The idea of a direct democracy isn't as positive as it seems

The three arguments in favour of direct democracy are that it:
Promotes responsiveness
Provides better signals than elections about voters policy preferences
Enhances the legitimacy of decisions made.


Although this sounds all good in theory, there are many problems associated with direct democracy. Firstly, a low level of interest from the general public means that a lot of people  don't participate, but the process and debate is ruled by interest groups or political parties. Also the best-funded side has the better chance of gaining the most support.


Second, there is a 'tyranny of the majority' problem which means the biggest groups in society will use referendums against the interests of minorities, no matter how correct/useful the claims of the minorities might be.


Finally, opponents of referendums argue that they are highly irrational. Referendums mean that voters look at the short term politcal outcomes due to them having to consider issues out of context and without being able to weigh them against others. In addition, it would also be very costly and take up too much time to get people to vote on every government decision.


Taking account of these factors, I feel that direct democracy is good for state government in certain situations. For example when the decision concerns something controversial or very important decisions. Otherwise, representative democracy is the option that  is much more practical.

Legalising drugs in the UK

I honestly feel that decriminalising all drugs in the UK is the only way we can successfully end our societies problems with drugs. I personally feel the  'War on Drugs' has been a failure, which has lead to the drug trade going further underground and become harder for the police to stop, meaning the problem is not being solved but just hidden. The Governemnt continues to defend it's drugs policies, even as the evidence against it mounts up to a level that will surely trigger change.


If we decriminalise drugs, then we bring these problems into plain view, we can see the full picture of the UKs drug problems and then we can start to make changes and address them. I dont feel we should legalise all drugs, but  we should legalise those which are not particularly dangerous, and also provide more dangerous drugs on the NHS for rehabilitation purposes.


If we did this we could:


. Set age restrictions and quantity restrictions


. Make clear the risks assosciated with each drug; just as cigarette packets  show you pictures of the many different ways in which they will kill you.


. Be sure of the purity and roll out consistent quality drugs, as most often the dangers assosciated with drugs come from impurities, or being told false information about what it is from a misinformed drug dealer.


. Tax it and make billions of pounds off it.


. Make harder drugs available through the NHS on prescription, and make drug abuse the medical issue that it is, rather than a criminal issue. This would allow us to treat and rehabilitate addicts with professional care, rather than just throw them in prison. Because many of those who are sent to prison return to drug use when they are released, and are unable to get a job due to their criminal records, this could in turn give them an incentive to use crime to fund their habit and the cycle continues while no problems are solved.


I realise there would still be a black market for cheaper drugs, but I dont think it would be half the problem it is in todays society. Just take a look at Portugal and you will see that legalising drugs can be a positive thing.