Is there a middle ground for this where there is a legal and controlled supply chain but not as a new line at BWS?

One that ensures the quality of the drugs supplied and keeps the prices low enough to make illegal supply not worth the risk.

I'm not sure how you would implement that to avoid making currently illicit drugs more mainstream than they are, to provide access for those genuinely determined to use them without forcing them to use criminal suppliers and to avoid the government finding yet another revenue stream that they could not afford to loose.

If that could be done then from my perspective
- users get a better quality drug which as I understand it reduces the risk of harmful side effects.
- users get better access to opt out help, if what they are doing is not a crime then there is less risk getting help to not do it anymore.
- I have a lower chance of someone robbing me to fund a drug addiction
- I as a taxpayer spend less of my hard earned on the police chasing their tails trying to stop the supply.

R0bert

>>Is there a middle ground for this where there is a legal and controlled supply chain but not as a new line at BWS?<<

With party drugs, like speed and ecstasy, people could consult their GP for a health assessment and register as users with the doctor's authorisation. After that, they could take a script to the pharmacist and get 1-3 pills per week, depending on the doctor's recommendation.

There would still be an illegal market under such a system, but it would be much smaller and less profitable, and sales of the vicious methamphetamine ice would be greatly reduced.

"people could consult their GP for a health assessment and register as users with the doctor's authorisation. After that, they could take a script to the pharmacist and get 1-3 pills per week, depending on the doctor's recommendation."

The advantages with this approach is that you know who your users are from the start. It allows the supply and supervised administration of drugs to be conditional upon attending educational programs. And given that medical practitioners and organisations would be legally liable for any morbidity or mortality, it is unlikely that the administration of such a system would be careless. In the long term you gain a far better insight into the nature of drug addiction.

Fester if I was a doctor or involved in an organisation tasked with that responsibility and was legally liable for any "morbidity or mortality" I'd be very disinclined to approve any usage. Like any other high risk activity the final responsibility should lie with the person who chooses the risk. Doctors could provide medical advice but to hold them responsible would destroy the process straight up in my view.

To implement something like this we would have to know just what we wanted to achieve, my thinking is to reduce the risks to users and to undermine the criminal aspects - both from suppliers and users paying for an expensive habit. Lots of other nice to havs but not worth it if we don't get the basics.

Compulsory education classes, registers of users etc are likely to make that option more hassle than most would accept except those wo really want to quit (and then they would have to know that their previous usage outside the system wasn't going to cause trouble).

R0bert

Robert

The reality is that taking a drug carries some risk, and in the case of recreational drugs there is no benefit to offset this risk. Consequently, anyone administering these drugs is putting people at risk of harm, perhaps death. But it is also true that the administration of drugs under strict control is safer for addicts than the current system.

As for drug addicts being unwilling to jump through hoops to get their prescription hit, I would be more inclined to think that those finding it too daunting were unlikely to be drug addicts. Ultimately I would like to see drug decriminalisation protect addicts and the public (through crime reduction). The perception that decriminalisation would make it easier for people to obtain dangerous and addictive drugs is unlikely to win hearts and minds.

Interesting article, Antiseptic.
I’d agree that police would find it easier to cope with crimes if all drugs were legalised.
The problem is not the use of drugs; it’s the abuse of drugs.

That’s right, Fester.
When I go to the chemist for a packet of Nurafen+ I need to show ID and sign, but I can be assured that the quality is reliable. If I’d want to take ecstasy I’d have to grab it off the street and hope for the best, having no idea whether the purity or quality has been messed with.

Sancho,
My imagination is running wild- I see a doctor’s waiting room crammed with people desperate to get their hands on a prescription for a 4-pack of Alco pops, a packet of ciggies, a handful of pot, a paper trip or a line of coce…
Having said that, providing heroin junkies with free heroin to help them beat the habit has shown to be more effective (in the Netherlands) than a methadone program.

I’d be in favour at this stage to have government-run licensed drug stores where a license- to-buy card needs to be shown before purchase of a drug.
Buyers would need to sign a form that they’re willing to take the risk of taking a particular drug.
Perhaps these stores could run special drug information classes for users and these classes could be compulsory as a precondition to enable people to buy drugs.
Perhaps comparable to getting an L plate, which will allow you to go on the road, the D (drug) license (Class A, B or C) could mean that you have passed theory about a certain drug or even a whole class of drugs that you want to take so you are allowed to buy that one at your own risk, from a store that guarantees it’s pure quality