Until the 1960's most drugs were legally obtainable in the UK. Not as conveniently as in the Victorian era, when Victoria herself took frequent laudanum (opium) and the jar of cocaine on Holmes' mantelpiece was disreputable but no worse, but still legal. Heroin, for example, could be obtained by prescription.
Drugs-related crime was far, far less than now they are all illegal.
Off the top of my head, I can think of several reasons.
- drugs could be obtained without the huge markups of smugglers, greatly lowering costs and hence one need for crime
- quality was assured which cut health risks
- without the need for secrecy, needles etc can be openly acquired and not shared, cutting the risk of disease spreading (as needle exchanges do now)
- here, at least, it's the taxpayer who picks up the tab for the health effects, so no loss there
- the amounts prescribed were known and regulated
- those wanting to come off drugs would not have had to keep their habit a secret, and would obviously already have a knowledgeable medical advisor to assist them
- the legal market had no motive for expansion since it was not run for profit
- the taking, possession etc were not in themselves criminal acts; thus also otherwise law-abiding people would not be encouraged to view the law as irrelevant
- those wanting drugs would not need to come into contact with criminals, and would not have been funding them
- without the incentive of a desperate market with no other recourse, the criminal supply infrastructure basically hardly evolved
Add to this the savings for the criminal justice system, not having to watch for/pursue/try/imprison so many suppliers (not to mention the addicts!), and maybe even some profits for the state (official licenses to produce & supply? taxes? franchises?) and it looks worth trying again...
Let's face it, the current method blatantly is not working. |
