| > But there's a question as to whether it's advisable to allow citizens to consume drugs that [...] The current approach is very expensive, and very harmful to individuals and to society. Someone injecting heroin will do so whether it's legal or not. But, if it's legal, they'll be getting clean heroin, and clean needles, and advice about how to safely inject, and be in contact with people helping them move down to other forms of heroin use. While heroin is illegal people prostitute or burgle to get money; they re-use needles in unclean conditions; they inject dirty drugs in sub-optimal places; they have little or no contact with harm-reduction workers. The costs to society are obvious: people spend many years involved in criminal activity to feed a drug habit. Police spend a lot of time tackling that criminal behaviour. People end up with life-threatening illnesses, or permanent maiming or losing limbs from dirty needles and poor injection practices. Treating this as a public health measure is probably sensible. Having said that, alcohol use in the UK can't really be defined as ok. > That being said, I have to agree that the best way to get rid of illegal activity is to tax and regulate a product so as to provide a trustworthy, straightforward source. Probably, but look at the huge quantities of smuggled tobacco in the UK caused by the high tax rate. See, also, garlic smuggled from Norway (not an EU state) through Sweden (part of the EU, which adds a 9% tax for garlic grown outside the EU.) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20976887) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20667816) |
The legality of an addictive substance doesn't make much difference to whether someone will commit a crime to get their fix.
Consider: people commit crimes to get money to buy alcohol. People also steal other legal goods they want e.g. TVs, laptops.