![]() Главная страница Случайная страница Разделы сайта АвтомобилиАстрономияБиологияГеографияДом и садДругие языкиДругоеИнформатикаИсторияКультураЛитератураЛогикаМатематикаМедицинаМеталлургияМеханикаОбразованиеОхрана трудаПедагогикаПолитикаПравоПсихологияРелигияРиторикаСоциологияСпортСтроительствоТехнологияТуризмФизикаФилософияФинансыХимияЧерчениеЭкологияЭкономикаЭлектроника |
All the experts admit that we should legalise drugs
By Julian Critchley
Eight years ago, I left my civil service job as director of the UK Anti-Drug Co-Ordination Unit. I went partly because I was sick of having to implement policies that I knew, and my political masters knew, were unsupported by evidence. Yesterday I found myself in the thick of the debate again, and I was sorry to discover that the terms hadn’t changed a bit. I was being interviewed on the BBC World Service, and after I tried to explain why I believe that drugs should be decriminalized, the person representing the other side of the argument pointed out that drugs are terrible, that they destroy lives. Now, I am a deeply boring, undruggy person myself, and I think the world would be a better place without drugs. But I think that we must live in the world as it is, and not as we want it to be. And so my answer was, yes, I know that drugs are terrible. I’m not saying that drugs should be decriminalized because it would be fun if we could all get stoned with impunity. I’m saying that we’ve tried minimizing harm though a draconian legal policy. It is now clear that enforcement and supply-side interventions are largely pointless. They haven’t worked. There is evidence that this works. Забиваем Сайты В ТОП КУВАЛДОЙ - Уникальные возможности от SeoHammer
Каждая ссылка анализируется по трем пакетам оценки: SEO, Трафик и SMM.
SeoHammer делает продвижение сайта прозрачным и простым занятием.
Ссылки, вечные ссылки, статьи, упоминания, пресс-релизы - используйте по максимуму потенциал SeoHammer для продвижения вашего сайта.
Что умеет делать SeoHammer
— Продвижение в один клик, интеллектуальный подбор запросов, покупка самых лучших ссылок с высокой степенью качества у лучших бирж ссылок. — Регулярная проверка качества ссылок по более чем 100 показателям и ежедневный пересчет показателей качества проекта. — Все известные форматы ссылок: арендные ссылки, вечные ссылки, публикации (упоминания, мнения, отзывы, статьи, пресс-релизы). — SeoHammer покажет, где рост или падение, а также запросы, на которые нужно обратить внимание. SeoHammer еще предоставляет технологию Буст, она ускоряет продвижение в десятки раз, а первые результаты появляются уже в течение первых 7 дней. Зарегистрироваться и Начать продвижение Unfortunately, evidence is still not a major component in our policy. Take cannabis. When I was in the Anti-Drug Unit, the moves towards making it a class C drug began, and I hoped that our position on drugs was finally moving in a rational direction. But then Gordon Brown ignored his scientific advisers to make it a class B again. It was a decision that pandered to the instincts of the tabloids, and it made no sense whatsoever. There is no doubt at all that the benefits to society of the fall in crime as a result of legalisation would be dramatic. The argument always put forward against this is that there would be a commensurate increase in drug use as a result of legalisation. This, it seems to me, is a bogus point: tobacco is a legal drug, whose use is declining, and precisely because it is legal, its users are far more amenable to Government control, education programmes and taxation than they would be otherwise. Studies suggest that the market is already almost saturated, and anyone who wishes to purchase the drug of their choice anywhere in the UK can already do so. Ultimately, people will make choices which harm themselves, whether they involve diet, smoking, drinking, lack of extreme sports. In all these instances, the Government rightly takes the line that if these activities are to be pursued, society will ensure that those who pursue them have access to accurate information about the risks; can access assistance to change their harmful habits should they so wish; are protected by a legal standards regime; are taxed accordingly; and – crucially – do not harm other people. Only in the field of drugs does the Government take a different line. Сервис онлайн-записи на собственном Telegram-боте
Попробуйте сервис онлайн-записи VisitTime на основе вашего собственного Telegram-бота:— Разгрузит мастера, специалиста или компанию; — Позволит гибко управлять расписанием и загрузкой; — Разошлет оповещения о новых услугах или акциях; — Позволит принять оплату на карту/кошелек/счет; — Позволит записываться на групповые и персональные посещения; — Поможет получить от клиента отзывы о визите к вам; — Включает в себя сервис чаевых. Для новых пользователей первый месяц бесплатно. Зарегистрироваться в сервисе The case is overwhelming. But I fear that policy will not catch up with the facts any time soon. It would take a mature society to accept that some individuals may hurt, or even kill themselves, as a result of a policy change, even if the evidence suggested that fewer people died or were harmed as a result. It would take a brave government to face down the tabloid fury in the face of anecdotes about middle-class children who bought drugs legally and came to grief, and this is not a brave government. I think what was truly depressing about my time in the civil service was that the professionals I met from every sector held the same view: the illegality of drugs causes far more problems for society and the individual than it solves. Yet publicly, all those people were forced to repeat the mantra that the Government would be “tough on drugs”, even though they all knew that the policy was causing harm. (Abridged)
From The Independent, August 14, 2008,
|