Alexander Voss
@vossaj.bsky.social
Master of Laws (LL.M).
Nerdy about politics, tech, and drugs.
Live with TR-D, GAD, and DPDR.
Nerdy about politics, tech, and drugs.
Live with TR-D, GAD, and DPDR.
i don’t know the stats on this for sure, but i’d imagine there are very few answers where this is possible; especially answers with only one repeating letter (P).
October 27, 2025 at 1:17 AM
i don’t know the stats on this for sure, but i’d imagine there are very few answers where this is possible; especially answers with only one repeating letter (P).
Passionately arguing in favour of something captures hearts and changes minds. If something is party policy but you don’t actively advocate for it, voters will never be persuaded - and often, assume there’s something wrong in it you’re trying to hide.
October 4, 2025 at 3:04 PM
Passionately arguing in favour of something captures hearts and changes minds. If something is party policy but you don’t actively advocate for it, voters will never be persuaded - and often, assume there’s something wrong in it you’re trying to hide.
He’s simply advocating for party policy as it stands, which is his job. But being so bold and forward about it is a real (and positive) change.
October 4, 2025 at 3:04 PM
He’s simply advocating for party policy as it stands, which is his job. But being so bold and forward about it is a real (and positive) change.
Finally, it’s worth adding, the Party has supported legalisation for years now. Policy is decided by the membership, not the leadership; this isn’t Polanski’s idea, it was already in the platform when he took over.
October 4, 2025 at 3:04 PM
Finally, it’s worth adding, the Party has supported legalisation for years now. Policy is decided by the membership, not the leadership; this isn’t Polanski’s idea, it was already in the platform when he took over.
And there is certainly no sure quantification of harm to justify these being singled out; oral opioids are generally less harmful to the body than cocaine, which they would legalise; and benzodiazepines are generally safer than ketamine, which they would legalise. But I digress.
October 4, 2025 at 3:04 PM
And there is certainly no sure quantification of harm to justify these being singled out; oral opioids are generally less harmful to the body than cocaine, which they would legalise; and benzodiazepines are generally safer than ketamine, which they would legalise. But I digress.
It would also mean retaining a criminal drug market for those substances, which offers a lifeline to organised crime.
October 4, 2025 at 3:04 PM
It would also mean retaining a criminal drug market for those substances, which offers a lifeline to organised crime.
To me, this makes no sense; if you are recognising that prohibition has not and does not deter drug use, and only worsens precipitously health and social outcomes, then adding exceptions is illogical and undermines the principle arguments.
October 4, 2025 at 3:04 PM
To me, this makes no sense; if you are recognising that prohibition has not and does not deter drug use, and only worsens precipitously health and social outcomes, then adding exceptions is illogical and undermines the principle arguments.
The Green Party supports the legalisation of drugs. Although I believe, at present, there is an exception carved out for opioids and benzodiazepines.
October 4, 2025 at 3:04 PM
The Green Party supports the legalisation of drugs. Although I believe, at present, there is an exception carved out for opioids and benzodiazepines.
If they want rules on how much can be bought at once, or which drugs can be bought together, that can be done. If they want drug dispensaries to give leaflets on addiction support with every purchase, they can do so.
October 4, 2025 at 3:04 PM
If they want rules on how much can be bought at once, or which drugs can be bought together, that can be done. If they want drug dispensaries to give leaflets on addiction support with every purchase, they can do so.
Legalisation also allows government to tightly regulate the sale.
If they want the minimum age to be 21, it can be. If they want every drug dispensary to be staffed by a qualified pharmacist, they can be.
If they want the minimum age to be 21, it can be. If they want every drug dispensary to be staffed by a qualified pharmacist, they can be.
October 4, 2025 at 3:04 PM
Legalisation also allows government to tightly regulate the sale.
If they want the minimum age to be 21, it can be. If they want every drug dispensary to be staffed by a qualified pharmacist, they can be.
If they want the minimum age to be 21, it can be. If they want every drug dispensary to be staffed by a qualified pharmacist, they can be.
Under legalisation, people buy clean drugs that are properly dosed and labelled - which is much safer. They pay taxes on them, which fund social interventions and NHS treatment, for overdose and for addiction. And street dealers are left with no customers, which starves organised crime of revenue.
October 4, 2025 at 3:04 PM
Under legalisation, people buy clean drugs that are properly dosed and labelled - which is much safer. They pay taxes on them, which fund social interventions and NHS treatment, for overdose and for addiction. And street dealers are left with no customers, which starves organised crime of revenue.
But crucially, under decriminalisation, users still buy impure, spiked drugs, putting them at a significantly higher risk of adverse reactions and overdose. The money they pay also continues to fund organised crime groups, which often use it to finance much worse criminal activities.
October 4, 2025 at 3:04 PM
But crucially, under decriminalisation, users still buy impure, spiked drugs, putting them at a significantly higher risk of adverse reactions and overdose. The money they pay also continues to fund organised crime groups, which often use it to finance much worse criminal activities.
Decriminalisation offers some advantages, the big ones being a decline in the prison population and freeing up police resources.
October 4, 2025 at 3:04 PM
Decriminalisation offers some advantages, the big ones being a decline in the prison population and freeing up police resources.
‘Legalisation’ refers to a model where the government issues licenses to businesses who wish to sell regulated, pharmaceutical-grade drugs to paying adults (without a prescription).
The buying and selling of drugs outside of this framework would remain illegal.
The buying and selling of drugs outside of this framework would remain illegal.
October 4, 2025 at 3:04 PM
‘Legalisation’ refers to a model where the government issues licenses to businesses who wish to sell regulated, pharmaceutical-grade drugs to paying adults (without a prescription).
The buying and selling of drugs outside of this framework would remain illegal.
The buying and selling of drugs outside of this framework would remain illegal.
‘Decriminalisation’ refers to a model where it stops being a crime to possess drugs. Meaning people who possess drugs cannot be arrested for it.
It can also mean it is not a crime for street dealers to sell drugs, but it usually doesn’t.
It can also mean it is not a crime for street dealers to sell drugs, but it usually doesn’t.
October 4, 2025 at 3:04 PM
‘Decriminalisation’ refers to a model where it stops being a crime to possess drugs. Meaning people who possess drugs cannot be arrested for it.
It can also mean it is not a crime for street dealers to sell drugs, but it usually doesn’t.
It can also mean it is not a crime for street dealers to sell drugs, but it usually doesn’t.
Just to add some clarification to this, because I’ve seen some confusion around;
October 4, 2025 at 3:04 PM
Just to add some clarification to this, because I’ve seen some confusion around;
i may not be a liberal, but i’d have a hell of a lot more respect for people who call themselves that if they actually believed in any of it.
instead, it seems to be a euphemism for ‘defensive of the current, deeply illiberal status quo’.
instead, it seems to be a euphemism for ‘defensive of the current, deeply illiberal status quo’.
October 4, 2025 at 2:50 PM
i may not be a liberal, but i’d have a hell of a lot more respect for people who call themselves that if they actually believed in any of it.
instead, it seems to be a euphemism for ‘defensive of the current, deeply illiberal status quo’.
instead, it seems to be a euphemism for ‘defensive of the current, deeply illiberal status quo’.
the entitlements to education, healthcare and housing (in regard to tuition fees, decline of vocational training, apprenticeships and bursaries, paywalled optical care, dentistry and prescriptions, treatment delays, health privatisation, uncontrolled rents, non-replenishment of council housing)
October 4, 2025 at 2:50 PM
the entitlements to education, healthcare and housing (in regard to tuition fees, decline of vocational training, apprenticeships and bursaries, paywalled optical care, dentistry and prescriptions, treatment delays, health privatisation, uncontrolled rents, non-replenishment of council housing)
the rights to autonomy and privacy (in regard to gender-affirming care, sex work, drug use, proposed Digital ID, the Online Safety Act, the proliferation of online and offline surveillance)
October 4, 2025 at 2:50 PM
the rights to autonomy and privacy (in regard to gender-affirming care, sex work, drug use, proposed Digital ID, the Online Safety Act, the proliferation of online and offline surveillance)
equitable treatment under the law (in regard to legal aid, Whole Life Orders, lengthening prison tariffs, prison privatisation, institutional discrimination in policing and sentencing)
October 4, 2025 at 2:50 PM
equitable treatment under the law (in regard to legal aid, Whole Life Orders, lengthening prison tariffs, prison privatisation, institutional discrimination in policing and sentencing)