People who support the prohibition of “drugs” are responsible for crime, fatalities and ruined lives within their own societies, as well as a massive growth in the use of recreational drugs. The irony would be comical, were not so many vulnerable people dead or living blighted lives.

I agree with the points you make, but to let the prohibitionistas off with a charge of handwashing would be exactly that: a let-off.

It’s time to hold the ideologues to account for the misery their one-eyed idea has created.

Nick responded far better than I can. But basically while the public think it is OK for them to do whatever they like because they are the right sort of people, they don’t want anyone else being allowed to because they might be the less suitable sort of people.

Donald s

by the time results were achieved the party responsible would be long since voted out of power amid horror stories of every violent attack or youngster overdosing being entirely their fault.

The public has an unfortunate “I’m alright, jack” attitude to freedoms. Drugs are so ubiquitous that it isn’t really a problem getting hold of them practically and those that use them do not necessarily believe they should or have to be legal in principle. Of course, the political establishment is also responsible. Because of their overreach, a great many people gave up on being entirely law abiding and may even not be voting because they see much of legislation as an irrelevance to their lives. At the same time, you have an odd interaction between class and drugs with middle class access to drugs being relatively safe, while the working class suffer the crime associated with it whether they are themselves buyers or not.

> that sort of thinking is electoral suicide

That is the conventional wisdom, indeed. I’m not so sure, though, that a *comprehensive* set of policies designed to start to curtail inner city violence by gangs and petty crime by addicts wouldn’t be popular, in inner cities at the very least. Small steps, even (e.g. see the link to a Tim Worstall piece at the ASI blog).

What exactly should we give Straw credit for? Downgrading *one* drug from class B to C. That’s precisely the sort of irrelevance I’m dismissing. It matters not a jot whether it’s C or B or A or Z or whatever, not down my street. That sort of shit only matters in Westminster, at the BBC, in what used to be called Fleet Street, perhaps even in the Shires. But not here.

Does not compute: if the public has won the war on drugs by liking drugs, then unbanning them can’t be electoral suicide…

But that sort of thinking is electoral suicide. So lets not expect any party anywhere near power to take the bold step of even inching towards liberty on drugs that Jack Straw got absolutely no fecking credit for amid the hatred and bile sent his way as Home Secretary.