As a libertarian I object to the sweeping ban on psychotic products but I still admire the logic behind this legislation. Why exclude heroin, though?
Like most opiates, heroin is highly addictive, with a number of negative long-term effects, so it may not pass the low risk of harm criteria, but why should it be excluded automatically? Likewise, cannabis cannot be licensed yet chemical substitutes for it can be.
The real damage by illegal drugs is caused by their illegality. It is possible to safely take medicine-grade heroin for decades. It isn't good for you but it will not kill you. The impure junk sold by most current vendors will.
More importantly, if I want to take heroin I do not understand what right the Government has to stop me but, regardless, the war on drugs is over. Drugs won. A century of very expensive policing has failed.
Despite countless lives lost or squandered in prison, drugs remain cheap and accessible.
Dunne's bill is a small step on a long road that may lead to a more rational way of dealing with the human desire to get high.
If he has the courage to go further, he will immortalise himself as the man who had the vision to regulate the drug industry, and the start of the end of the drug war can begin. Here. Where women first got the vote. Make us proud, Peter. Go all out.