I don't doubt that there would be costs were we to have more sensible (and philosophically agreeable) drug laws but one thing we might avoid is what's happening here right now: in the last couple of weeks seven heroin users have been killed by anthrax-tainted smack.
But I don't think Melanie need really worry too much. The Conservatives, if they win the election, are highly unlikely liberalise our drug laws. On the contrary they're likely to double-down on a series of failed and failing policies whose principle merit is that they allow politicians to seem tough. Their "core" commitment to individual responsibility doesn't extend to letting people make their own decisions on what drugs they wish to take.
Melanie also writes:
Emphasis added. Well, I don't doubt that there might be more drug use - at least initially - were we to have more liberal drug laws and that, since trade-offs can't be escaped, there could be some social costs too. Whether matters could possibly be arranged more poorly than they are now is, however, highly questionable.“
The lobby to liberalise drug policy in Britain is part of a global movement -- financed in large measure by the apparently bottomless coffers of the westophobic financier George Soros -- to bring down the UN drug laws, which commit signatory nations to the aim of eradicating the use of narcotics and thus underpin their criminalisation. This sinister movement, whose thinking is now the almost unchallenged orthodoxy in drug policy circles in Britain, has capitalised on the loss of control over drug use in the UK -- caused principally by long-term strategic ineptness and demoralisation at both the political and policing level – to persuade many that it is the law against drugs rather than the drugs themselves that are the problem, and that a more liberal approach would reduce both drug use and the crime and social problems associated with it.
More importantly, however, Where's my cheque Mr Soros?