Crime and punishment

[Signalcalc]

Right now drugs are connected with a vast percentage of other types of crime. Its hard to see reliably if drug users -

a) were good citizens who turned to crime in order to fund an addictive drug habit they couldn't escape or

b) were good citizens who just turned to crime (while enjoying a drug habit) or

c) were criminals (who developed a drug habit) or

d) were good citizens forced into crime because their drug convictions made it impossible to earn money legitimately or

e) were good citizens forced into crime because their drug habits made it impossible to hold down a job to or

f) were criminals who saw a way to make easy money producing, smuggling and supplying drugs, while enjoying a drugs habit or

g) were good citizens who just enjoy using drugs and never committed a crime in their lives.


Legalising some drugs would help persons in categories a), g), maybe d) and maybe e).
I don't see why we should do anything to help persons in categories b), c) or f) and I'm not convinced I should lift a finger for those in d), e) or g).

However, the links between drug use and other types of crime are so strong that its easier or the police to e.g. detect e.g. burglars when they find them buying / carrying / selling drugs. So there's an advantage in crime control from using drugs to flag up people who are up to other stuff too. Positive that drug searches on person or at property or cars have produced a vast haul of weapons, stolen goods, stolen cards, links to all sorts of crime.

On a national scale, obviously increased use of narcotics, legal or not, is counter to a stable, healthy and productive community.

I don't know what the stats are, but isn't it well known that most burglaries are committed to pay for a drug habit? Other drug related crimes are similar?

It would seem logical therefore to make drugs legally available to criminal addicts to prevent them committing secondary crimes, if there is a causal link.

We are talking a low number of criminals here, that commit the vast majority of crime, criminals with no money, totally addicted, no future. Most addicts actually live relatively normal lives, crime free (apart from illegal drug related activities), have jobs, families and money and only come into contact with the law and other criminals through drug purchasing activities.

After all, there are millions addicted to prescription drugs that live normal lives and don't need to commit crime to get their fix because the drugs are available cheaply or free by prescription. If prescription drugs were made illegal then general crime would inevitably rise as people inevitably need to find the cash to pay for the drugs on the black market.

As an example, there is a sensationalist report in the Daily Mail today with reference to Viagra, I think they state 384 known addicts to Viagra, people who are normal, law abiding citizens. They make a tenuous causal link with the decision to make Viagra available over the counter this year, but none of these people commit crime to feed their viagra habit, they may be damaging themselves, sure, but that is damage limitation to society. A few hundred, even thousands of Viagra addicts as a percentage of the millions of Viagra taken every day is not a problem for society.

I'm guessing the same is true for Class A drugs, a low percentage of criminals committing the most crime amongst the vast majority of addicts who lead relatively normal lives and are able to pay for their illegal addiction by legal means.

Are people addicted to Class A such a burden on society, or is it because it is illegal that it is sensationalised in the media, music, schools, gang culture etc? What has the legalisation of cannabis done to the image of weed in the US? Has it taken away some of the kudos of associating it with gangs, violence and crime, perpetuated by constant media spin? Or has it become, will it become, just like any other prescription medicine, normalised, everyday? I think the answer lies in what happens with cannabis will inevitably lead to looking at Class A to legalise as medicine.

We see tragic stories of young people that die from MDMA overdoses all the time, but these are such low percentages of the overall MDMA use to be miniscule and yet, there is media sensationalism and knee jerk 'crackdowns' to solve a problem that doesn't really exist for society as a whole.

What is the comparison with alcohol? Remove the secondary crimes of Class A and what is the impact compared to other forms of crime with alcohol involved, I doubt there are many secondary crimes committed to feed an alcohol addiction in comparison?

This is one market that should be controlled by the government to reduce it's impact on society. But then there wouldn't be enough profit for the companies that supply big pharma, prison services, logistics, criminal justice, police etc etc.

Corruption already highlighted with GW Pharma and UK MPs conflicts of interest with ownership of cannabis farms in Norfolk etc, so politics has a large part to play in creating or maintaining criminal problems for society.

 

[tomorton]

I don't know what the stats are, but isn't it well known that most burglaries are committed to pay for a drug habit? Other drug related crimes are similar?

It would seem logical therefore to make drugs legally available to criminal addicts to prevent them committing secondary crimes, if there is a causal link.

We are talking a low number of criminals here, that commit the vast majority of crime, criminals with no money, totally addicted, no future. Most addicts actually live relatively normal lives, crime free (apart from illegal drug related activities), have jobs, families and money and only come into contact with the law and other criminals through drug purchasing activities.

After all, there are millions addicted to prescription drugs that live normal lives and don't need to commit crime to get their fix because the drugs are available cheaply or free by prescription. If prescription drugs were made illegal then general crime would inevitably rise as people inevitably need to find the cash to pay for the drugs on the black market.

As an example, there is a sensationalist report in the Daily Mail today with reference to Viagra, I think they state 384 known addicts to Viagra, people who are normal, law abiding citizens. They make a tenuous causal link with the decision to make Viagra available over the counter this year, but none of these people commit crime to feed their viagra habit, they may be damaging themselves, sure, but that is damage limitation to society. A few hundred, even thousands of Viagra addicts as a percentage of the millions of Viagra taken every day is not a problem for society.

I'm guessing the same is true for Class A drugs, a low percentage of criminals committing the most crime amongst the vast majority of addicts who lead relatively normal lives and are able to pay for their illegal addiction by legal means.

Are people addicted to Class A such a burden on society, or is it because it is illegal that it is sensationalised in the media, music, schools, gang culture etc? What has the legalisation of cannabis done to the image of weed in the US? Has it taken away some of the kudos of associating it with gangs, violence and crime, perpetuated by constant media spin? Or has it become will, it become, just like any other prescription medicine, normalised, everyday? I think the answer lies in what happens with cannabis will inevitably lead to looking at Class A to legalise as medicine.

What is the comparison with alcohol? Remove the secondary crimes of Class A and what is the impact compared to other forms of crime?

This is one market that should be controlled by the government to reduce it's impact on society. But then there wouldn't be enough profit for the companies that supply big pharma, prison services, logistics, criminal justice, police etc etc.

Corruption already highlighted with GW Pharma and UK MPs conflicts of interest with ownership of cannabis farms in Norfolk etc, so politics has a large part to play in creating or maintaining criminal problems for society.

We both have to agree there are inadequate figures for the link between the motivations for criminal acts and drug abuse. Some of these offenders may be addicted, but we don't know how many or or even if its a majority. They are no more likely to be addicted than the non-criminals who just enjoy drugs.

So why should I lift a finger to help people I don't know enjoy a personal recreation? One good reason would be if it materially helped my community or the country as a whole. Neither is proven.

 

[Signalcalc]

We both have to agree there are inadequate figures for the link between the motivations for criminal acts and drug abuse. Some of these offenders may be addicted, but we don't know how many or or even if its a majority. They are no more likely to be addicted than the non-criminals who just enjoy drugs.

So why should I lift a finger to help people I don't know enjoy a personal recreation? One good reason would be if it materially helped my community or the country as a whole. Neither is proven.

I don't think Class A addiction could be viewed as personal recreation! It is a recognised medical condition and is treated as such by the authorities. It is the secondary crime caused by the Class A drugs trade from grower to consumer that is the subject.

So you are not paying for people's personal recreation, you are paying for a policing and criminal justice system that is ineffective at reducing the harms caused by Class A drug addiction because the 'war on drugs' is the wrong approach.

As I said earlier, try not to take a moral stance/emotional stance and think of the problem in logical cause and effect terms. The moral stance is where the approach fails as we are witnessing after 50 years of trying to combat it.

But after 50 years the industry of 'the war on drugs' is mature, in the states the privatised prison service make money from high numbers of prisoners, the vast majority of whom are inside for drugs related offences either directly or committed as a secondary offence. So trying a different, radical approach is a very hard thing to achieve under the current regime. The UK often takes it's lead from the US.

 

[Pat494]

Drug addiction is so prevalent around the world despite trillions of $ poured into the fight against. Why don't the top lot admit the battle is lost. The druggies will get their supplies from those willing to risk capture. Drugs hurt nobody except the users.
It would kill off the drug trade if pharmacies sold them over the counter.
Much cleaner stuff too. The drug dealers bulk it up with additives like sawdust and flour etc. for more money.

 

[tomorton]

I don't think Class A addiction could be viewed as personal recreation! It is a recognised medical condition and is treated as such by the authorities. It is the secondary crime caused by the Class A drugs trade from grower to consumer that is the subject.

So you are not paying for people's personal recreation, you are paying for a policing and criminal justice system that is ineffective at reducing the harms caused by Class A drug addiction because the 'war on drugs' is the wrong approach.

As I said earlier, try not to take a moral stance/emotional stance and think of the problem in logical cause and effect terms. The moral stance is where the approach fails as we are witnessing after 50 years of trying to combat it.

But after 50 years the industry of 'the war on drugs' is mature, in the states the privatised prison service make money from high numbers of prisoners, the vast majority of whom are inside for drugs related offences either directly or committed as a secondary offence. So trying a different, radical approach is a very hard thing to achieve under the current regime. The UK often takes it's lead from the US.

Maybe the war on drugs is indeed lost. But these remain harmful substances. Why should we lift a finger?

 

[Signalcalc]

I don't know if the stats for drug related crime are available?

A quick search only reveals drug misuse crime (caught in posession, supply etc), I can't find secondary crimes information.

Maybe they don't release this information for fear of the connection that the public will make. Maybe sticking with the status quo is just the easy route, despite the media/culture sensationalism. It is strange that Sadiq Khan would announce that it will take 10 years to fix and blames middle class cocaine users, talk about a politician kicking the can down the road.

Medical legalisation is such a vote loser for politicians as too many people take the moral view. Look at what happened to the Chief Medical Advisor, David Nutt, sacked in 2009 when he spoke about the legalisation of drugs!

As usual politicians are too scared to take the path of facts and truth and would rather do very little to keep their jobs. Nearly 10 years from then and we are still debating it as the secondary crime aspects worsen and the politicians blame everything but the real causes.

We will still be having the same debate in 10 years. At least a few countries around the planet have seen the light with cannabis, that must bring so much medical relief for many patients. It's happened in the UK also, except that the authoritarian powers here have restricted its use so it is still not widely available to a great many people that would benefit from it.

 

[Signalcalc]

Maybe the war on drugs is indeed lost. But these remain harmful substances. Why should we lift a finger?

I'm not disagreeing with you, plenty of prescription drugs cause plenty of harm on a much wider scale, in medical terms.

If all substances were put on a level playing field in terms of legality (and morality), which would cause more harm to society? That is the question to answer.

 

[tomorton]

I don't know if the stats for drug related crime are available?

A quick search only reveals drug misuse crime (caught in posession, supply etc), I can't find secondary crimes information.

Maybe they don't release this information for fear of the connection that the public will make. Maybe sticking with the status quo is just the easy route, despite the media/culture sensationalism. It is strange that Sadiq Khan would announce that it will take 10 years to fix and blames middle class cocaine users, talk about a politician kicking the can down the road.

Medical legalisation is such a vote loser for politicians as too many people take the moral view. Look at what happened to the Chief Medical Advisor, David Nutt, sacked in 2009 when he spoke about the legalisation of drugs!

As usual politicians are too scared to take the path of facts and truth and would rather do very little to keep their jobs. Nearly 10 years from then and we are still debating it as the secondary crime aspects worsen and the politicians blame everything but the real causes.

We will still be having the same debate in 10 years. At least a few countries around the planet have seen the light with cannabis, that must bring so much medical relief for many patients. It's happened in the UK also, except that the authoritarian powers here have restricted its use so it is still not widely available to a great many people that would benefit from it.

Any professional advisor to the government who recommends legislation with no supporting evidence from his field to back up his advice is a burk. It is always open to the government to adopt legislation on political / moral grounds on their own judgement call but that's not what they pay medical advisors for.

 

[tomorton]

I'm not disagreeing with you, plenty of prescription drugs cause plenty of harm on a much wider scale, in medical terms.

If all substances were put on a level playing field in terms of legality (and morality), which would cause more harm to society? That is the question to answer.

Plenty of things cause harm. But what advantage to society to have more of them? We ought to have a very strong case before we change legislation.

 

[Signalcalc]

Any professional advisor to the government who recommends legislation with no supporting evidence from his field to back up his advice is a burk. It is always open to the government to adopt legislation on political / moral grounds on their own judgement call but that's not what they pay medical advisors for.

Didn't he advise based on medical grounds then? Certainly the global case for legalising cannabis has grown in strength since legalisation, as it can now be studied openly and the benefits are becoming clearer.

You can see how this played out around 2009 as it was mired in politics and was nothing to do with evidence. Look at GW Pharma, the only publicly known UK company carrying out research and producing a cannabis based treatment for MS (Sativex), owning the IP and patents for producing Sativex. Sativex is nothing more than an extract of the plant, anyone can produce a crude version in their garden and kitchen, the IP is based on the extraction of particular cannibanoids. The same for their latest release, Epidiolex, same techniques, different cannabinoids, governed by the medical institutions. GW was a British Company, now owned by Americans and listed on the NASDAQ.

So the protection of this fledgling cannabis research company and it's IP/Patents was and still is of paramount importance to those with the investment in the UK farms, processing, research, extraction, some of those investors happen to be related to a Conservative MP that highly advocated the campaign in the UK against legalisation of cannabis.....see where this was and is still going?

Proff Nutt was citing evidence based research at the time, his sacking was political.

Look what's happening with MDMA and LSD research now into the psychological effects and benefits for all types of treatments, suppressed for decades because of politics and morality, the morals don't stack up any longer and politics are what they are.

Edit - the reason for UK legislation of Epidiolex was as a result of people producing their own crude extracts that then it was discovered helped epileptics, people bringing it back from countries where cannabis is legal put pressure on UKgov to allow GWP (who have been researching for 20+ years) to release the drug via the governance process in quick time and allow it to be prescribed under license. It's not rocket science, but it is expensive for a commercial company to produce on a large scale, especially when DIYers can produce something with a similar medication effect for pennies.

 

[Signalcalc]

Plenty of things cause harm. But what advantage to society to have more of them? We ought to have a very strong case before we change legislation.

Exactly, but if the evidence is suppressed, silenced, obscured or not researched how are we going to move towards a position of reducing the harms to society if all we rely on are politics and morality?

 

[tomorton]

I understand there isn't overwhelming evidence that cannabis use is without harm.

But there is overwhelming evidence that cannabis products have medical effectiveness and its great these are becoming increasingly available. This is being done though without the need for legalisation of the stuff for recreational use, no linkage between the two. Its shameful if medical research into its uses has been held back because of political stigma.

 

[trendie]

Isnt this conversation about cannabis following the same path as alcohol?

Moonshine stills are illegal, but breweries are fine?
Tax, duty, tax, duty, lovely, lovely.

Downside: if its legal, then its only a matter of time before its allowed to be advertised on TV. With celebrities milling around with Victoria Secret models, all smoking pot. WOW! Thats cool. I might try that.
If its legal, then the legal profits can be legally be used to buy political influence? And suppress/distort truth?

As for "drugs only affect the users": really? burglary victims, lost productivity, social issues?
How many people are indirect victims of alcohol? Drink-drive accidents; domestic violence victims; medical issues, such as liver damage?

Hmmmmmm....

 

[Signalcalc]

As for "drugs only affect the users": really? burglary victims, lost productivity, social issues?
How many people are indirect victims of alcohol? Drink-drive accidents; domestic violence victims; medical issues, such as liver damage?

Hmmmmmm....

That's what we have been discussing. What has the greater impact on society? Illegal Class A highly addictive drugs that cause people to commit crime to support their habit, brings users into contact with organised crime dealers, maintains the illegal drug industry from grower to consumer, underpins gang culture and turf wars, corrupts governments and local officials, money laundering on industrial scales, supports a privatised prison service, supports police activities, brings in the military and intelligence industries etc etc.

If the illegal drug trade was removed through legalisation and control of the market, what would be the effect on crime as a whole? Logically crime would reduce, the number of prisoners would reduce, society would be happier because of less crime. Would the number of addicts increase, could they be treated more effectively, would society as a whole accept an addiction problem with less crime and less prisoners (if less crime and prisoners is the result, would addiction rates increase)?

Has anyone modelled or studied the potential effects of legalisation and market control? Or has the political brigade kept away from it for fear of losing votes. Would the industries that make profit from the 'war on drugs' lobby so hard to maintain it that politicians would never seek to end it? Can the legal cannabis industry that is now spreading be used as an example for Class A?

Radical ideas are needed given that 50 years of prohibition has not worked. Or for reasons of profit and politics those reasons are well understood but kept quiet, to the detriment of society but of great benefit to the profit makers.

If enough profit from cannabis sales can be made can the law enforcement industries transition away from enforcing drug laws? Just as the cigarette and drinks industries, who were once opposed to legal cannabis, have now woken up (or through no choice) and are now starting to seek new markets to incorporate cannabis into drinks and smoking products.

 

[tomorton]

The arguments for legalisation of drugs are usually aimed at legalisation of cannabis. Most of the people active in this cause are already cannabis users so its hard not to see it as a campaign for their own personal benefits, rather than for society's as a whole.

I do kind of wonder if there had never been any such thing as cannabis, and then it was invented by British American Tobacco or Diageo or Boots or Glaxo, would it be approved for public sale and use?

 

[Signalcalc]

The arguments for legalisation of drugs are usually aimed at legalisation of cannabis. Most of the people active in this cause are already cannabis users so its hard not to see it as a campaign for their own personal benefits, rather than for society's as a whole.

What if those personal benefits are medicinal and users are 'patients' and cannabis is just a drug like any other drug? Is there something wrong with taking a drug to help your symptoms? Why criminalise large sections of society who currently rely on prescription medicine where cannabis derived medicine could help or provide an alternative?

Seems like a benefit to me regardless if you are a user advocate or not.

I do kind of wonder if there had never been any such thing as cannabis, and then it was invented by British American Tobacco or Diageo or Boots or Glaxo, would it be approved for public sale and use?

Therein lies a problem with big pharma and drinks industry lobbying, they don't want to see a reduction in prescription or alcohol profits so would prefer to keep it illegal. If prohibition didn't exist I would think that the shelves would be full of legit CBD oil (not the fake stuff currently being sold through Holland & Barret for example). These lobby groups don't have the best interests of society uppermost in their minds.

Take a trip to the states and now Canada to see the examples of what it is being used for on a medicinal basis.

 

[tomorton]

What if those personal benefits are medicinal and users are 'patients' and cannabis is just a drug like any other drug? Is there something wrong with taking a drug to help your symptoms? Why criminalise large sections of society who currently rely on prescription medicine where cannabis derived medicine could help or provide an alternative?

Seems like a benefit to me regardless if you are a user advocate or not.



Therein lies a problem with big pharma and drinks industry lobbying, they don't want to see a reduction in prescription or alcohol profits so would prefer to keep it illegal. If prohibition didn't exist I would think that the shelves would be full of legit CBD oil (not the fake stuff currently being sold through Holland & Barret for example). These lobby groups don't have the best interests of society uppermost in their minds.

Take a trip to the states and now Canada to see the examples of what it is being used for on a medicinal basis.

I have no problem with medicinal use of cannabis and its derivative products, prescription or over the counter I don't care, as long as the side-effects and complications balance the immediate benefits. Exactly the same as any other substance. I trust NICE will look at the medical evidence and give the approvals as necessary.

On the other point, you avoid answering my question. If cannabis had been invented last week - and it doesn't necessarily have to have been by big corporations, it could have been some farmer or micro-brewer or amateur botanist - would it be passed for smoking by NICE and the Min of Health and the FDA for unrestricted public consumption?

 

[Signalcalc]

On the other point, you avoid answering my question. If cannabis had been invented last week - and it doesn't necessarily have to have been by big corporations, it could have been some farmer or micro-brewer or amateur botanist - would it be passed for smoking by NICE and the Min of Health and the FDA for unrestricted public consumption?

Hard to say. Why focus on smoking cannabis? The only other product that is a recent invention that I can think for comparison is vape pens, are they an approved product? Why aren't they banned? Has any research been conducted into vape pens?

Extend the same question to cigarettes, why aren't they prohibited despite the known health implications? What would prohibition achieve other than criminalise millions of people, increase the prison population and create a black market bigger than it already is?

 

[tomorton]

Hard to say. Why focus on smoking cannabis? The only other product that is a recent invention that I can think for comparison is vape pens, are they an approved product? Why aren't they banned? Has any research been conducted into vape pens?

Extend the same question to cigarettes, why aren't they prohibited despite the known health implications? What would prohibition achieve other than criminalise millions of people, increase the prison population and create a black market bigger than it already is?

I am confident that millions of people are not now burdened with a criminal record through possession of cannabis for personal use. I think its possible if we added all the people in all of history in all of the countries on the planet who have been convicted of possession of cannabis for personal use, that still won't come to millions. The assumed angst about criminalising law-abiding potheads is headlining hysteria.

I am sure in a way we agree - if cigarettes were invented tomorrow they would be illegal by Monday. So my question as to what if cannabis was invented tomorrow is legitimate - would it be banned or would it be approved for unrestricted sale?

 

[Signalcalc]

I am confident that millions of people are not now burdened with a criminal record through possession of cannabis for personal use. I think its possible if we added all the people in all of history in all of the countries on the planet who have been convicted of possession of cannabis for personal use, that still won't come to millions. The assumed angst about criminalising law-abiding potheads is headlining hysteria.

I quite agree, personal use is not possession with intent to supply, which attracts a higher punishment tariff. However the bar is set pretty low for possession with intent to supply vs personal use quantities. Now that UK police have higher priority items to deal with I agree that the number will be low and will continue to fall.

I am sure in a way we agree - if cigarettes were invented tomorrow they would be illegal by Monday. So my question as to what if cannabis was invented tomorrow is legitimate - would it be banned or would it be approved for unrestricted sale?

I think it would be approved. There is no known link to lung cancer by smoking cannabis as long as it is not mixed with tobacco. Cannabis can be ingested removing smoking altogether and is the primary method used for medical reasons in the UK. Cannabis doesn't cause people to commit crime either, probably has the opposite effect, unless driving is involved, cannabis doesn't kill, there are downsides for people who are susceptible to certain types of mental illness, but equally it appears to help people with certain types of mental illness, there are downsides for heavy users, the drug itself is not physically addictive although some people may have a psychological addiction to its effects. On balance I can't see a reason why it would be prohibited if discovered today.