Drugs should be legalised because prohibition has failed, according to a former defence secretary.

The war on drugs has been "nothing short of a disaster" and it is time to study other options, including decriminalising possession of drugs and legally regulating their production and supply, Bob Ainsworth has said.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politi ... 6095?f=rss

The UK struggles with drunks... And could you picture a coked-up football hooligan, for instance?

The price of drugs here in NI has gone up recently I'm told, purely because of recent enormous PSNI successes (there is no drugs squad anymore, the focus is small units taking down 'teams'), and without any corresponding rise in other crime seemingly (going by the official figures and general mood).

It strikes me as a complete non-starter anyway - politically, socially, ethically...

Erm, a lot of them already are. It's almost as if they don't have high regard for the law or something.

Drugs are good m'kay?

The war on drugs has been a failure. A new approach is needed.

I don't think this debate is ever going to end.

I believe it's clear that availability of certain drugs should be restricted. That applies to drugs used for recreation as well as those used medicinally. The question is how?

I'm pretty sure my GP has neither the time nor inclination to prescribe skunk by my whim so it's a nonsense to have party-drugs available on prescription only, but I'm not sure having cocaine available OTC at the corner shop next to the fags is a grand idea. On the other hand, in some of Britain's towns and cities you can buy sh!t from 12 year old dealers on street corners. That's not a great situation either, and clearly the profit being generated for organised crime is not in the nation's best interest.

Can anyone offer good suggestions of how cocaine, opiates and other recreational drugs might be supplied and taxed under a legally controlled system?

The problem that Ainsworth is highlighting is that no-one in government wants a sensible debate about the subject. It's what we need if we are going to try to sort stuff out.

Until a few rogue doctors sold heroin in the late sixties there were less than a few hundred addicts in the whole country. When it was effectively open to criminals to provide the supply the numbers rocketed to over half a million addicts. By the government taking over supply again they can stop new addicts and treat existing addicts so they do no need to commit crimes to fund their habit.

Cannabis if sold in small packs from off-licences and newsagents like cigarettes will stop many and generate tax revenue. The same could apply to ecstasy.

The only problem is that governments get their drug policy from the US and the Daily Fail.

I meant as a more regular occurrence, over here at least it seems to be E's with that lot (partly due to the Scottish/sectarian connection).

E's and hooliganism aren't usually known for going together. The second summer of love showed that. Though actually getting MDMA in pills seems to be difficult these days, so maybe that explains it

Let's face it violent people are just violent.

How about a licence to do drugs, just like a driving licence?

Violent on drugs, lose points
Miss work because of drugs, lose points
etc.

I've no idea what it is about the E's either, it might be a consequence of the police successes I mentioned earlier or something - NI has also become a Chinese gangsters' paradise since the paramilitaries lost a lot of their influence, and while we have the usual bunch of Triads that follow the Chinese around the world, it seems to be more low-key.

On the violence front, that's kind of what I was getting at with my comment about drunks. Just my take on it, but I don't think we're a very 'mature' nation...

There is very little trouble with E except between dealers. The worst effects are felt by the public when people have to steal to feed their drug habit. That is why most crimes are committed by a few addicts. If you were to treat those serious repeat offenders you could actually prevent many crimes in future. The savings from dealing with it could lead to big savings for everyone in terms of lower household insurance.

Decriminalise it all, tax it all, regulate it all, make funds gained available to get off drugs if they so wish.

To not do so is to just ignore that a huge number of people take drugs. Alcohol has been used as an example, an example we can't deal with, but that is one of the most potent drugs out there.

If more people were on pot, e or acid (as examples) at a weekend there's be far less violence. There'd also be far less illegal drug dealing.

It's not a panacea but it's far better than what's happening at the moment.

So you'd have crack cocaine and heroine openly on sale to all in corner shops?

No heroin could be available from doctors or specialist clinics where it could be free on condition that no street drugs are used. just such a trial has already worked in the Plymouth area. The drop in crime alone will mean that it pay benefits very quickly.

Cocaine could be available from shops in small packets.