[acerboo]

have to say to begin with i cant stand the bloke, now hes recommending drugs should be de ciminalised, i suppose if that happened we would have Virgin drugs shops in every town and duty free drugs on his planes

[Steve A]

If all drugs where decriminalised youd have the same people taking them most will grow out of it some will die. No different to now really apart from the drugs indusrty would be legalised and quality would be better and imagine the tax revenue.

Id vote yes

[Vaheed1]

Personally, I like the bloke. However, I'm not sure where he's coming from on this subject. De-criminalising drugs in this Country would be asking for trouble. With this Country's high crime rate (per square mile, compared to the rest of europe) and it's high ASB rate - I don't think i'd be too wrong in claiming that this Country does not have the right discipline to be able to afford such a thing. I can only see Social and domestic violence figures along with death rates going through the roof - not to mention the potential effect it will have on the economy.

There's no place in society for drugs - end of.

[creepy coupe]

The NHS patches up druggies at the moment. Might as well make a bob out of them. I would like to see a test for drug takers. If on drugs and on state benefit. The benefit stops immediately

[DrunkenMonkey]

Originally Posted by Steve A

If all drugs where decriminalised youd have the same people taking them most will grow out of it some will die. No different to now really apart from the drugs indusrty would be legalised and quality would be better and imagine the tax revenue.

Id vote yes

+1
People don't choose NOT to do drugs because they're illegal

[Kerr]

If they made them cheap enough they wouldn't need to break into our houses and steal anything that's not pinned down.

[nicktyler]

I vote yes. It's not just the money but the quality and regulation that would actually make it safer.

Only thing is the drug makers and pushers would be out of business. Not a bad thing as currently they are mostly lowlife criminals. But... What would they do to make the same money if it was legalised and the lowlife government criminals take their jobs?

They are already criminals with contacts. The irony would be that selling weed would be classed as gateway dealing. We could end up with a much bigger heroin/meth problem which obviously would never be made legal.

[dobbo99]

Originally Posted by Kerr

If they made them cheap enough they wouldn't need to break into our houses and steal anything that's not pinned down.

then it would be "well i spent my money on drugs because I can buy them off the high street, but I didnt have any cash left for food so i stole your stuff from your house so I could feed my wife/dog/child/everdeveloping drug habit/thirst for more money, etc, etc"

[Mart1000]

No way. Make drugs punishment much more severe.

[sheps]

I know quite a few people who use drugs; every single one of them are employed, respectable people, some of them are owners of verysuccessful businesses. Some of them sit in positions of great power/responsibility (not Spiderman). Drugs are not the poverty/crime related pastime many people assume they are.

Not one of them is one of the unemployed, granny mugging, house-burgling scumbags that anti-drug users use to prop up their argument for anti-legalisation status (as if I would associate with such people!)

Legalisation (and the subsequent strict control of sale) will reduce the numbers of current dealers and pushers (I'm not naive enough to think they will entirely disappear) and help eradicate deaths related to drugs being cut with more dangerous substances.

Furthermore it will create an income revenue for the exchequer that it doesn't currently have - at the moment the government only spends money on dealing with the problems of drugs - legalisation would give a government (that was capable of organising itself and proper, controlled channels to market) a shot at a new revenue stream greater than its current expenditure. The manufacture, administration and sales would also create employment.

A freer policy on drugs would also make it easier for employers to introduce random drug testing (to match the ease of accessibility) which would assist in controlling just how many people ran straight out and purchased them.

I don't believe that the legalisation of drugs will turn us into a nation of car-battery-stealing-junkies but I'm happy to listen to arguments that would persuade me otherwise.

[zltm089]

Weed and prostitution should be legal!....Just like Amsterdam! .....I love Amsterdam! People are so friendly and you don't see much of "anti social" behaviour like London on a Saturday night....

[BGM]

Originally Posted by sheps

I know quite a few people who use drugs; every single one of them are employed, respectable people, some of them are owners of verysuccessful businesses. Some of them sit in positions of great power/responsibility (not Spiderman). Drugs are not the poverty/crime related pastime many people assume they are.

Not one of them is one of the unemployed, granny mugging, house-burgling scumbags that anti-drug users use to prop up their argument for anti-legalisation status (as if I would associate with such people!)

Legalisation (and the subsequent strict control of sale) will reduce the numbers of current dealers and pushers (I'm not naive enough to think they will entirely disappear) and help eradicate deaths related to drugs being cut with more dangerous substances.

Furthermore it will create an income revenue for the exchequer that it doesn't currently have - at the moment the government only spends money on dealing with the problems of drugs - legalisation would give a government (that was capable of organising itself and proper, controlled channels to market) a shot at a new revenue stream greater than its current expenditure. The manufacture, administration and sales would also create employment.

A freer policy on drugs would also make it easier for employers to introduce random drug testing (to match the ease of accessibility) which would assist in controlling just how many people ran straight out and purchased them.

I don't believe that the legalisation of drugs will turn us into a nation of car-battery-stealing-junkies but I'm happy to listen to arguments that would persuade me otherwise.

this.

[prt71]

Originally Posted by sheps

I know quite a few people who use drugs; every single one of them are employed, respectable people, some of them are owners of verysuccessful businesses. Some of them sit in positions of great power/responsibility (not Spiderman). Drugs are not the poverty/crime related pastime many people assume they are.

Not one of them is one of the unemployed, granny mugging, house-burgling scumbags that anti-drug users use to prop up their argument for anti-legalisation status (as if I would associate with such people!)

Legalisation (and the subsequent strict control of sale) will reduce the numbers of current dealers and pushers (I'm not naive enough to think they will entirely disappear) and help eradicate deaths related to drugs being cut with more dangerous substances.

Furthermore it will create an income revenue for the exchequer that it doesn't currently have - at the moment the government only spends money on dealing with the problems of drugs - legalisation would give a government (that was capable of organising itself and proper, controlled channels to market) a shot at a new revenue stream greater than its current expenditure. The manufacture, administration and sales would also create employment.

A freer policy on drugs would also make it easier for employers to introduce random drug testing (to match the ease of accessibility) which would assist in controlling just how many people ran straight out and purchased them.

I don't believe that the legalisation of drugs will turn us into a nation of car-battery-stealing-junkies but I'm happy to listen to arguments that would persuade me otherwise.

[urfankhaliq]

legalise weed!

[335iLondon]

The war on drug has failed.
When you fail at something blame it on anything but the strategy you used, and your a fool.
Re assess the strategy, which is what Branson understands as a man who has accomplished a fair bit, and you may succeed.

Why do people use drugs is the question politicians are afraid to ask. ie spend any actual time/money root causing the problem. Most of the time its because of a lack of education/discipline/support - or just to escape the tedium of life.

News flash, the kings of this country used to take cocaine recreationally

Why we persist in this war is beyond me. By criminalising we have created a criminal underworld more rich and powerful than ever before

Full respect to Branson for being bold and proposing a solution not just the same old lock em up and throw away the key rubbish daily mail readers force into popular opinion.

Anyone who thinks by decriminalisation will turn the country into a free for all drug den really has to get out and into city centre's more. Its already like that in parts of the country. Try looking into the positive impact on petty crime and other crime stats Portugal have achieved.

[nicktyler]

I don't think all drugs should be legalised. Like Sheps' example, I bet none of the people he knows are on crack or heroin. Probably a dab of MDMA at the weekend and a spliff after work. These are the people that shoud not be classed as criminals and scummy drug additcs.
The guy who robs your nan for his next scag hit should not be allowed. They still need removing from society and given help/punishment.

[The_Bear_Yid]

It would be career suicide for the politician or party that suggests this. Even though many of the reasons suggest above hold weight, there are too many people (voters) who couldn't fathom those reasons and just stick to 'drugs are bad mmmkay, I'm not voting for the people trying to legalise them'. You'd lose the religious vote straight away.

Also the USA, UK and Europe don't produce coke and heroin (afaik), which either means countries in South America and countries like Afghanistan making a bucket load of money (legally) (securing trade for countries your not exactly in bed with doesn't happen willingly). Or you invade those countries and take control of production. Of course it helps if there is a terrorist attack or potentially WMDs are involved *cough* then we could go straight in to those countries.

Of course the last option is that the powers that be already profit from drugs, alleviating the the need and problems caused by the other options.

Just a guess.

[mowflow]

I could admit to a few things and offer my opinion but I'm too paranoid that plod may read this and track me down.

I agree with Sheps. 335iLondon brings up a very good point about portugal. Lisbon was like something from Blade Runner before they decriminalised.

[magic77]

very well put

Originally Posted by sheps

I know quite a few people who use drugs; every single one of them are employed, respectable people, some of them are owners of verysuccessful businesses. Some of them sit in positions of great power/responsibility (not Spiderman). Drugs are not the poverty/crime related pastime many people assume they are.

Not one of them is one of the unemployed, granny mugging, house-burgling scumbags that anti-drug users use to prop up their argument for anti-legalisation status (as if I would associate with such people!)

Legalisation (and the subsequent strict control of sale) will reduce the numbers of current dealers and pushers (I'm not naive enough to think they will entirely disappear) and help eradicate deaths related to drugs being cut with more dangerous substances.

Furthermore it will create an income revenue for the exchequer that it doesn't currently have - at the moment the government only spends money on dealing with the problems of drugs - legalisation would give a government (that was capable of organising itself and proper, controlled channels to market) a shot at a new revenue stream greater than its current expenditure. The manufacture, administration and sales would also create employment.

A freer policy on drugs would also make it easier for employers to introduce random drug testing (to match the ease of accessibility) which would assist in controlling just how many people ran straight out and purchased them.

I don't believe that the legalisation of drugs will turn us into a nation of car-battery-stealing-junkies but I'm happy to listen to arguments that would persuade me otherwise.

[acerboo]

just a thought branson already has a coke business!

[RCUK]

What did they do in Portugal??

I tried to get what Branson was referring to but no joy.

Re drugs - if legalised it ends a whole section of criminal activity, provides purer products so limits deaths from people doing god knows what .... and brings in income.

Lets be honest - if anyone here wanted weed/coke/heroin they could go get it pretty easily anyway. Why not put it out in the open and benefit society in the process.

The biggest drug out there is legal anyway - alcohol.

[e92liv]

Originally Posted by creepy coupe

The NHS patches up druggies at the moment. Might as well make a bob out of them. I would like to see a test for drug takers. If on drugs and on state benefit. The benefit stops immediately

Could not agree more!

Although you could argue benefit claimants also shouldn't indulge in alcohol, cigarettes, any thing considered a 'luxury' item? I would apply the rule to anyone who's living in a property which is paid for by the tax payer. They would be regularly tested for drugs. If you fail you loose all your benefits, and banned from submitting a claim for benefits for ten years.

I would vote yes to de criminalising, regulate and tax it. Let's be honest probably 9/10 people have access to drugs, most choose not to. Not because it's illegal but it's just not their thing.