| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:What does Cllr Lambert stand for | |
| Posted by: | Simon Hayes | |
| Date/Time: | 15/03/26 20:48:00 |
| Seems that Guy has a very simplistic view of drug addiction and how difficult it is to control, even when the drugs themselves are decriminalised. I wonder if he’s ever had first hand experience of how utterly dehumanising addiction to hard drugs is. The two countries usually referred to as the benchmarks for this policy are Portugal and Canada (or rather British Columbia, as the only province to approve decriminalisation). Both have had problems, not least the cost of operating this system. Portugal still sees a high volume of illegal trafficking due to its lengthy coastline, while it’s a tiny country with a population of just 10 million, not much more than the population of Greater London. It’s unlikely there would be anywhere near the resources to manage the numbers of people in the UK requiring assistance for this ‘public health problem’. If it falls on the NHS where will these units be? In British Columbia certain jurisdictions have stopped treatment centres being located there due to issues with those attending them. Of course Cllr Lambert would no doubt be happy to volunteer his Brentford riverside flat as a welcoming place for the hard drug users to shoot up in safety. The talk of controlling drug addiction in this way is a red herring. Alcohol addiction is an ongoing problem in the UK and despite huge efforts to wean people away from it hospital admissions remain stubbornly high. Increasing taxes on alcohol doesn’t reduce dependency, it just puts those reliant on it into financial hardship. Would a drug policy be any more effective, particularly since there will be widespread and easily accessed black market for those who really want it. Maybe Guy needs to do a lot more research into the effects of drug addiction. The psychosis, even from supposedly soft drugs like cannabis. Polanski has latched onto this as a way of trying to present himself as a serious politician, which he is not. |