Hi,

I incline to the opinion that firstly everyone should be considered owner and thus responsible for their own bodies NOT THE STATE. If you accept this principle then in a free society we should have control over choosing if we wish to drug ourselves or not whether that is with alcohol or something more intrusive  and potentially damaging.

Much is made of the costs of treatment as a result of taking drugs be that alcohol, cannabis, tobbacco or the various recreational drugs including Class A. However in terms of treatment alcohol and tobbacco hugely outstrip all other drugs in cost terms – yet they are virtually deregulated!

Meanwhile each citizen in Britain spends somewhere around £400 a year in policing controlled drugs then we must add court and prison costs to that!

So what have we achieved with this obscene level of spending on just one small sector of crime, beyond of course criminalising a sector of the population, increasing drug costs, increasing other crimes to fund the habit and diverting Police, Courts and Prisons from considering such mundane matters as burglary, sexual assault, violent crime, theft, robbery and the many other areas of crime that get neglected!

Society has totally failed on every count to enforce its whim relative to what are deemed ‘DRUGS’.

Further society can be counted on to continue to fail – I well remember in the days of ‘Starky & Hutch’ and ‘Miami Vice’ on TV it was laughingly pointed out that one episode of Miami Vice cost more to make than the Miami drug police budget for drug control & policing in a year!

The most tragic irony was that after many episodes of ‘Starsky & Hutch’ both entertaining and informing the public relative to the law and dangers of drugs Paul Michael Glaser, who played the Southern California undercover officer Savid Michael Starky lost his wife Elizabeth (Meyer) Glaser to a medical blunder – she was given a blood transfussion during the birth of their second child, which infected her with AIDS which led to her very premature death.

We really do have to consider how we plan to deal with ‘drugs’ and if you accept my proposition that in a free country and a fair democratic society we should be masters of our own bodies, minds and lives responsible for them in every way iy MUST be considered that ‘drugd’ should be decriminalised and then by all means regulate their condition, strengths and sales.

Whilst considering freedom of choice we must also display clearly the risks of ALL ‘drugs’ it is compulsory to include contra indication and recommended dosage data on all medically prescribed drugs why not on all other drugs from alcohol & tobbacco to opioid & crack cocaine with relevant hypothicated taxation to cover ALL direct costs of management and treatment that may subsequently fall to the public purse.

Perhaps we should take a more intelligent and grown up approach to other freedoms such as the liberty of women to control their own bodies and lives with a right to abortion up to a given date and also the absolute right to Euthenasia should you choose to excercise that fundamental human right to terminate one’s own life should one wish to without stigma, hinderance or criticism.

With all theses freedoms must of course come responsibility and just as a driver should be automaticly prosecuted and face a custodial sentence relative to the infringement – ie perhaps 6 months SERVED & a life ban for driving under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicating drugs – just as causing death by excercising the right to take drugs should be considered as harshly as any other premeditated killing!

Yes the laws surrounding theses freedoms will need to be detailed and ajustable as legislators democraticly implement improvements in this entirely new field and new concept of legislation.

We will, in Britain, be looking at the whole gammut of law over the next few years as we regain control and management of our laws after BreXit restructuring it free of the EU adherence to Roman law with its adherence to ‘the letter of the law’ rather than the more ergonomic British structure of law which values intent and prescedent with the protections of Habeas Corpus and Double Jeopardy – what better time to consider these new human rights of freedom of choice and formalising them in the new body of law to ensure justice.

The BMJ would seem to be thinking along these lines:

To view the original of this article CLICK HERE

OTHER RELATED ARTICLES:

.

.

.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~