a fortune to governemts and taxpayers, criminalizes thier citizens and has over time made the drug barons immensley rich. It has never stopped drug use/consumption so has plainly failed.

Legalization, regulation and a means of legal supply is really the only intelligent way forward, it would reduce policing and prison costs, raise revenue through taxation ( some of which would be usefully used to help addicts etc) and if coffeeshop netherlands style were permited , stimulate the economy. With regard to pills and powders a legal supply would mean a safe supply with the ability to know what is in those pills and powders as at present who knows what they are cut with, combined with a proper drug education would lead to a more sensible environment for drug experimentation and allow monies to be available to help those who have problems.
When you compare this with the existing rules on alcohol and the support given to alcoholics it makes much more sense than prohibiton and in reality would mean bringing drug laws into the same state as the rules for alcohol leaving the choice/decision a personal one where it should be and not one chosen/enforced by government.

On the whole a more sensible approach.
So don't expect politicians to see the light soon

FF

FF i agree with what you say in regards to cannabis. But if you walk down a town centre tonight, it being a saturday, you will be witness to the ' sensible ' decisions people take in regards to alchol. To offer the same decision to such dangerous drugs as H, crack etc seems to be asking for trouble. Violent crime relating to drugs will not be stopped in total if they were legalised and regulated, this is simply propaganda by anti-prohibitionists. Because for regualtion and legalisation to remove crime associated with drugs, you are assuming all drug related crime in cause in relation to supply and demmand, but what about crimes carried out by those under the influence. If for instance you take the example of Ice, meth amphetime, this drug causes huge amount of violence in those who take it, this is because it promotes violent mood swings, much in the way booze does by limiting inhibtions, although to say that Ice only causes violence because of it limiting inhibitions is to mis-understand the nature of the drug on the human body. So i dont know how throwing a bunch of tweeking Ice heads on the verge of violence would help things in society at all. This is throwing yet more violence into, in Britian on a saturday night at least, a violent society.

Some drugs need to be prohibited, other drugs do not, a blanket solution rarely provides an answer, so in my view saying that prohibition wont work but saying complete legalisation of all drugs will work is a strange logic. Things need to be treated on a substance by substance basis, this is the only sensible way to handle this situation.

The middle way is usually the best way.

Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote:FF i agree with what you say in regards to cannabis. But if you walk down a town centre tonight, it being a saturday, you will be witness to the ' sensible ' decisions people take in regards to alchol. To offer the same decision to such dangerous drugs as H, crack etc seems to be asking for trouble. Violent crime relating to drugs will not be stopped in total if they were legalised and regulated, this is simply propaganda by anti-prohibitionists. Because for regualtion and legalisation to remove crime associated with drugs, you are assuming all drug related crime in cause in relation to supply and demmand, but what about crimes carried out by those under the influence. If for instance you take the example of Ice, meth amphetime, this drug causes huge amount of violence in those who take it, this is because it promotes violent mood swings, much in the way booze does by limiting inhibtions, although to say that Ice only causes violence because of it limiting inhibitions is to mis-understand the nature of the drug on the human body. So i dont know how throwing a bunch of tweeking Ice heads on the verge of violence would help things in society at all. This is throwing yet more violence into, in Britian on a saturday night at least, a violent society.

Some drugs need to be prohibited, other drugs do not, a blanket solution rarely provides an answer, so in my view saying that prohibition wont work but saying complete legalisation of all drugs will work is a strange logic. Things need to be treated on a substance by substance basis, this is the only sensible way to handle this situation.

The middle way is usually the best way.

Not sure you can have a middle way prohibition does not work.
at present we suffer the effects of drugs like crack on people and those they may hurt despite prohibition negating your stance.
would legalising mean we get more violence?
not necessarily, and Portugals decriminilazation of all drugs bears this out as they have not seen a massive increase in drug related violence as you describe. Though they still prosecute dealers and will fine you if you have more than the stated limits but do not give you a criminal record as far as I understand.
anyway violent behaviour however induced inc alcohol related is a police matter and could be dealt with exactly the same way.

As a cost to a society I suspect it is cheaper to help those who are having drug related problems rather than prohibit.
Education, regulation and a legal framework makes more sense than criminalising a population. How does prision prevent a user of crack from re offending once thier term is over?
You cannot stop someone using a substance if they can find, make or buy it.
Prohibition creates a black market and supports crime but punnishes users and dealers, in no way does it prevent use or do anything to educate users of effects of use or the dangers.

Looking more broadly there is a legal framework and regulation of a huge number of drugs. As a sufferer of a lifelong incurable diease I have had to use drugs that are dangerous in the long term and some of the treatments are likely to damge my liver or kidney's. It is only by a good working knowledge of those drugs that I can use them safely.
The framework of information provided by the BNF British national formulary and the regulation supplied by NICE means that I get informed about and can be sure of the testing and purity of the drugs supplied.
As they are supplied via a GP it gives the system a chance to ensure suitability and educate the users/patients.
recreational drugs should have the same level of info and security of clean supply. Individuals can be educated as to the consequences of use and supported when there are problems this way.
Bottom line is that if you treat people like they are idiots and give them no education or choice they will not be able to make accurate conclusions about risks and effects.
treat people like they are intelligent and you are much more likely to get a positive intelligent response, these are the drugs, these are the effects accept the consequences and risks of use or do not use them, so if user is violent they have no excuse in the eyes of the law.
In short promote self responsibilty if you want responsible citizens, history shows us that prohibiton does not stop use and does not promote self responsibilty but promotes crime and criminal behavior.
So though you may not agree you will find there is not much alternative. as the quote I cited stated.
legalisation is the least bad solution.

In an ideal world partial legalistaion might work but in the real world keeping H and the rest illeagal will just promote criminal behaviour in it's use and supply and solve nothing

Your point of view would only work if prohibiting something actually stopped use or supply, we have such laws today and it does not prevent either as is made plain by the availablilty and price of heroin in the UK black market.
Also in just the same way human nature reacts to being told "you cannot have something" making something illeagal is prob attracting more users than if it was legal.

FF