Dave’s Blog

not to be viewed by those with an invalid opinion

Richard Brunstrom is a Genius

For those of you who don’t know (or care), Richard Braunstrom is the Chief Constable of the North Wales Police. He recently made comments saying how “ecstacy is less dangerous than aspirine” and that drugs could be legalised within 10 years.

Needless to say he recieved a good roasting from the popular press – in particular the Daily “we hate everyone” Mail. For some reason people seem to think its immoral and irresponsible to legalise drug use. But if its not hurting anyone, other than the user, what is the big problem? Tabacco and alcohol are no less a drug than ecstacy or heroin, and yet they are readily and cheaply available.

Allowing only certain drugs to be legal seems entirely inconsistent. Indeed who has the right to say what chemicals I can and cannot put into my own body? Personally I wouldn’t take drugs, but I wouldn’t want to stop another person from doing so, unless they were physically hurting another individual through their actions.

There are many advantages to legalising drugs, and at the moment I can think of no disadvantages.

  • If drugs are legal they can be heavily taxed, just like alcohol or tabacco.
  • The drugs would be manufactured by major corporations (like Sony or Shell Oil). These companies are trusted to produce a good quality product.
  • Making drugs legal puts the drug dealers out of work.
  • Reduced risk of HIV/AIDS (or other disease) through dirty needles etc…

Ultimately it should be the decission of the individual and not some guy in a suit telling me what to do…

Fascists…!

January 3, 2008 - Posted by Dave | Politics | | 5 Comments

5 Comments »

  1. You’re right again, Dave. More money to the state to fund public works that will improve the life for those of us not stupid enough to take dangerous drugs (Darwin will be pleased, another example of the weak weeding themselves out for us). I do have a few concerns with your implication that Sony will make a high quality product, however…

    Comment by Chronicler | January 4, 2008 | Reply

  2. I don’t think I’ve ever read such a naive load of bollocks. Sure, they’re not hurting anyone physically, but they’ll still eventually fuck themselves up (just like smokers and alcoholics) and put more of a stress on the already strained NHS. Not to mention the fact that taxing the product requires battering out the illegal trade, which costs further billions in police funding. What’s the point? Save a few idiot’s lives and let them get their high legally? Bollocks.

    Your argument is the wrong way around – ecstasy shouldn’t be legalised, alcohol and tobacco should be made illegal. And I say that as a man who is currently pissed.

    Comment by dotbenjamin | January 5, 2008 | Reply

  3. I’m not sure that police funding will be necessary to stamp out the illegal trade. The reason the stuff costs so much in the first place is because of its illegality and how much it is sought-after, but suppose these drugs are stocked at every corner shop and supermarket across the country? Nobody would bother with the illegal trade when companies can get into price wars over the stuff. The illegal trade will practically vanish.
    The point about the NHS is well made. But a simple modification to policy, to not accept people who have willingly ruined themselves, would fix that right up.

    Comment by Chronicler | January 5, 2008 | Reply

  4. I am a 44 year old married mother of four. this year i am probably going to be made into a criminal! why? because i grew 4 cannabis plants. i grew them by myself for my self. i was visited by 8 police officers 2 dogs and two swalec officers. they spent 3 hours imprisoning me at my home then followed 9 hours of questioning at the police station. i was fingerprinted for the first time in my life and i am now waiting to see if i am going to be charged or get a caution. i knew what i was doing and the risks i was taking. my point is that there was no victim in this crime and yet all these police officers have spent all this time investigating a victimless crime why??? richard braunsrom is i think fed up of his officers having to waste time in these sort of busts instead of protecting victims of violence and abuse.

    Comment by sandra | January 11, 2008 | Reply

  5. I’m coming round to agreeing. What crucially makes me still unsure though is the whole principle of liberalism is wrecked by the addictive quality of drugs. If people have true freedom of choice it should be up to them if they wish to take drugs or not – agreed. However, if people are addicted, they do not have true freedom of choice.

    Comment by Tom | January 27, 2008 | Reply


Leave a comment