Anyway the story I'm talking about is:
It is good to see that the advisory committee is waking up to the possibility that the current war on drugs may not be the best way of minimising harm to society. I am not sure I agree with the following however:
"The council also suggests drug users could have their driving licenses and passports confiscated as part of a civil rather than criminal penalty."
Yes, a civil offence is an improvement, however restricting people's movement is very illiberal. Just because a person takes drugs doesn't mean that they drug drive. They could require their vehicle to get to work or complete their job. Depriving them of this could be just as bad for them as a criminal charge. At the same time, possession does not necessarily indicate a willingness to smuggle! If these measures were put into force they could only possibly be justifiable for those carrying the largest quantities.
It is disappointing that so little of the British media has picked up on the story, perhaps this shows that the debate currently is being hindered by the media's reluctance to accept that there could be an alternative. Although, in their defence, I can't find where either Fox or The Times got their information - I am hoping it'll become apparent later and that I have not been misquoting them!