Meanderings of a Monkey Juggler

I was listening to the radio last night about a study that the UK government funded and the report it kicked out which has now been supressed because of its controversial findings.  There seems to be a history of these in the UK.  I remember one on pornography that was canned because it came back with the idea that consenting adults should have access to whatever they wanted as long as no crimes were commited in the making.  The UK government and the Daily Mail weren't going to allow that one through unchallenged at the time.

This new one concerns drugs.  The researchers had to rank drugs in order of their harm to society and the individual: Here is their "Top 10 Worst drugs".

1. Heroin
2. Cocaine
3. Barbiturates
4. Methadone
5. Alcohol
6. Ketamine
7. Benzodiazopines
8. Amphetamines
9. Tobacco
10. Buprenorphine

No sign of Cannabis (number 11) and LSD (14) and Ecstasy (18) but somehow alcohol is up there at number 5. How can this be?

The first thing to note is the current classification system of Class A's to Class C to legal is not upheld by this league table.  Here's the classification of these drugs.

1. Class A
2. Class A
3. Class B
4. Class A
5. Legal
6. Class C
7. Class C
8. Class B
9. Legal
10. Class C

Now LSD and ecstasy are class A drugs (at nos 14 and 18) but alcohol (legal) is at number 5! How can this be?

It seems that the governments drugs policy is all cock-eyed.  Can that really be true?  Could it be that the policy is governed by public opinion (how many votes would be lost by banning alcohol?) or by industry pressure?

Seems odd to me that this isn't more widely known.  We know alcohol is an extremely destructive drug however it can be good for you in small doses.  In most people it will cause no harm and can help social situations (your average Brit couldn't proceate if alcohol wasn't involved at the instigation of proceedings for example).

My point is that people who take alcohol are indulged horribly in this country.  It's generally considered cool and the fact of being drunk is seen as a mitigating factor in most crimes.  So I propose a solution.

Allow all these drugs.  Complete decriminalising if you will.  Then addicts can get safe drugs from safe suppliers and help with quitting and detox.  Cut the criminal element out completely - no crime and everyone's safer.

For those who abuse the privilage of this there are harsher penalties.  So instead of getting treated leniently on an assault charge because "you didn't know what you were doing" you get a tariff of say 300% because you were off your face.  You are responsible enough to be allowed these drugs so you are responsible enough to take the consequences if you abuse them (and people).

Similarly those brought into A&E because of over-indulging are forced to pay the cost of their treatment.

For minor infringements like drunk and disorderly there is the "drug tank".  This should be breathalyzer or blood-test enforced and therefore is not subject to abuse from annoyed police officers.  You stay in there for 2 working days.  Employees therefore face the wrath of their employers, self-employed people lose money from not being able to work and the unemployed are not available for work and therefore lose benefits.

Makes sense to me.

Have fun.