Scottish government proposes drugs decriminalisation

[discovolante]

But gets batted back by Westminster: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66570190

I don't think current drug laws can be solely to blame for Scotland's high rate of drugs deaths, otherwise it would be on a par with the rest of the UK at least, but it is frustrating to see that potential tools are out of its hands.

[Fishnut]

FFS

I'm not Scottish and I don't live anywhere near Scotland so don't have any say anyway, but the past 5 years or so have turned me from thinking that Scotland staying part of the UK was probably the best thing for everyone to being a firm supporter of Scottish independence.

[Tessa K]

It's not just the deaths and other effects on users and society, it's the associated crime, both to fund habits and by the suppliers. Decriminalization and potential future legalisation would get rid of all/most of that. Regulating and taxing could mean purer drugs and more control over who can buy them - like alcohol. Yes, there would still be abuse, underage use and a black market as with alcohol and fags but both users and society would benefit from considerable harm reduction.

But of course the Tories would never let Scotland decriminalise because then England would be under pressure to do the same. No way would Tories be the party to do that, despite the huge potential in tax revenue.

[discovolante]

It's not just the deaths and other effects on users and society, it's the associated crime, both to fund habits and by the suppliers. Decriminalization and potential future legalisation would get rid of all/most of that. Regulating and taxing could mean purer drugs and more control over who can buy them - like alcohol. Yes, there would still be abuse, underage use and a black market as with alcohol and fags but both users and society would benefit from considerable harm reduction.

But of course the Tories would never let Scotland decriminalise because then England would be under pressure to do the same. No way would Tories be the party to do that, despite the huge potential in tax revenue.

Hypothetically, if decriminalisation led to a huge increase in the availability of drugs in Scotland (I'm not saying it would), that would potentially lead to some fairly significant cross border trafficking issues. But the UK does seem to be lagging behind in its approach to drugs legislation so I'm not sure that's really the issue.

[Tessa K]

It's not just drug deaths and associated effects on users and society that could be mitigated, there are layers of crime by both users and suppliers that could be reduced/removed.

Decriminalisation as a step towards legalisation would mean regulating and taxing drugs, controlling purity, strength and who has access to them. As with fags and alcohol there would still be a black market and some underage use but that's never been a reason to stop the sale of those two drugs.

But of course the Tories won't let Scotland do it because then England would be under pressure and no way will Tories legalise/decriminalise despite the huge possible tax revenue. They like to think they're the party of the moral high ground (hollow laugh).

[Tessa K]

Sorry, I thought my post had disappeared so I wrote the whole damn thing again. Interesting to see that I mostly remembered it

[EACLucifer]

Can we script a bot that replies to whining about "Westminster" blocking Scotland from doing stuff that Scottish voters repeatedly backed that constitutional arrangement?

[discovolante]

Can we script a bot that replies to whining about "Westminster" blocking Scotland from doing stuff that Scottish voters repeatedly backed that constitutional arrangement?

Not when that's precisely what has happened, seeing as the government which has sought permission to change the law was also democratically elected. It was a vote on independence, not further devolution.

[EACLucifer]

Can we script a bot that replies to whining about "Westminster" blocking Scotland from doing stuff that Scottish voters repeatedly backed that constitutional arrangement?

Not when that's precisely what has happened, seeing as the government which has sought permission to change the law was also democratically elected. It was a vote on independence, not further devolution.

Which was also voted on back in 1997. If the Scottish Parliament wants more devolution, they should f.cking seek it rather than grandstanding and using "Westminster" as an excuse and an agitant when they don't get to do things they damn well know they don't have the power to do.

[Woodchopper]

It's not just the deaths and other effects on users and society, it's the associated crime, both to fund habits and by the suppliers. Decriminalization and potential future legalisation would get rid of all/most of that. Regulating and taxing could mean purer drugs and more control over who can buy them - like alcohol. Yes, there would still be abuse, underage use and a black market as with alcohol and fags but both users and society would benefit from considerable harm reduction.

But of course the Tories would never let Scotland decriminalise because then England would be under pressure to do the same. No way would Tories be the party to do that, despite the huge potential in tax revenue.

Hypothetically, if decriminalisation led to a huge increase in the availability of drugs in Scotland (I'm not saying it would), that would potentially lead to some fairly significant cross border trafficking issues. But the UK does seem to be lagging behind in its approach to drugs legislation so I'm not sure that's really the issue.

More likely would be English tourists who would travel to Scotland in order to indulge in the lifestyle. Just as they have done on trips to Amsterdam. The Dutch have been trying to stop them, so even more demand for Glasgow or Edinburgh.

[Tessa K]

It's not just the deaths and other effects on users and society, it's the associated crime, both to fund habits and by the suppliers. Decriminalization and potential future legalisation would get rid of all/most of that. Regulating and taxing could mean purer drugs and more control over who can buy them - like alcohol. Yes, there would still be abuse, underage use and a black market as with alcohol and fags but both users and society would benefit from considerable harm reduction.

But of course the Tories would never let Scotland decriminalise because then England would be under pressure to do the same. No way would Tories be the party to do that, despite the huge potential in tax revenue.

Hypothetically, if decriminalisation led to a huge increase in the availability of drugs in Scotland (I'm not saying it would), that would potentially lead to some fairly significant cross border trafficking issues. But the UK does seem to be lagging behind in its approach to drugs legislation so I'm not sure that's really the issue.

More likely would be English tourists who would travel to Scotland in order to indulge in the lifestyle. Just as they have done on trips to Amsterdam. The Dutch have been trying to stop them, so even more demand for Glasgow or Edinburgh.

Would Edinburgh become the Gretna Green of drugs?

[Grumble]

Hypothetically, if decriminalisation led to a huge increase in the availability of drugs in Scotland (I'm not saying it would), that would potentially lead to some fairly significant cross border trafficking issues. But the UK does seem to be lagging behind in its approach to drugs legislation so I'm not sure that's really the issue.

More likely would be English tourists who would travel to Scotland in order to indulge in the lifestyle. Just as they have done on trips to Amsterdam. The Dutch have been trying to stop them, so even more demand for Glasgow or Edinburgh.

Would Edinburgh become the Gretna Green of drugs?

Probably Gretna Green would become the Gretna Green of drugs.

[Bewildered]

It's not just the deaths and other effects on users and society, it's the associated crime, both to fund habits and by the suppliers. Decriminalization and potential future legalisation would get rid of all/most of that. Regulating and taxing could mean purer drugs and more control over who can buy them - like alcohol. Yes, there would still be abuse, underage use and a black market as with alcohol and fags but both users and society would benefit from considerable harm reduction.

But of course the Tories would never let Scotland decriminalise because then England would be under pressure to do the same. No way would Tories be the party to do that, despite the huge potential in tax revenue.

Hypothetically, if decriminalisation led to a huge increase in the availability of drugs in Scotland (I'm not saying it would), that would potentially lead to some fairly significant cross border trafficking issues. But the UK does seem to be lagging behind in its approach to drugs legislation so I'm not sure that's really the issue.

More likely would be English tourists who would travel to Scotland in order to indulge in the lifestyle. Just as they have done on trips to Amsterdam. The Dutch have been trying to stop them, so even more demand for Glasgow or Edinburgh.

Seems like less of a serious point of concern for the rest of UK than discos point though.

[Woodchopper]

Hypothetically, if decriminalisation led to a huge increase in the availability of drugs in Scotland (I'm not saying it would), that would potentially lead to some fairly significant cross border trafficking issues. But the UK does seem to be lagging behind in its approach to drugs legislation so I'm not sure that's really the issue.

More likely would be English tourists who would travel to Scotland in order to indulge in the lifestyle. Just as they have done on trips to Amsterdam. The Dutch have been trying to stop them, so even more demand for Glasgow or Edinburgh.

Seems like less of a serious point of concern for the rest of UK than discos point though.

Possible point of concern for Scotland though. The Dutch I know from Amsterdam see antisocial behaviour by hoards of mostly English tourists as a major negative side to their decriminalisation.

[discovolante]

It depends if all drugs are decriminalised or perhaps just the ones that are known to be the most common causes of death. This article refers to opioids, benzodiazepines etc being the main problem rather than 'party drugs' (or weed): https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-66572155 (sorry no time to look more closely right now). I am not sure they are the kinds of drugs tourists will flock to Scotland to get hold of.

[discovolante]

Can we script a bot that replies to whining about "Westminster" blocking Scotland from doing stuff that Scottish voters repeatedly backed that constitutional arrangement?

Not when that's precisely what has happened, seeing as the government which has sought permission to change the law was also democratically elected. It was a vote on independence, not further devolution.

Which was also voted on back in 1997. If the Scottish Parliament wants more devolution, they should f.cking seek it rather than grandstanding and using "Westminster" as an excuse and an agitant when they don't get to do things they damn well know they don't have the power to do.

1997? Goodness me.

Yes seeking more devolution is an option, seeking powers over individual issues rather than wider constitutional reform is also an option (yes I know). I understand your wider point about the SNP, but other than that I'm not really interested in arguing any further against boring snarky comments.

[Woodchopper]

It depends if all drugs are decriminalised or perhaps just the ones that are known to be the most common causes of death. This article refers to opioids, benzodiazepines etc being the main problem rather than 'party drugs' (or weed): https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-66572155 (sorry no time to look more closely right now). I am not sure they are the kinds of drugs tourists will flock to Scotland to get hold of.

Yes, indeed, bus loads of English opioid tourists probably be unlikley.