He asks: “Can you really see the human misery, the violence and the crime committed to obtain drugs?” Yes we can.
That is exactly the position we find ourselves in at the moment due to current absurd legislation regarding some drugs.
The market for certain drugs has been handed to gangsters due to vain attempts by the government to abolish them.
The situation is analogous to the abolition era in 1920s US — probably the most tragic social policy failure of the 20th century.
Is Andrew implicitly suggesting that alcohol and tobacco might become less expensive if they too were rendered illicit?
Surely he recognises that moves to make people aware of the dangers of the tobacco consumption have been largely successful in reducing the costs to the NHS?
As for alcohol, the situation is not nearly as calamitous as the Daily Mail would have us believe, given that most of the adult population use this substance and most of us use it responsibly.
Thankfully, Andrew “can see that the drugs war is more damaging than productive.”
However, he regards the tobacco industry as a “free-for-all.” This it certainly is not.
Production and distribution is controlled, the areas and environments where it can be consumed are restricted and there is legislation (not always successful) to keep it out of the reach of children.
My idea would be to decriminalise the use of all recreational drugs and for the authorities to establish a monopoly on the production and distribution of drugs — in a similar fashion as in the tobacco industry — and for distribution of some substances controlled by health professionals.
I look forward to reading the ideas of other readers. Jim Dymond Aldershot