Finishing the War on Drugs
If things had gone slightly differently for David Cameron instead of being on the verge of becoming PM, he could be yet another former public school boy who ended up squandering his privileges and doing jail time for possession of cannabis and cocaine. The current President of America could just be another black ex-con from a broken home.
If there is one message that comes through from The Wire, it is that the war on drugs can not be won and that it corrupts all of society – not just those in the drug gangs – the police and politicians as well. It is far from fictional, apart from the corrupting effect the police waste time which could be better spent fighting crimes of violence and against property. It costs a couple of billion a year to seize half a billion worth of drugs. The jails are full of young people who could, if they had not been criminalised, gone on to become leaders like Obama and Cameron. If drugs were decriminalised we would waste less money and lives than we do now.
The criminal justice system would be freed up to deal with pressing problems greater than students smoking pot and ravers taking ecstasy. Addicts would be treated within the healthcare system, not the criminal justice system. Addicts deserve pity, not incarceration. Decriminalising drug use and treating it as a health problem would in a stroke undermine the gangsters and drug trafficker just as ending prohibition undermined the mafia. The biggest beneficiaries of drug prohibition are the crime bosses.
could do with a spliff now
Britain WORSE than The Wire – Official – BBC
LINK
Crime Bosses ha!! They will be the Taliban whose bank accounts are full of the cash from the democratic Police States around the globe. UK included. 8500 ton of heroin £50’000 per Kilo in UK you do the Maths. Then wake up and smell the Coffee. There is only one organisation who has the ablity to wash this type of money, and it ain’t no private organisation. Ah yes and the Taliban aint lugging it around on their donkey’s
Prohibition gave us the Kennedy clan.
Who will be the equivalent?
How I agree with you OH and Guido. For years I’ve said drugs should be legalised, just like nicotine and alcohol.
The solution is simple. Forget legalisation; forget going after the dealers and importers and the Taliban and the Colombian and Mexican cartels. You must get rid of demand.
Anyone found with illegal drugs on their person or in their bloodstream should be put to death. The State would merely be speeding up the process; doing them a favour; and it would save an absolute fortune in welfare payments and all the nonsense expended on trying to get junkies clean.
I am perfectly serious about this. Of course, it will never be implemented, and the multifarious problems caused by these moral weaklings and defectives will not only persist indefinitely, but become worse.
Voting Floater, agreed. Its the demand that is the problem.
Voting Floater – Spot On.
Brown’s (“och , leave me alone, I’m bravely hiding”) Labour Party, Dave “I’ve got a windmill” Cameron’s Tories and Guido “aren’t I clever to advocate drugs” Fawkes wouldn’t understand, because they’re vacuous Socialist scum, but the majority of British people will agree with you. Because you’re right. And the aforementioned filth are wrong. When we have a proper British government, the aforementioned will be put up against a wall and exterminated.
Voting Floater – you get my vote.
Those advocating legalisation may solve one problem, but create another massive problem. The social etc problems of wider drug use would destroy society.
Why can’t the GM boffins make a gene that renders poppys impotent?
Everybody is on something. Sex,power,money,drugs,war,politics. Some are “legal” some not.
>You must get rid of demand.
Excellent idea, lets get rid of all pleasure receptors in the brain. Everyone will be a zombie incapable of learning but we’ll solve the drugs “problem”.
For your next trick maybe you could legislate against gravity?
Voting floater – you are a sad little runt of an individual. Did daddy make you lick his penis clean after he rodgered your back passage? Oh mummy – that nasty person is smoking a spliff and i don’t like it…sob sob sob. Grow up or fuck off
The Government should announce a 6 month amnesty for all persons affected to register with their GP as a drug user. Failure to do so should be punishable with a mandatory 5 year sentence. After the six months is up, any person caught with illegal substances should be given a mandatory 10 year sentence. 3 strikes = execution. Drug dealing = execution. Drug smuggling = execution. Those people registered with GP’s as users should be given medical treatment to break their pernicious habits. Those that commit crimes whilst under the influence get mandatory 10 year sentences. Dozens of new prisons should be built, paid for by windfall taxes on Insurance companies who will soon see an enormous rise in profits due to the enormous reduction of druggies committing burglaries, muggings, etc. Those that fail to respond to medical treatment, along with the just plain stupid and the rebellious will populate those prisons. Bomb Afghanistan, Columbia, Nicaragua and anywhere else that produces these poisons, put them back into the Stone age. This regime should be mercilessly, viciously enforced. After 5 years, the drug problem would be over. Evidence of the mind-scrambling effects these poisons have on the population can be seen in the comments of the unwashed on this blog, who think it is their Human Right to scramble their brains, livers, kidneys and just about everything else, wrecking normal society, whilst asking me to pay for all the associated medical and social care costs.
Let’s legalise prostitution at the same time. And while we’re about we can legalise all those other offences the the police find to challenging to address. That’ll leave them free to pursue the real criminals e.g. drivers, Christians, heterosexuals and all those other nasty little criminals this government has created!
Just think, if drugs were decriminalised….
Political parties will vie with teach other for who can…
“…Promise to put FEWER POLICE on the beat!…”
What is the point of this discussion? There will be neither a sensible debate about this or any form of sensible law enforcement when the UK has a government that spends taxpayers money returning a pregnant drug runner at taxpayers expense to ‘serve out her time’ – no doubt to be released ‘no compassionate grounds’ soon..and an FCO that stated they were glad she was home. FFS.
You are right, there does not seem to be a sensible debate: the legalisers appear to be incapable of admitting that there are downsides to legalisation; and the prohibitionists give the impression of wanting to execute all drug takers.
What both sides seem to have overlooked is that ‘recreational’ drug taking has become fashionable in the same way that cigarette smoking was 50 years ago.
This ethos, often more than actual drug taking, is peddled by the self styled cool and ‘open-minded’, being usually middle class (for the money), with strong will power and young (not able to appreciate either the long term effects, nor the impact on those around them).
It is a literally irresponsible fashion.
OBAMA HAS TAKEN COCAINE AS WELL. HE ADMITS IT IN ONE OF HIS BOOKS. HE REFERS TO IT BY THEAMERICAN SLANG ‘BLOW’.
SHIT THE BED CAROL-ANN – NEWS FLASH! CAROL ANN HAS SHIT THE FUCKING BED!
you tit.
anyone who argues in favour of prohibition is unwittingly acting as a lobbyist for cocaine and heroin dealers and human traffickers. they are lobbyists for smack dealers because prohibition creates vast profits for people who would otherwise be nothing more than petty criminals or thugs.
only by cutting off the cash supply from the criminals will be able to get the situation under control. we are just chasing our tail with current policy and we are not only going nowhere we are in fact going backwards.
my other point is that drugs are essentially a health issue and should be treated accordingly.
I must admit that I am slightly concerned with the idea of drugs being legalised because if everyone starts getting really stoned out of their nuts then how the fuck are ever going to get a decent relvolution going, eh?
innit.
Is this just a random blog-fart or are you saying that drugs don’t fuck you up as the most powerful man in the world took them and then went on to become POTUS?
yes they do mess people up anticitizen but so does alcohol.
shall we ban that aswell you dick?
you are coming across as some kind of fundamentalist nut job anticitizen.
I used to agree with this but then having seen for example the Louis Theroux programme about people addicted to i think it was amyl nitrate which was cheap and readily available it makes you realise that we’ll all just bang our brains out hitting the pleasure button and then we’ll need hospital care for the rest of our lives. Apparently rats in the lab pleasure themselves to death every time when they get the chance.
That is a very valid point, Robert.
Another is the perverse fact that most legalisers are free marketeers, yet appear unwilling to admit that supplying these “recreational” drugs at much lower prices is bound to increase consumption.
Listening to the legalisers you would think there is no downside to legalisation.
O/T but Tessa Bowel on Newsnight sticking up for Gordon and floundering and making a total fool of herself. She just comes across as Gordon’s mummy protecting him from the nasty media.
Brown is a gutless prick and the more he ducks and weaves and avoids the issue the weaker and more incompetent he looks.
We’ve all known what a useless hoon he is in the UK for years but now he’s taking it gobal.
Tessa defends the gorgon, she must be looking for a seat in the Lords! She insists that the gorgon will remain as PM until the next general election.
VotingFloater – on the assumption that you have at least once in your life consumed alcohol | tobacco tea | coffee, I trust you’ll do the honourable thing and top yourself immediately. I’ll send flowers to the funeral, but you’ll forgive me for not attending the wake.
Budgie: Tax is a useful tool in controlling prices. Not that price seems to be the single determining factor in how much of a drug people consume.
If there is a downside to legalisation, I have yet to see it.
sauerkraut said: “If there is a downside to legalisation, I have yet to see it.”
That is because you don’t want to see it. To read some of the downsides see posts 215 (Robert McIntyre), and mine at 236 and 294.
I have yet to meet anyone above about 40 who does not regret some things that they did, or did not, do in their earlier life. This applies to “recreational” drugs as well. With legalisation and increased use, there will be many more regrets, even assuming no one’s health is ruined. And, frankly, there will be many more people’s health ruined.
Budgie, why does legalisation have to involve a lower price? Anything legal we currently enjoy is taxed almost out of existence, such as booze and fags, so why not spliffs as well? Just set the price so that illegal trading isn’t worth the risk.
Aldous, it doesn’t, but many advocates of legalisation insist that the price will be (much) lower. I merely point out the consequences.
If, as legalisers argue, the ‘recreational’ drugs are so cheap to make, then tax can make the price almost anything. But a high price will bring back the criminal suppliers (and the criminality of some users to feed their habit), and a low price will increase use. At least some of the increased number of users will end up being cared for at the expense of the general taxpayer.
Several points:-
1. Not everyone would get out of their heads as soon as drugs became freely available. Some of us have more sense than the average laboratory rat and can associate cause with effect.
2. Supplying drugs to the idiots via newsagents, pubs, pharmacies etc would ensure that more of them stayed open (perhaps even those pillocks who run Royal Mail could use the revenue to subsidise sub-postmasters).
3. The price can be kept up to reasonably deterrent levels via taxation, something the govt is going to need rather a lot of in coming years, thanks to the lunatic Brown and his ghastly gang.
4. Wiping out the criminal gangs would be worthwhile.
5. Eliminating the major cause of ‘low-level’ crime (low-level to a criminologist, maybe, but not so to the average pensioner mugged in the street) would be a great gain to society. That would be done by (a) selling to recreational users at high prices inc high taxes via retailers; (b) injecting addicts free of charge – not dispensing it to them to enable them to deal, but giving them injections. Thus the need to steal to fund the habit would disappear overnight. Plod could then do proper policing and the Screws could rehabilitate as well as incarcerate.
It is all so bloody obvious, but a generation of politicians who prefer to follow the polls rather than exercise leadership will never do it.
Oh yes, “recreational” users will accept high prices, will they, whilst ‘addicts’ get the shots for free, and your local criminal comes in at just below the taxed price? Ding dong.
Refusing to accept that the legalising case has down sides means a) you sound like a politician; and b) the post legalisation world will not be as rosy as you imagine.
There is lots wrong with the current situation, but the alternative, legalisation, has lots wrong with it too.
I wonder if all those arseholes at the west ham/millwall match were on any other high than life? Is a smackhead sitting at home fixing up any worse than those dickheads?
Floating Voter: I would never be caught.
I agree with Ruth Kelly’s plaything but accept that it’s not all ‘rosy’.
If the price of illegal drugs is so cheap, and the enforcement of the anti-drug laws so inept, then to all intents and purposes drugs are available to all anyway.
Would the decriminalisation / legalisation of drugs REALLY lead to people becoming smack-heads? Would we all just tear up civilisation / our jobs / our lives to get high? Or would the vast majority just use these drugs recreationally and deal with the consequences (like a booze-induced hangover). At least legislation and regulation of drug production would ensure that the stuff you get is as safe as possible.
Re: The price of drugs… After alcohol was legalised in the USA, did people (i.e the mob) still smuggle alcohol or did the availability, free market set price and social acceptance allow people to have a drink when they fancy?
Legalise it, tax it, enjoy it….responsibly!
Gordon Brown on a bike AKA Dope peddler
I find the Floating Voter’s idea that the solution to peoples desire to get high being execution just crazy – for a start the death penalty for drug trafficking in Saudi hasn’t prevented trafficking there. There is also the question of whether a jury would actually convict someone they knew was facing the death penalty for possession of a couple of lines of coke or a pill.
And that’s leaving aside it being just a tiny bit disproportionate to execute someone for harm they may (or may not) do to themselves but not execute for harm, no matter how severe, done to others.
Could not agree more.
Before legalising drugs, abolish all welfare; then you can smoke, sniff and inject whatever you want and if you screw your life up: tough!
Freedom with Responsibility!
The Wire is one of the greatest TV shows ever made.
David Simon had thought that the harmful and false term “War on Drugs” would never be dropped as long as he was alive.
Yet miraculously, only months into the Obama adminstration…
On May 13, 2009, Gil Kerlikowske, the current Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, signaled that the Obama Administration would not use the term “War on Drugs,” as he claims it is counter-productive and is contrary to the policy favoring treatment over incarceration in trying to reduce drug use.
Even before his Election President Obama stated his favourite TV show was…
The Wire.
I dont agree, The Wire is dull, slow moving, been done before. Why is it plugged so much?
As for legalising drugs, I know several individuals who’e lives have been ruined by indulging in drugs at early ages, 18-21. One law graduate hasn’t had a proper job since he started spliffing regularly when an undergrad. One young man I know well lost the plot during his recent gap year in South America, fried his brain on drugs, thought he could handle it and stop on his return to the UK and has now dropped out of University. I could go on, I have six relatives who are GPs, and a number of old mates who are GPs, go and have a chat with a GP, or a copper, and find out about drug abuse.
It may be difficult to control, however legalising it will definately increase the number of users by a lot. If people moan about booze, what do you think will happen with harder drugs, look at what has happened to society with the cheapening of booze over the last 20 years – who drank spirits as a student in the 70′s and 80′s, we couldn’y afford it.
Society must control drug use, not legalise it. A few rich wankers who indulge on occasion do not realise the desperate state many people have got themselves in because of drugs. Brain fried at 21 is this acceptable?
The Wire is complex multi-layered and beautifuly acted and shot throughtout.
It does lose the casual viewer though, who is confused that it isn’t a cops and robbers or Police procedural show that has been done a milion times before.
But as David Simon so rightly says, “fuck the casual viewer”.
It is not intended to be a 40 minute whodunnit or easily wrapped up story of good guys Vs bad guys like most most of the TV pablum on our screens.
And far from dull it is gripping and it’s many stories are compelling.
As for Legalising drugs, The Wire shows the harsh reality of destroyed lives FAR more effectively than apocryphal stories anyone can bring up.
If I went to have a chat with a GP or a policeman about cigarettes or alcohol and the damage they do, what exactly do you think they would say ?
Society doesn’t control drugs, nor do the Government or the Police.
Criminals & Gangsters do.
If the “War on Drugs” was so effective why are there always Politicians willing to grandstand every month to say how much worse things are ?
Have been arguing this for years. Too much money to made from all sides. Bosses make money, plods make money, Gov., makes money…..
WE humble tax payers foot the bill.
I need a valium now.
Crap. All druggies should be forced to od – preferably several times a month – and die.
I have done today. That alcohol OD is a b*st*rd…wanker…
Have you thought about converting to islam. You’d fit in.
Actually,they’re quite keen on getting stoned.
er Afghanistan Policy is not helping
There are two types of victims of illegal drugs:
The first are the addicts and the second are the ordinary people who are robbed and burgled to provide the first group with the money to feed their addiction. Note I say addicts. For the rest of the illegal drug users who indulge occasionally for recreational purposes, we hurt no-one.
Then you have the dealers and suppliers, not the low volume street dealers who help feed their own addiction by suppying other, but the organised criminals who live a life of luxury off the backs of the misery of others.
Where does us leave with prohibition?
Right where we are now with at one end an unwinable war in Afganistan with one party financed by the sale of opium for the west’s illegal drug market (not to mention areas of South America awash with cocaine money). At the other end we have the mugging of pensioners for £10 to buy the drugs and the shooting of children on our streets buy older children involved in turf ways to supply addicts with the drugs paid for by the same £10. Not to mention the huge costs of the prison population addicted to illegal drugs.
What will legalisation give us?
Removing the cost element will cut burglary, muggings, gangs and guns. Addicts can then be treated as they are no longer criminals and either have their drugs on prescription. For recreational users the government can tax it like alcohol and tobacco. We can actually then properly imprison real criminals for the time the courts actually sentanced them to. The taleban and their ilk will lose their money source and the farmers will find it more profitable to grow food not poppy.
Will be have a goverment able to make this brave decision? Unfortunalty not.
You are a bold man (or woman). Not all drug takers become addicts, but to claim that there are no long term side effects is ridiculous. As well, anyone out of their heads is incapable of looking after their children, or indeed doing anything rational at the time.
If drugs are very cheap to make, any tax will have to be very low to keep out the criminal suppliers. This will greatly increase use, leading to more misery and addiction.
You obviously never had alcoholic parents have you budgie, good for you. You soon see a flaw in the arguments against legalization of drugs if you have – unless of course you want to make the dreaded drink ilegal as well and make everyone suffer for someone elses sins.
Beer: relativly cheap, available everywhere and part of our culture. And you know what, for the most people it’s never an issue. What you do have is the same problem that ‘ilegal’ drugs have, i.e. that minority that screw things up for everyone else and get all the headlines. Should everyone be punished for a few peoples misfortunes?
Sadly it’s people who screw up and it’s all too easy to blame susbtances of any kind.
Not many people know this,
when the Taliban were in control
in Afghanistan they virtually wiped out
poppy production as they saw that it
was wrong.
with the west there now poppy production
has broken records year on year !.
When the Russians finally left the
country,they took THOUSANDS of
junky soldiers with them !
I truly believe this was the beginning
of the Russian Mafia.
So, what will the police do with all their new found spare time? Oh yes, snatch more children from their parents, shoot dead more people carrying chair legs, club more people on demos, arrest more people for taking photographs, or having a fag, or a beer or ……
Tell you what, let’s stick to the present arrangement, it’s safer for the majority.
Guido’s busy today…..
I can’t keep up with it all!
Give Billy a shout….
“It’s the right thing to do!”
Only because it started in America…
For hardworking British families.
British hutches for British workers.
If you decriminalise drugs then you still have to have rules and regulations as regards who, where and when it is appropriate to use them. For instance, would you be prepared to be a passenger on an aircraft if you had just spotted the pilot partaking a line of coke in the airport bog?
like tobacco ?
It wouldn’t bother me unduly since Coke’s a stimulant and performance enhancer in moderate usage. I’d be freaked out if he took an acid tab, though!
Of course not. Just like it is for drunk pilots it would be for doped pilots.
If they’re decriminalised you can have my weekly NuLiebore HMRC Drug Credits.
It wouldn’t be a bad idea to have a good look at places where most drugs have been decriminalized first off… Portugal, New Zealand …
I tend to go for legalization, for the well known reasons stated above, but decriminalisation might be a good try first…
Fees Office Clerk at 5; this is a daft non-point to make. Sorry, but it is.
Sorry…just had a bad trip!!!!
This actually misses the more important point. Decriminalisation simply allows the criminal gangs to exploit a grey market to make money without imposing any rules or regulations. It would be similar in nature to the illegal smuggling of other products. You would find that corruption would probably increase as people in authority are paid to turn a blind eye and criminal/terrorist gangs can fund their other activities by exploiting the loose laws.
Rather than decriminalised – it should be legalised. Regulation and tax will solve a lot of the issues identified and take this lucrative trade out of the hands of criminals.
Obtaining drugs on prescription in brown paper bags from the NHs would remove an awful lot of appeal that comes from underworld dealings, rebellion, law breaking and high cost.
The cachet of appeal for many people would be gone. It would be like NHS orange juice and wire framed spectacles, nobody would want to be seen dead doing it.
I just loved that NHS orange juice.
As if the NHS isn’t costing enough as it is, you want to impose yet more tax to pay for deadbeats. Sorry but if they want recreational drugs they can pay for them. It’s not like they would snuff it without them.
Rose hip syrup was better.
NHS wigs are the best….those shiny sandy coloured ones…
I can just picture it:
Local addict goes to NHS doctor, gets drugs prescription, goes to chemist, gets handed a brown paper NHS bag with his drug de jour, recoils in horror “no, maaan, that bag is so uncool, I’d rather go cold turkey, maaan.
Oh yes.
Dont be fucking stupid FOC,
whats to stop ‘em doing it now ?
rules’n’ regs wont change,company
policy stays the same,twat.
Yo, wotup dog.
I agree, decriminalise hard drugs and treat those pre-disposed to addiction within the health system.
Employers can apply the same rules for coming to work drunk as coming to work stoned.
take out all the drug money and the black economy that goes with it. That reduces crime and the government can know who all the severely addicted users are and seek to help them, just like booze.
The tax revenue would pay for the treatment. Most people taking drugs, like most people drinking booze, don’t do major damage to themselves.
This could also significantly reduce violent crime from drug gangs and I am sure the local chemists and proper drug companies would love the extra profits
That was the theory for the NHS itself: after everyone was made healthy by the NHS, so the theory went, expenditure would reduce. Some hope.
When “recreational” drugs are more freely available and cheaper, there will be greater use. Which means more addicts and more incapacitated users. That points to increases in taxation to the non drug takers and more ruined lives and more crime, not less.
> Which means more addicts and more incapacitated users.
More users certainly follows, but more addicts? Addiction is more about personality type than the drug.
Also cleaner drugs will LOWER health costs, as people will be getting better quality drugs.
Drugs very seldom directly kill people, dirty needles, AIDS, insoluble dealer added bulkers, drinking far too much water tends to be the killers.
That is illogical, Anti. More users means more addicts, unless you contend that all the country’s addictive type personalities are already drug users.
More addicts mean HIGHER health costs (via the NHS).
Clean drugs may not kill directly (in the short term) but they sure incapacitate. In the longer term deaths, misery and illness will increase (again, unless you insist that there are no long term side effects and that you know that all new users will be sensible and responsible).
I’ve lost a few friends though cannabis. They’re still alive (apart from the one who opted out) but the power is off.
You are missing the point.
legal or not, drug users (with all the associated social problems) will always have a supplier.
By legalisation, the government removes the biggest source of criminal revenue and violent activity.
Drugs are so widely available, I doubt it would encourage a significant increase in use and at least the quality could be assured, bringing accidental overdoses and poisoning.
However, immigration controls would need to be tightened to ensure all European junkies do not flock to the UK ala Holland and Zurich’s needle park.
This post fails to recognise that an activity the state ceases to prohibit is perceived by some as being state encouragement for the same activity. There would be serious problems in the transitional phase. It is a bit like saying that because cannabis in the 1960′s and 1970′s was less harmful than alcohol, we should legalise cannabis. It does not recognise that there were serious problems in its wake. We should be looking to reduce the amount of harm hence my question elsewhere, “Has anyone done a full cost benefits analysis of the effects of legalising certain drugs or classes of drugs?”
::
The other issue is the level of taxation. At one stage the people who had been supplied certain illegal substances were reputed to have changed over to supplying bootleg alcohol and cigarettes because there was more profit to be made in that trade than in supplying other drugs, and, if caught, the penalties were less severe. There is a balancing act on taxation too.
Fully agree. The bulk of the problem comes not from the drugs themselves or their misuse, but rather the fact that the trade in them is illegal. There is a sound case for legalising all drugs with the sole exception perhaps of the seriously fucked-up stuff like crystal meth and crack.
My views echo those of Theodore Dalrymple….
http://www.city-journal.org/html/7_2_a1.html
Once you go down the path of legalisation it will be very difficult to put the genie back in the bottle.
infidel,
are you high you c’unt?
whatever you are taking is turning you into a right fucking wanker.
go easy on that shit motherfucker.
now look here infidel, you are an idiot and it is quite clear that this place is not for you because not only are you an uptight motherfucker, you are also a complete oaf as well as a dimwit.
you have now long out stayed your welcome here and I think it would best if you just leave this place and go to conservativefoam immediately.
you will find the morons at conservativefoam are as retarded as your crippled self; hmm… maybe not quite that retarded.
goodbye.
note to self: official discharge-infidel(c’unt:1st Class)-transferred to conservativefoam(secure ward)
good job!
Ok genius, how do you propose legalising coke and controlling crack at the same time? It’s the same shit, mixed with some baking soda. Selective legalisation is missing the point.
I see that nulabour are again legislating according to daily mail sensationalism. banning ‘legal highs’ (which are mainly rubbish btw) for ‘health reasons’. Well, either they ban alcohol and tobacco too for even more compelling health reasons while they’re at it or SHUT THE FUCK UP.
It’ll never happen. Those few dozen liberalists calling all the shots will make sure of that. Will probably go the other way. They’ll ban booze and cigarettes so then we’ll all be criminalised.
Look what happened when they legalised CB radio; it died dead. All the Rubber Duck vendors went south, the market for K49′s went limp. 10-4?
Yip to all of that.
And the most ludicrous thing is that after da kidz have done all that talking to Frank and decide they’ll have just one try anyway, they find that DRUGS MAKE YOU FEEL MUCH NICER THAN DRINK (and kill a lot less people too).
Anybody else have to use the subtitles when watching The Wire?
No, but avid viewer Mrs Mixture has taken to using “A’ight” and “muddafucker” in general conversation and without warning, which can be a tad disconcerting.
Only that halfwit India Knight. I got my son to translate where necessary.
Get the DARE programme out of our schools – it’s very name is Orwellian double-speak in that it seeks to fully inform our children about alcohol, drugs and how to use them whilst masquerading as a preventative measure…of late it also tells them how to commit suicide…
Stick the word DARE in front of a child, well, need I say more??
The ‘system’ has spent gazillions dumbing down our children and getting them hooked on drugs and alcohol why?? Because an fully alert, aware and informed populus wouldn’t tolerate the criminality rife throughout all facets of the so called ‘system’.
DONT would be a better tag. That’s all kids – as distinct from adults – need to know about drugs. Complicating the message with all this ‘advice’ and ‘facts’ just sends out mixed messages. Maybe as you say that’s the plan.
In a market there are buyers, and there are sellers. Funny how some dealers could be spotted in Notting Hill, presumably they had buyers from the locality unless they all came from far and wide by train, by bus or car.
Good to see that XanuLabour are trying to lose their yoof wing, first the file sharers, then the ‘legal highs’.
One wonders how big the UK fiscal deficit is going to get before drug users and sellers are hit by direct and indirect taxes.
Couldn’t agree more
My approach may be seen as a little Draconian…however, let’s see..
Why doesn’t HMGov release a few tonnes of Crack..laced with cyanide?
Problem solved…no more crack heads!
OK, a few innocents may get hurt…but if it’s good enough for Cyclops, it’s good enough for me!
You’ll note that I’ve abstained from mentioning the fullsome breated kate on this post…..
breasted
How’s the Spitfire these days? Dented bonnet, or did you get that sorted?
Just gave her a damn good buffing….The car was fine too
I then greased her nipples & filled box (gear) with fluid!
her box..sorry!
Drug Addicts deserve nothing, just like the rest of us.
Legalise drug use
Hang drug users who rob people
no way to talk about cameron
youve all gone soft !
hang em !
Have to disagree with this soft attitude on drugs. Having all night drinking didn’t create a cafe society because we all binge anyway. Go the Dutch route on drugs and again, it simply won’t work. There’s too much Viking and Norse in the blood of this Island for any kind of liberal scheme to work. I know, I’ve visited Newcastle.
Yes I have too, and you’re right.
Oh and give anyone who shops a dealer a free trip to Florida to swim with some dolphins
Agree sort of; but no hanging.
What about feeding them to the lions then , ticket sales could raise money for better jails
Alas, the crime bosses are one of the major supports of the property market, and as we all know that is now the mainspring of the UK economy. So to upset these key providers of finance would cause the government problems. Also, it would mean that the politicians would have to go to Boots with the ordinary people, instead of being supplied by bespoke dealers.
Can of worms this one.
All things crime related could be solved with proper deterents.
Hanging, flogging in the most public manner and corporal punishment in schools.
New initiatives only continue to prop up a bad system.
Drugs have been with civilisation since the dawn of time but have only become a problem since society half thinks they are acceptable.
Why did our grandparents not become smackheads,because it was socialy unacceptable behaviour as well as the real fear of punishment.
Today we have neither.
But Drugs are not a crime, Where’s the victim?
The crime is the state removing peoples chemical choices.
There will always be a substance offered that will not be tolerated,like crystal meth for instance.
So where do we draw the line?
The end of prohibition didn’t mean the end of the Mafia.
My point is that there is no fear now.Fear of consequence,fear of what the neighbours think or fear of the law.
Sort that out and you won’t have to worry about drugs,stabbings,drunkeness and all the other bollocks.
“We” don’t draw the line, the person taking the substance should.
The state should be there to make sure they doesn’t externalise the costs of that choice on the rest of us.
What about drug addicts who commit crime to fund their habit?
Drugs are REALLY cheap to manufacture.
They are expensive, because they are illegal.
This illegality means large profits for those wanting to break these stupid laws, it also provides a soft entry into breaking the law and thus an entry into criminality.
Anti – do you really believe all that?
Actually drugs are expensive because the suppliers want lots of money – and because they kill the competition.
Obviously, after legalisation, you expect “recreational” drugs to be much cheaper. But that will mean much wider use (lower price = increased consumption). And that means MORE crime, because many of those who are incapacitated by the drugs will not be capable of holding a job. It will mean HIGHER taxes to pay for the care of the increased number of addicts.
Wonderful.
Anti is correct,as much as i hate to agree with him. All, repeat, all the profit is made by the importers/dealers. The Mark up on the streets can be as much as 100%. Why do you think that the media always talk about seizures of contraband being worth X at street prices?
Coke, Amphetamine and Heroin would probably be cheaper to make in bulk than aspirin.
How much would alcohol cost without the “dealers” profit? Take off distributors and taxation costs,and it would probably cost less than water.
The revenue generated by the legalization of drugs would be pretty bloody substantial, I reckon. Money the Treasury desperately needs, too.
If you tax it there will inevitably be people who seek to avoid paying the tax. Why do you think so many people bring bax cigarettes and booze from Europe where taxes are lower? If you have a system of taxation for drugs it will require yet another government agency to collect the revenue. Frankly I think we have enough VAT collectors as it is.
If you think the tax take will be “substantial” then you must be expecting a “substantial” increase in the number of users. And all their problems: inability to hold down a job, leading to increased crime; increased danger to the public when some ignore the safe use rules; increased general taxation to pay for the care of the increased number of addicts, etc.
Mr Budgie. You would be surprised at the number of “straight” people who are addicts. Dr Harold Shipman for one. A lot of addicts use their substance of choice just to keep their “straight” life straight.
IYCDTT,DTC @ 1:10am
If your argument for the legalisation of drugs is that Harold Shipman managed to live a double life of outward respectability and inward drug misuse, long enough to become the biggest mass-murderer in British History, I think you should get your coat.
The parents are the victims.
Narcotics laws established by the Misuse of Drugs Act are very strict.
Anyone caught with more than or equal to 15 g (0.5 ounces) of heroin, 28 g (1 ounce) of morphine or 480 g (17 ounces) of cannabis faces mandatory capital punishment, as they are deemed to be trafficking in these substances. The stated quantities are the net weight of the substances after they have been isolated by laboratory analysis.
Between 1991 and 2004, 400 people were hanged in Singapore, mostly for drug trafficking, the highest per-capita execution rate in the world.
I’ve never taken anything more exotic than a nice drop of Speyside malt, but I agree completely with Guido. Legalise drugs for adults and tax them. The present system is a massive job creation programme for criminals.
If drugs were taxed then you will still have a black market as there is with ciggies. To minimise criminality it might be better to subsidise them!
But they would probably be a lot cheaper if they were produced in factories here then sold to the pharmacist shops, even with tax included.
At the moment they are produced mainly abroad, carried here by human mules, pass through several dealers all taking their cut, before being mixed with unknown other shit and sold on the street by some disposable kid desparate to pay for his own consumption.
Exactly! Most of the problems with drugs come from the impure way they are manufactured.
Not likely, because the pharmaceutical companies would have to pass them through the stringent national drug testing program. In fact, with the side effects, I doubt if any reputable manufacturer would touch them.
Then pharma companies will start to develop side-effect free drugs.
Even better for those who’d like the government to stay out of their chemical choices (I’m not a drug user apart from cigs/booze and adrenaline).
such a sensible outlook.
drugs users aren’t the real issue, its the people who sell them who are the problem and the communities they destroy are leading to the severe breakdown of the social fabric of this country.
Take it out of their hands, they loose the power, their illegal income and lessen their ability to intimidate…
Can’t anybody spell ‘lose’ or ‘loser’ these days?
I can. Loser is my middle name.
i’m always at a lose when people support these thieving politicians.
thanks for adding to the debate sir william.
He needs a blotter!
Of course, if drugs were legal then the government could tax them out of existence.
Have they missed a trick here ?
It just moves the problem underground
the problem is underground you cretin.
they give any c’unt a phd these days innit.
You were doing so well in the last few days Thicky but you’re back to your abusive ways again. Time to up the medication.
you will either have to a) get used to my outbursts or b) bugger off.
that will be all. you may go now.
No, they couldn’t tax drugs “out of existence”.
The criminals would move right back in. In fact, the tax take would be very low, and probably not enough to cover the disruption caused by increased use and addiction, leading to higher taxes for everyone.
See the first point in my post at 464 above
Perhaps even more importantly, it is a very ready source of easy cash for the criminal gangs, allowing them to finance more exotic transactions. Additionally, a significant amount of violence occurs intra-gangs, while much of the mugging/opportunistic burgulary is related to addicts looking for their next fix.
The answer is probably to decriminalise, restrict to licensed premises, have a zero tolerance policy outside these facilities and especially for the equivalent of drink driving (planes, trains or automobiles)
The challenge is how do you get it past the bovine Daily Mail supporters?
I think the public mood has changed enormously over the last 40 years. There’s nowhere near the opposition to legalisation that there used to be. I don’t think your Daily Mail readers would be as anti-legalisation as you suppose.
It’s in the grauniad where the neo-puritan mass endure.
Getting round them will be the problem. They won’t like De-Regulation of drug prohibition.
No smoking on these “licensed premises” though.
Yes, that is silly: cocaine and dope allowed, but tobacco banned.
The Beeb have gone for the wrong part of the statement as usual.
All day having people from Liverpool and Manchester phoning in to say that there have only been a few instances of crime. Then comparing the crime stats for Baltimore to the hard areas of UK cities.
Naturally life in The Wire is much more violent than life in Liverpool or Manchester. But then life in Sun Hill is a lot more violent than Hendon Central.
There are more teen pregnancies and house fires in Coronation street than average. Because its TV.
5 live very anti the ‘there is a problem’ message. Probably because they are all going to have to live there very soon under the big cash bonus to relocate scheme.
Manchester wil then be the home of the BBC and the Guardian (man.guardian til 59).I think the fundementalists are digging in for a siege , I could be mistaken but I think the tories hold only a couple of council seats here and until recently only one.During the last tory government Liverpool city council defied central government on the instructions of one Derek Hatton and bankrupted the corporation as a political stunt,Manchester this time I expect
I didn’t realise the Guardian too!
Hope there are some good health food shops, a good recycling procedure for rubbish collection and some top notch private schools.
QuEGS is a short drive away. Two hundred years of fee-paying educational excellence.
I suggest they post a ‘NO BBC’ sign on the entrance gates.
The annual expenditure on the “War on Drugs” has a total budget of $40 bn in the USA alone. That is a lot of jobs and other vested interests. Just follow the money as a wise man once said. There are far too many people whose whole lives are built around this futile pursuit to allow sense to prevail.
Not only that, but plough more money into tackling the social issues that lead to sustained drug abuse from an early age, rather than tackling adults who use drugs responsibly.
Heroine would be an exception to this for me though. That said, if you remove the ‘push’ factors that lead people to graduate onto it from other drugs, it may become an irrelevance altogether.
YT – it’s perfectly possible to function entirely normally while on a maintenance dose of heroin. Medically prescribed and carefully monitored, it’s a perfectly reasonable solution to addiction and far better than methadone.
Amphetamines would be excluded if I had my way – they predispose users to psychosis and violence, and are not at all socially desirable.
Overall, though, legalisation, taxation and moderation is the best answer to the ‘drugs problem’, no matter what the Daily Mail readership thinks.
Oh, and yes – I used to have a smack habit, but that was a quarter of a century ago, and I have never touched it since.
A combination of legalisation and stigmatisation might be good. Legalise drugs but portray users (wether its true or not) as anti-social inadequates who need chemical crotches to get through life.
The problem with heroin is the constipation
No shit, Sherlock?
Paragnostic @ 6.22 pm
It couldn’t have been much of a smack problem, unless it was the smack to head that led you to believe that there was such a thing as a ‘maintenance dose’ of heroin, or any other opiate come to that. As with almost all drugs, the body develops a tolerance to a regular dose and an ever increasing amount is required to get your high, until you get to point where you’re taking it just to avoid feeling as though you’re about to die. Then the risk of OD increases to the point where the inevitable happens.
But they don’t half slim you down quick. Amphetamines.
Yep they sure do..I used to visit a Harley Street doctor in the 70s.Pop a pill get an injection and lose weight. Problem is when you stopped using them you put more weight on than when you first went. This was legal.
“You shall know them by their fruit” – ergo: FOLLOW THE MONEY.
Up the gangplank?
Not often I agree with you so wholeheartedly, Guido.
Great post.
Guido. Are you saying that if drugs were legalised, possession and crimes carried out under the influence would be looked upon more leniently?
I have absolutely no time for drug addicts. They well know the risks they take when they use. If they do not want to enter rehabilitation, their benefits should be cut (if they claim).
Why should we fork out for these losers. I am sick to death of these do-gooders who pander to these self-abusing members of society. Please don’t tell me that we all have a social responsibility for these idiots. I’ve heard it all before from my MP. My reply to him was much along the same lines as this.
I’m sorry if that sounds hard. Both our sons have managed to get into adulthood without the use of any drugs. Why should anyone else be any different.
Is he saying that? Let’s read the article to find out…
*reads*
No, he’s not saying that.
Thanks!
Guido said: If drugs were decriminalised we would waste less money and lives than we do now.
He also said: Addicts deserve pity, not incarceration. Decriminalising drug use and treating it as a health problem would in a stroke undermine the gangsters and drug trafficker just as ending prohibition undermined the mafia.
Perhaps you should read it!
I rest my case.
Strange that countries which impose harsh penalties on drug abusers like Singapore for example seem to have lower than average levels of drug abuse.
Singapore 46.8 drug offences per 100,000
UK drug offences 183,419 per 100,000 population.
Am I missing something?
Yes, you’re missing a police state. Can I arrange an airline ticket to the one of your choice?
INFIDEL, ARE YOU MISSING SOMETHING?
YES YOU ARE MISSING A BRAIN YOU FUCKING SPASTIC!
SHUT UP DOPEY SLAG I AM TOP BOY YOU ARE MY BITCH NOW INFIDEL
DANCE BITCH DANCE FOR TOP BOY YOU SCUM SLAG!
“Yes, you’re missing a police state. Can I arrange an airline ticket to the one of your choice?”
You don’t need an airline ticket you tosser, we’re already living in a fucking police state.
Your missing the island next to Singapore where everything goes on. You just have to be OK to cross back into Singapore.
I personally favour something similar, Drugs illegal, high in public illegal (i.e. only controlled areas allowed to serve drugs and allowed to detain you until the effects wear off).
No need to shout twat.
Am I reading you right, Infidel? Almost 2 offences per person in the general population, so that would mean something like 111 million offences in the country as a whole?
(157) – In Singapore if you so much as chew gum you risk being banged up.
Most places that have liberalised have ended up recriminalising (e.g. Alaska). Prohibition is a deterrent. If it was coupled with proper job opportunities for all (by way of low business taxes and truly free labour markets), treatment for addicts (removing the incentive to deal) and massive punishments for dealing there would be very little illegal drug use.
Thinking of the illegal drug users from my year at school, one OD’d in his 20s, another got raped by his student housemates after they all had a coke session in a park and several others have had ‘episodes’ requiring psychiatric treatment. I don’t particularly want to pay to bail out the consequences of the liberal approach of the last 30 years, nor wish my kids to grow up in such a society.
Yet you seem happy to pay for the immense and obvious consequences of Legal Alcohol and tobacco every single day while the Government and private companies reap immense financial rewards.
Prohibition was tried for Alcohol in the US.
We know the result. Incredible levels of gangsterism and crime.
This is the elephant in the corner of the room – the 1930s US experiment with prohibition of alcohol led to exactly the same situation we see now with other drugs.
Why can no-one see that the solution could well be the same as it was 80 years ago?
Because moderate amounts of alcohol are good for you, but moderate amounts of heroin are not?
Everyone who’s had a general anaesthetic is a opiate user.
Will Self swears by it. Look what a career he has blown!
Those genies are out of the bottle.
The spiralling cases of child neglect/violence is another sign of the degradation associated with permissive attitudes towards ‘recreational’ drug use.
No it’s a sign we are paying crap parents to have children.
i.e. The welfare state is just the authoritarian classes meddling in dysgenics rather than eugenics.
Lucky we have such clean living parents like the McCanns
(403) Air Force Blair… Far riskier than taking any drugs that is… mentioning the McCanns as anything but saintly, put-upon persons… WHAT A RISK! I hope you have your very expensive clever lawyer to hand… Don’t you know their funds are running low… They sue anything that moves, and no press persons dare mention them other than in hushed and very caring tones…
the drug taking faction of the Conservatives are know as the Suppositorys
So that’s a crack problem, then?
Arf!
can i help ?
Decriminalising drug use and treating it as a health problem would in a stroke undermine the gangsters and drug trafficker just as ending prohibition undermined the mafia.
But Guido, you entirely miss the real point.
Our REAL government is effectively the bloody MAFIA. The British Mafia, more commonly known as The British Establishment.
Drugs, of either the legal, or should not be illegal type, are VERY BIG BUSINESS. Drugs, is not a bunch of wannabe Hippy’s with a few tens of grams of this, or that, stuffed down their underwashed Y-Fronts.
Do we seriously believe that VERY BIG BUSINESS is not at the source of understanding as to exactly WHY certain drugs are illegal, AND others not?
For if there was only one thing the British Establishment have always been extremely good at is, being where the easy, risk free, and highest profits are. They were very good also, at creating places where easy risk-free, and highly protitable profits could be exploited, if a shortage of such oppotunities became apparent.
Therefore; I feel it highly unlikely that drugs of all and any type, are going to become cheap, plentiful, or indeed legal, anytime EVER.
AND STOP SCROLLING HERE
The mafia are “undermined” are they ? What fuckin planet are you on Atlas ?
Why where drugs criminalised in the first place? The Victorian opium dens of London had some pretty vile social consequences, never mind what it did to some of the takers.
same reasons as the temeprance movement , if they spent the money on Gin or opium they didnt spend it on there family , it was seen as bringing about destitution that could and should be otherwise avoided , so for the greater good it was criminalised .
Alan johnson comment priceless .
Dont worry about home office flak , whole labour government is a work of fiction from 1945 onwards
The British Government used to force opium on the Chinese.
Were all the Victorians out of their skulls when its use was legal? – I think not.
I’m not recommending its use, but I think the damage caused by organised crime far exceeds the ‘benefits’ of prohibition.
Damn it, the EU has a prohibition now on light bulbs!!! Now, how more daft can you get? Is the use of an incandescent bulb as bad as Crack Cocaine????
Yet another good reason to leave the EU – for the sake of all our sanity Ireland vote ‘NO’.
I’ve been shooting up with light bulbs for years, why do they have to spoil it?
LOL 116!! Yeah, they light up my life, too. EU killjoys
LOL indeed Sialor. Nice!
well said.
QUOTE : .. “If things had gone slightly differently in his life, David Cameron, instead of being on the verge of becoming PM could be yet another former public school who ended up squandering his privileges and doing jail time for possession of cannabis and cocaine. The current President of America could just be another black ex-con from a broken home” …
There’s an old saying where I come from to the effect that “If “Ifs” & “Buts” were Apples and Nuts .. A greedy fellow could fill his guts” .. so to suggest what might have happened instead of what actually did happen is fatuous and flawed thinking at best ..
Addicts are NOT victims .. they imposed their addiction on themselves ..
Addicts DO NOT have any right to be treated within the NHS at public expense ..
Addicts DO NOT deserve pity .. they deserve exactly what they’ve brought upon themselves ..
The answer is NOT to legalise Drugs, the taking of Drugs, the possession of Drugs or the selling of Drugs ..
The answer is to make the fear of punishment for being caught doing ANY of the above so real & so worrying as to act as a deterrent .. that means harsh punishments which fit the crime .. not wishy-washy, soft, “token” sentences ..
So when do you think any Political Party will anounce they will immediately cease treatment of any of those with illnesses related to Alcohol and Tobacco addiction ?
I won’t hold my breath.
Re Post: 69 ..
Obviously, I don’t .. but when Surgeons, as they were doing a few years ago tried turning away patients who were smokers, drinkers or obese (despite having paid their dues) but welcoming addicts as being “worthy” of care .. I began to see this “victim” culture developing ..
There is always political “mileage” to be gained from these Pinko, Lefty, Bed-wetting notions & as long as people fall for them .. they will continue ..
Drug addicts became such of their own volition .. They serve no useful purpose & contribute nothing to society ..
Or rock climbing and car racing, activities that addicts people to adrenaline.
Lots of women get addicted to shopping, shall we ban shops too?
I take your point .. which actually made me chuckle ..
But in all seriousness, I ask when did you .. or anyone else read about a Pot-holer, Sky-diver, Bungee-jumper, Hang-glider pilot or Rock-climber mug a pensioner, or break into someone else’s house or car in order to steal to feed their Adrenaline habit ? ..
Lots of women are addicted to shopping and shoplift to fund the habit.
BAN SHOPS NOW.
Or smoker for that matter?
The point I’m trying to make is that for every pleasurable activity some percentage of people are pre-ordained to not have the willpower to resist doing it.
There’s always been a strong streak of puritanism (hatred of other people enjoying themselves) amongst both left and right wing authoritarian establishments.
Not a very good choice, Anti; you see shop lifting is illegal.
I feel better for reading what you write Anti-Citizen One…
or riding motor bikes… and then there’s skiing down very steep slopes… think of all those crucial ligament repairs… and horse-riding, and jumping over fences for the thrill… maybe they should ban that too… awful lot of head and crush injuries… if the beast should fall on top of you that is… Addicted thats what the pursuants are.
Pass me my gin and tonic.
Fancy a line?
fuck off beast, the last time you shared your bag was back in 1968 and that was only to get some poor tart off her nut so you could take advantage of her.
beast of berkwell, you are one dirty bastard.
He must be off his head with crack cocaine Beast, he hasn’t had a go at you for years.
for fucks sake gandalf, I am doing my fucking best bashing the trolls brains out on a rotating scheduled basis. and so I will get round to giving the beast of berkwell another good hiding in due course.
and don’t get too gobby grandad, I suggest you put that crackpipe down and stop getting high before you get a good fucking slap from top boy.
good lad.
I was wrong. It must be crystal meth.
He’s missed his last two appointments so his medication has worn off since the weekend.
All this is not going to happen, and it doesn’t matter whether one agrees or disagrees with Guido.
Remember when the government banned beef-on-the-bone because there was a very small risk of people’s developing CJD? The government banned it because they were worried people (who might subsequently develop CJD) might sue them for allowing it to remain legal? I hardly think the government is going to legalise heroin / cocaine / LSD / cannabis etc – they’d be laying themselves wide open to all sorts of litigation.
And anyway, we’d end up with a daft system whereby drugs like a new type of treatment for hypertension, for example, have to undergo stringent safety tests for 10 years before the drug companies are allowed to market it ; yet a drug like cocaine, which has all sorts of side-effects, can be sold by whomever. I’m not trenchantly against Guido’s idea – but it’s not quite as simple as first it appears.
Excellent point Huw.
“The biggest beneficiaries of drug prohibition are the crime bosses.”
I disagree. The second biggest beneficiaries of drug prohibition are the crime bosses. The biggest winners however are surely the politicians and the state apparatus.
You chose olives as a crop rather than Poppies
KNOB! (+:
Regrettably yes, because as an old-fashioned chap I prefer to smother my tomatoes in extra virgin oil rather than the rather bitter liquid of the Opium poppy. Plus there is a notable absence of Afghan warlord round here, a prime requisite if one wants one’s fields protected from CIA-originating DDT sprayplanes.
I likka to smother my extra virgin in oil, too. She’s a real poppy. Always smelling of Opium…
And you chose to cultivate olives rather than poppies?
A. Around 10-15 yrs. ago, a survey of top surgeons was conducted asking them whether they would rather be operated on by 1) an alcoholic, 2) a tranquilizer addict or 3) a heroin addict. Overwhelmingly they voted for the heroin addict.
B. There is an underground belief that the Vietnam war was pushed by crime lords putting pressure on U.S. government officials and congress members because the communists would stop the trade when they took over. Once new suppliers and routes were secured from South and Central America, the war was wound down and the Yanks left. There are still older Americans that refer to it as the dope war.
C. Britain had no problems with drug addiction and crime connected with it as up until the 1960′s they had a programme of doctors treating addicts with injections. There were very few addicts until the U.S. pressured Britain to stop this and make heroin et. al. illegal. Then the problems began.
In whose interests is it for the present system to continue?
probably cos most Drs are both piss artists and smack heads
The surgeons said it was because heroin did not interfere with their decision making and nervous system to the extent that alochol and tranquilizers did.
Ain’t that the zombie troof?
Alcohol causes shakes, tranquilisers (though you would have to assume they meant the ones most commonly prescribed at the time) have a common side-effect of tremor. That leaves ‘comfortably numb’ heroin users as winners by default.
I envisage coke, crack and heroin available from vending machines on railway station platforms.
The “products” could be taxed and the revenue used for education, rehabilitation and healthcare. Moreover, the quality could be assured and regulated.
There’s a lot of work on the economics of legalisation which makes interesting reading.
You want to know how effective illegality is ? Think of the example of American Prohibition of alcohol.
Now. if Norfolk Nog was available at all railway bars and drinks trolleys I’d probably leave my car in the garage.
Prohibition didn’t work because it didn’t have full public support. However it is still much more difficult to get a drink in the US than the UK. It is possible to introduce legislation that restricts access yet does not encourage criminality. Some drugs are worse than others. Tobacco is one of the most dangerous and most addictive. I would support genuine heroin addicts getting their drugs from the hospital as before 1960. Contaminated needles, AIDS, hepatitis, sclerosed veins and overdoses would all be avoided. Without the need to purchase drugs much petty crime would be avoided.
The biggest drug problem we currently have in the UK is with alcohol. Physiologically taking a drink reduces the will power required to not have another one. There may be racial reasons why some become alcoholics: Irish and Eskimos are particularly good at it. Most people except mad libertarianists can see good and selfish reasons for trying to do something about it. Were drugs to be legalised we would soon see similar reasons for trying to stop cocaine and Ecstasy addiction.
Sorry Guido, is that bullshit on your mouth?
The NHS is overstretched as it is, I shudder to think of constant treatment for costly addicts.
The answer is to scrap the NHS.
And I thought to praise you earlier… Part of the answer is to modify the NHS.
Not to have it run by bureaucrats… Give more decision making to the medics and most power of all to the punters.
It’s not constant treatment, it’s a quick a.m. fix then goodbye till tomorrow. I don’t see why the NHS need to get involved if the scheme is rolled out nationally, Boots could do it, or there could be special junkie clinics. If the heroin is clean and given in the right quantities it is possible for addicts to function and hold down a job, this is what happens in Switzerland so I believe.
The scheme could be tried out on known offenders to start with. Every locality has some arse who contributes about half the theft figures to feed his habit. Give him a daily fix and see what difference it makes to him, it’s got to be worth a try.
Sorry but any addicts who need medical treatment at the present time will automatically be treated by the NHS . So that is already happening. Changing legislation to decriminalise drugs wouldn’t change any demands on the NHS I don’t think.
Yes Nell that’s because they’re trying to cure them rather than stoke them up and point them at the door.
So which is best then Sir RT – to give them NHS prescriptions for their need or to try and cure them?
And an even more horrible question – which would be the cheaper option?
Why do you consider the best deal for taxpayers to be immoral?
Bullets are cheap.
Let’s start again buttercups.
If people wish to self destruct then they will *coughs*
Strong beer turns me into a total C*** as does Cocaine but Wine relaxes me ,Dunno why , its still alcohol.
I agree with people having freedom of choice but at what cost to others?
This is the one subject that I cant say either yes or no to.
What about 6 pints of finest Belgian Raspberry Ale then Beast?
When I can smoke a fag in a pub then they can legalise drugs otherwise fuck em.
Now that’s an interesting thought.
Labour MPs exempted themselves from the ban on smoking because the law does not apply in the Palace of Westminster. MPs smoke to their heart’s content in their own bars.
Does that mean that all drugs can be “legally” used within Westminster as well?
No wonder the Government makes such stupid decisions.
Exactly! If I choose to smoke (and I do) I pay large amounts of tax on every packet of cigarettes I buy.
Why should those shysters in Westminster be allowed to smoke in, albeit, a public place, when I am not?
One rule for us, and another for them.
No laws seem to apply to the Palace of Westminster . I bet mp’s have even decreed it a tax free zone in respect of alcohol. Immoral bunch that they are!
I have a feeling the bar is subsidised, which comes to the same thing.
Presumably the cigarettes are subsidised too.
Do you think they get proper cuban cigars imported via taxpayers as well to suck on.
smoke a fag?
SO17?
shit!
An established argument Guido, and none the worse for that – very well put. There’s another point too – imagine what our pharmaceutical companies could do if given free rein on recreational drugs. Given the talent and resources available, drugs could be safer, better quality, consistent, and non-addictive. Legalization doesn’t have to mean everyone wandering around with needles hanging out of their arms. And there’s always the possibility that legalization could end up being like CB radio all those years ago – as soon as it was legal, a lot of people lost interest.
Quite so. Perhaps they can make us fly so we can get about when the oil runs out.
Bindun: PIHKAL
Our ancestors used to chew on coke and we’re all still here.
Tribes in the jungles are big weed smokers and live to a ripe old age naturally without any fancy modern medicine.
Drug taking and Tattooing predate religion.
Time for a fresh look at how things work.
genghis khan and the moghuls fed their troops on little opium balls before every battle.
And look at how successful he was!!
“Our ancestors used to chew on coke and we’re all still here”
And some of us show the effects of such ancestral scoffage, e.g. Kevan Jones to give a random example.
Let’s not forget the gin and opium dens of victorian london. They too were unregulated (at least I believe they were) – and they eventually died out.
At the turn of the 20th Century, in the Fens, some folks got addicted to laudanum – apparently you could buy it by the small bottle from the corner shop. That too has died out.
It died out because Laudanum, and lots of other addictive drugs, were banned. Should we leagalise murder in the hope it will ‘die out’?
Nice people take drugs they can afford and pay for them with their own money. The problem is “not nice” people who take drugs and then have to steal from us to pay for them. The only solution to crime is to supply them for free. Only that will put the dealers out of business. So “Free Cocaine!” is our campaign slogan
Where do I join the queue?
Tobbaco is legal but there is now a roaring trade run by organised crime smuggling the bloody stuff.
If the government legalise drugs then they had better not tax it too much.
Which then makes it unfair to smokers and drinkers and so on and so forth.
Can of worms see.
The old definition of an alcoholic is “A man who drinks more than his doctor”.
Drink problems and drug problems are defined by income as well as usage.
Tobbaco is legal but there is now a roaring trade run by organised crime smuggling the bloody stuff.
If you legalise drugs then tax them to the same extent as fags and beer, well you can see where I am going.
If they are not taxed the same well how unfair is that.
Another good point ignored by the legalisers.
Nowadays politicians lack the ability to focus on more radical solutions to any problem, due at least partly to the British media. The media restrict any blue-sky thinking by demonizing politicians who step into sensitive subject areas.
Debate of drug legalisation, euthanasia, and immigration now seem impossible, restricting our politicians to an ever-narrowing centrist stance, with all parties fighting over minutae of detail within the parameters of ‘acceptable’ positions.
The media have adopted this stance largely because we have no credible political opposition brave enough to debate these points. The media have spotted the public’s frustration and moved in to fill the void. If we had politicians with spines, the media wouldn’t have to go into frenzy mode.
You have finally proved to me what a shite spouting Hunt you really are.
Tru dat
Hear hear!
I would argue the case against but given the inability of politicians to run anything there no longer is one. It works in Saudi Singapore and Barbados but it sure would not work here.
So I am a convert to your point of view.
Channel 4 news talking about the gov proposing to make two currently legal ‘highs’ illegal. Apparantly one is in effect paint stripper which is going to make restricting it’s availability difficult. I wondered why my decorator was always so jolly…
Trouble is with solvents like paint stripper is that they can have a nasty habit of making your heart stop…
Oooh! If I’d known he was dead I wouldn’t have paid him.
This government, any government will never decriminalise or legalise drugs. They can’t even decide whether cannabis is a class “A”, “B”, “C” drug!
Any subject matter that polarises opinion is seldom discussed and if through public demand it is, e.g. fox hunting, then the media go bonkers. Eventually an unenforcable piece of legislation is added. Another example, bringing back hanging…..the debate rages on and on like a Duracell bunny rabbit.
I can understand the argument that prohibition provides a business opportunity to organised crime syndicates. And furthermore that criminalising drug taking has in no way inhibited users.
But it seems to me that if you removed drug dealing profits by legalising drugs, the ‘organised crime businesses’ would simply find other criminal ventures, because that’s what they do. So then there would be no savings to be made in the police and justice sectors because they would simply have to evolve to deal with new crimes.
I think I actually agree that drug taking should be decriminalised but that drug dealing should not.
But I find it an uncomfortable subject because I have never had any real contact with drugs (wine yes -preferably red!) – I know nothing about drugs and I am bringing up a youngster who will soon be in her teens. So, of course, I worry.
Everybody’s views on here are interesting. So thanks.
Good point Nell, there are arguments for and against Drug Legalisation but the “organised crime” argument is a poor one. Take away the drug market which by and large involves willing volunteers and they will move into other arenas, some of which will involve more direct violence ie Bank Jobs, Kidnapping, people traffiking. One thing is for sure they wont go into retirement.
I have a feeling that it was the end of prohibition which precipitated the move from crime to legitimate business in the USA.
Looking at the antics of Wall St, they’ve never looked back.
I don’t think that the argument that keeping drugs criminalised channels the efforts of organised crime is a valid one.
Maybe if we removed the criminal money making opportunities, it might encourage more people to work for a living, and if it was easier to work for a living, get a job, run a business and make a profit, less people would be tempted by drug dealing, as it is, one could be excused for believing that crime and all its related immoral activities (which includes politics), is the only way to make money in this country.
I have always though that the advertising industry , (particularly TV) has a lot to answer for. If a strong desire for flashy new cars is consistently inculcated in the unemployed and low paid, crime is the only way to assuage that desire.
I’ll bet that the majority of people running speakeasys during puritan prohibition went on to run bars.
I’d wager that the same would happen with the majority of end level dealers.
” ‘organised crime businesses’ would simply find other criminal ventures”
Perhaps politics would be a good career move for them.
All vacancies currently filled. And there’s a waiting list.
nell & anon 7.58
you are arguing in favour of funding drug barons?
now why would you do such a thing?
anon, as you agree with nell I think you two had better justify your joint postition on the issue.
at the moment you appear to be nothing more than a pair of heroin dealer apologists and promoters.
please tell me I have misunderstood what you are trying to say nell.
She’s a right bitch mate, I’d dump her if I were you.
I love you too TWatson or as the interpretation goes son of TWat.
Hee hee….
Tat that’s too deep for me – you’re thinking out of my box – It’s good thinking but I can’t match it.
I’m not in favor of organised crime but I can see how organised crime might evolve if we change laws on drug taking.
This is a a subject with which I remain uncomfortable. Politics is easier.
never mind all that crap I was talking about earlier; the truth is that you are one of the good guys nell.
I’m just talking about cutting off the money supply from the bad guys.
that’s all.
good night nell and God Bless.
and God Bless our Boys in Afghanistan, let’s pray they will be kept safe tonight.
never mind all that crap I was talking about earlier; the truth is that you are one of the good guys nell.
I’m just talking about cutting off the money supply from the bad guys.
that’s all.
good night nell and God Bless.
and God Bless our Boys in Afghanistan, let’s pray they will be kept safe tonight.
11.20pm thief,
in saudi arabia you get your hands chopped off for stealing.
stealing is wrong.
why steal? use your own name.
imbecile.
yes you have you tramp, stop addling ur small shrinking brain with drugs and it will make sense.
And furthermore that criminalising drug taking has in no way inhibited users.
Sorry Nell but I disagree. There are plenty of half-wits who are not dissuaded from taking recreational drugs I agree, however the fact that such activities are illegal I would argue serves to put many people off. However your point that by legalising drug would result in criminals moving into other fields is a valid one. These people are not going to become law abiding citizens they will just find a new avenue to exploit.
From Theodore Dalrymple…
Are you listening twat?
> We lose remarkably little by not being permitted to take drugs.
We certainly do lose a lot, mainly through the costs of crime which are caused by the infinite tax on drugs.
And whose fault is that? The supplier criminals? The drug user criminals? Or those that encourage drug taking as cool and fashionable? No demand = no crime. So stop making it fashionable.
Legalising drugs would also remove the income from those lovely Taleban, as well as FARC and doubtless some other charitable institutions. And if we could buy the opium crop ourselves then Afghan farmers might start to love us a bit more.
I have read somewhere that if pharmaceutical companies could be persuaded to change their buying patterns to purchase the afghan opium crop for which there is, apparently, a large and legal demand in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals, the afghan farmers would be made.
For some reason neither the USA or Britain are trying to encourage the pharmaceutical industry to procure the afghan poppy crop for their needs.
Perhaps someone on here can tell us why.
then all the money they make from it the taleban will come and collect more money to buy arms to kill our troops !
As the spouse of a pharmacist (legalised drug pusher), I have been informed that there is a shortage of diamorphine for use as an analgesic at the moment. I do not know whether this shortage is due to lack of raw material, or lack of processing capacity, but if it is the former then we need to obtain all the Afghan poppy crop we can to fill that gap. Having seen one relative die in agony from cancer, helped through her final days with diamorphine, I do not want to tolerate a shortage on the medical market.
::
The other benefit of buying up the Afgham crop is that it will put the prices up for the “illegal” market, and that will feed though all the way to end users. While addicts will probably steal more to fund their habits, it will probably mean fewer “try this for free…it makes you feel great” introductory deals to new users. However, has anyone worked out what the price elasticity of demand is for herion on the streets?
The opium poppy grows well here. In the 19th century the fens around Wisbech was the centre of opium production for the country, and it’s legacy can be witnessed in the quick witted law abiding citizenry that inhabits the area today, most of whom would eat the Taliban for breakfast. Then elevenses. Then lunch. Then for an afternoon snack followed by tea, dinner and supper and something before they go to bed.
I suspect Eric Pickles, he of the light lunch is, a Fenlander, or possibly two.
I’m a Ramsey fen tiger and I never knew that!!!!
Mandelstones Doctor has come down with the particularly nasty condition known in the trade as “finger of fudge”
“if they had not been criminalised gone on to become leaders like Obama and Cameron”
Better off as addicts in prison being used as Big Mick’s whore. As least it’s honest work.
Dey crims neway man stealing from the taxpayer, least addicts got an excuse 2 do it.
One more point- to judge from the addicts I’ve met, the drug they are “addicted” to is simply the one available. Addicts aren’t made so by the drugs- they are simply seeking escape from a reality that they can’t face (whether thats because they are unusually weak or their problems are unusually great). Most people want escaape from time to time whether its a film, a holiday, getting drunk or getting high- but the addict wants a 24/7 holiday. Whatever happens about the supply and legal status of drugs these weak/overstressed people will still exist in about the same proportion- so I doubt that legalisation would have any significant effect on addiction rates, except of course it will encourage more such unfortunates to seek help.
What the fuck is Kerry Katona doing in this ?
can whiteys join the blick police officers club if no den y trevor phillips suing de national party init.
If the B&P are breaking the law one would have thought it would be a cut and dried case handled by the Police.
I suspect the Qaulity street commission who are tax payer funded will try to bleed the B&P dry through a prolonged action in the courts.
What Would They Call Me If I Started A White Police Officers Acc
Chalky?
Should I start up a Help Line?
Kerry as already had hers.
How fast would Usain Bolt run with a couple of lines inside him?
Almost as fast as Edward II ran with a red hot poker up his arse.
Nearly As Fast As All The Junkie Cyclist On” The Tour De Trance”
Spot on!
I found the piece about gordon and drugs, linked below, quite interesting.
It talks about the consultation he launched on illegal drugs in 2007.
Then it says his consultation was a “fraudulent waste of time – alarmingly arrogant and contemptuous of those consulted”
He said he’d listen to views but actually he laid out the policy he was going to follow before any views were expressed.
Typical gordon. It’s why he’s going to lose the next election.
http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2007/09/gordon-brown-friend-of-mafia-enemy-of.html
Nell, Snotty is a total control freak. He doesn’t take other views into account unless they agree with his own. Any dissent is slapped down, or, if it is persistant, then the dirty tricks brigade spring into action with smears and character destruction.
The smiles on the faces of those around him are the same rictus grins that Hitler’s generals grimaced in the bunker when they knew all was lost but kept pretending that they were winning the war as the fuhrer ranted on.
Can I just point out there may be a similarity between keeping naughty children pacified with ritalin and keeping naughty adults (unemployed etc) pacified with smack.
I regard ritalin as an evil and unwarranted use of a drug when applied to children.
And I think Dr’s who prescribe it to children will find themselves in the years ahead – sued for malpractice and poor judgement.
Am I cynical or noting that the article cited noted,
“Crack use has risen consistently and dramatically throughout his Government’s tenure”
Who said what about addicts using any drug available to be able to avoid dealing with the reality that was theirs.
Perhaps if Jonah had given us a country where it was worth employing people and where it was worthwhile to take up employment, not with the currect obscene marginal rates of tax and benefit loss that affect the poorer members of society disproportionately, then it would not be the case. But we have the ZaNu Lie Baah scenario, paid by the many for the benefit of the few, so long as we are the few.
Much as I’d like to see Cameron and Obama in prison, I have to say that I don’t think I’ve ever agreed more with something on this site.
Ee………………by gum… there seem to be a right lot of p*ssheads on this thread, judging by the replies. N’owt a way to win a cricket match
Subsidized drugs should be sold at chemists. All You can shove in your body for a quid . Once you make it legal the attraction wains, And the criminals would have to look for another way to make money
Well they can’t do it here. We’ve got limited seating.
Depends what you mean by legalised drugs.
Last time I looked alcohol, tobacco, mushrooms and most weeds were legal drugs.
What is your problem?
i think you will find that the cia,bill clinton etc are the main beneficiaries of a drugs ban.where else would the money for black ops and funding the taleban etc come from?
people can become addicted to many things,gambling,chocs,kebabs,booze……
most have some weakness so perhaps a little understanding might help?
people have taken drugs for thousands of years………there must be a need?
something that drives people? escapism?desperation? or maybe some people just like getting off their nut?
legalize all drugs……..supply them through regulated clean facilities…….
time to grow up and face facts uk……….
most of our stupid laws are derived from the lunatic religious views of people like harry anslinger and have nothing to do with facts or modern day life……..
more people die playing cricket each year than from ecstasy!!!!!!!!!
i dont take anything stronge than lager but if you are 18 then accept responsibilty for any substance you take………..
great post fawkes………..
now the ball is rolling we could repeal all of the 3000 new laws the scotch commie gay mafia people of zero courage have imposed on us……..
I forgot until I googled a few moments ago that food also is regarded, under this government, as an addiction that leads to obesity.
So this government has tried to also make obesity a crime by saying that it is considering taking children into care who become obese – even though sometimes there are medical reasons, clinical conditions, why this happens.
Then I looked at labour, Prezza, gordon (lambasted yesterday in the American Press for being fat), TWatson, EdB, CharlieWh, gorgefookes, jacqui, damian and on and on…………………
So, no living by example then??!!!!
Wonder how many of the above named are familiar with, or have ever been familiar with, recreational chemicals. They didn’t inhale? Oh, well, that’s all right then.
That said, I somehow can’t see Prezza with a spliff. He’d put brown sauce on it and eat it.
Do as I say, not as I do. BHow many times do I have to tell you!
To save money, people caught taking drugs could be shot in the face and then set on fire.
I’d like that job – I hate druggies.
Jim – you are so lacking in compassion – I just think you might be damian or charlie or maybe edb ???
Labour folks are just not thinkers or carers!!
Do what you want JIm………………………I’m stoned!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just as well you dont take drugs, they would make you violent !
What about the war on light bulbs. We MUST change our light bulbs according to the EU on September 1st – all current light bulbs will be illegal – so says the EU, our lords and masters, all fully voted for and democratic, we have no choice cos they are always right mein furher
They’re going to ban candles next, on the grounds that burning wax increases the carbon dioxide levels in the air.
There will, however, be special dispensation for EU Commisioners’ dinner parties.
They’ve banned kids playing with conkers because of health and safety.
I’ve never heard anything so ridiculous.
Psssst I have got a large stash of illegal bulbs,that reminds me . . . . DURING the waaa ar…………..
Fuck Treating Junkies on the NHS Give them a nice big cardboard box each alocate them a shop doorway each And go around each morning and feed there habbit for them
As long as they don’t rob me and damage my property and they die young, I’m OK with that.
If only that applied to politicians. Sigh!
Who has done more damage to their health.
Waccy baccy Dave?
Cocaine Osborne?
Pork pie Eric?
Tobacco Ken?
or
Psycho Brown?
Prezza’s not doing too well having become obese – he then became diabetic and he’s doesn’t look at all well these days.
gordon, TWatson, edb, charliewh, damian , giorgi fookes , jacqui, and the rest, – all overweight and looking pretty rough ……………….
Iwish a long and painfull end to all of them c*nts
Who was that bloke in charge of the Liberal democrats who was an alcoholic? Classic reason to criminalise booze
Anonymous, If you want to be like that, then JJ Thorpe, star of the Private Eye cover “Buggers Can’t Be losers” might be seen in the same way with regard to homosexual activity, but we mustn’t go there because that would be breaching rights not to be discriminated against because of sexual orientation.
In spite of the fact the stuff is produced there, there are not too many junkies in Afghanistan. Maybe the Taliban are not all bad, after all!
Don’t talk crap.
Afghanistan and Iran are full of junkies.
our govt are high on cock most of the time……..
too busy too do anything else.
I’m utterly bamboozled by the drugs debate. I’ve never taken any, and don’t know why anybody would want to, but then I’ve never experienced the worst of inner-city deprivation or rural poverty and exclusion (yes – drugs are a problem in the countryside as well as the towns). That makes it very easy to adopt a smug, self-satisfied preachiness that doesn’t add constructively to the debate.
My understanding of social history isn’t complete, but I think drug-taking was legal in Victorian times. The middle classes used Laudanum, the dregs of society used heroin, and the social consequences where such that eventually, both were criminalised. So far as I know, drugs were not a real problem in the first half of the last century, and certainly there would havee been a lack of supply in the 1940′s. They started to become fashionable in the 1960′s, and it’s got steadily worse ever since. I can’t recall them ever being offered when I was at university in the early 1980′s, but that may just have been my naivety at the time.
I can see Guido’s points that some problems would be alleviated if some drug use was legalised, and there is a case for the medical use of, for example, cannabis in some circumstances. However, I can’t help feeling that legalisation would bring other problems in it’s wake. History is a great teacher.
What’s the right answer? Damned if I know.
My MP told me that the drink and drug problem in my local town was a social problem. He said we should all “do our bit” to help the addicts, and the people who have to put up with the less pleasant side, like the vomiting in doorways.
I was furious. We have spent 20 years of our lives bringing up our sons up to be decent and well-balanced human beings. Why should we be responsible for other people who are well aware of the dangers of drink and drugs, yet still use them to excess?
I cannot see that legalising drugs would be a good thing for anyone. The only people set to gain from this is government, through taxation.
Moderators:
Please tell me what is wrong with my replies to 213.
Everything I wrote is either fact or is my opinion, which I’ve stated, clearly.
Same trouble here. Tried taking out possible dangerous keywords,but as Mr Ishmael says….
and the 6th, keep going you are on a roll.
I would be if i hadn’t run out of papers.
Ahem the moderators are ,ahemm. . . . well testing the efficiency of workers after a few well ……toots and tokes if u like……all in the name of research…..u understand…..you may experience a delay but your post is important to us………
Wadddya think this is?a democracy?
Sherlock Holmes used cocaine and Conan Doyle was never criticised for it.
Though if I remember correctly, Watson did have misgivings about Holmes’ practice. Perhaps that indicates a debate ongoing in the 1890′s.
If you drink,you use drugs,but like most folks you know how to use it to your advantage. You enjoy the experience,without turning into a wino. It’s people who are unable to handle life,let alone drugs,that is the problem. A handgun sitting on the table is quite harmless. It’s only when a human picks it up that it can become a problem. What university did you go to,to not see any drugs? Any gathering of young people in the eighties were well aware of drugs.
I heard the word “Drugs” said in a Bristol accent, that was enough to put me off
Ban Prohibition.
!
I totally agree with you chronic@226 – prohibition & censorship are the two cardinal sins of government. If we were free to take what we want and say what we want, then there would be a much greater element of personal responsibility within society. The additional benefit would be that 90% of government activity would become redundant (hopefully along with 90% of the government).
Legalise drug use on the Anthrax Island of Gruinard in Scotland.
The Drug Barons could set up scenic drug resorts for wannabe drug users. Licenced drug growing, manufacturing etc. would require a government licence with royalties going to national/local government and taxes to IRS.
Visitors would need to pass a thorough health check (paid for by Gruinard Island local taxes) before being allowed to leave. If they failed the health test they would not be allowed to leave but have to be treated in Gruinard Island Resort Hospitals.
Mortality rate expectation would be high i.e if the drugs did not kill them then the Anthrax would. This would require a health warning on all promotional advertising for the resorts (Health and Safety).
There could also be a thriving cremation business with CO2 emmissions being sequestrated making it a “green” industry.
Complete freedom of choice for both drug pusher and user.
National Government, drug dealers and users would be happy………er?
Very enterprising idea. Actually, I know the island and was looking for employment in a few months, so keep me posted.
Brown must be thicker than previously thought, what the fuck did he think would happen when the bomber geezer landed in the desert?
Arabs are culturally different to the Scottish, I suspect his welcome was actually quite toned down to what it could have been, I didn’t see weapons been waved or flags burnt, maybe afternoon tea with Grandma Broon, with scones and no farting would be more to Brown’s liking
If you still want to control the bloke shouldn’t of let him go
as far as being angry and repulsed, not half as much as the average Englishman felt seeing Brown’s become dictator of England
An eminent doctor on Radio 4 this afternoon said that alcohol and tobacco were more serious drugs than all the others. People are very hypocritical about this stance, and will defend drink and fags up to the hilt.
Id Like To Know What Drugs The Labour Party are on ,There All Off There Fucking Heads !
Power.
And money. And sex. No wonder the tories are so keen to get in the saddle.
Cant See Thet McMental Is Addicted To Sex
I’m on an Ego trip.
Don’t blotter your copybook.
Do you take crack?
I think Ange does.
We’ve got more criminal law and CCTV cameras than you could shake a stick at, so I’d go easy on other nations on the police state issue. Our streets on a Saturday night already resemble a cross between a war zone and a brothel, with A&E being used as some sort of fucking creche for blooded, alcohol addled morons, and we know how fucking costly child care and medical expenses can be.
Yeah, lets just add to the misery shall we?
Drugs,alcohol,sex,corruption,greed,ego,fame. A decadent civilisation will go through the hedonistic card,as the dawning realisation that it’s all over sinks in. Eat ,drink and be merry,for tomorrow you’re history.
Yes, I fear you are right.
you want drugs allowed when you see thugs on cheap alcohol , name the thugs then shame them
Joey Barton——–Has got a little dick
Steven Gerard————Prefers to listen to Gary Glitter CDs
Yes: not decrimalise: legalise:
provided that we can have an easy test like the breathaliser for alcohol, for drivers, firemen, police, airline pilots, construction workers etc, etc, in fact all at work when on duty or on the roads.
O/T Another one of our boys has died ! more blood on Lie-Bore hands !
No,
Blood is on the talibans hands, the death should on Zanu-Labs conscience for not providing troops with the kit they need.
You can give them the new Man U away kit,but it’s not going to stop them getting killed. Get the fuck out of someone elses land. Who the fuck are we to try an impose our model of “democracy”. As much as i respect our Armed Service personels courage and professionalism,if you’re in the wrong war, don’t be surprised if you finish up in a dead end.
Our form of Democracy! Corrupt politicians Lying Cheating ! Stealing Off Their Own People The Taleban Must read Our News Papers And Think FUCK THAT !
It isn’t the Taliban’s land either. The taliban is a form of arab imperialism funded mainly by saudis.
I couldn’t give a fuck who they are. Let them get on with chopping heads off,raping their wives or getting zonked on opium. Britain should get on with upholding our proud tradition of fiddling expenses,shagging employees,robbing the citizens,criminalising all opponents,recruiting cannon fodder,sub contracting waterboarding corruption,and all the while maintaining a holier than thou expression. That’s Fundamentalism.
I’ve made 4 posts,every one awaiting moderation! What the fuck is this? The new nanny state blogosphere?
Look on the bright side your 5th one got posted.
About the same level of success as getting past BBC censorship.
Gordon Brown to be released from Office on Compassionate Grounds !
http://www.snptacticalvoting.com/2009/08/brown-to-be-released-on-compassionate.html
We’ve got more criminal law and cctv cameras than you could shake a stick at, so I’d go easy on other nations on the police state issue. Our streets on a Saturday night already resemble a cross between a war zone and a brothel, with hospitals being used as some sort of fucking creche for blooded, alcohol addled morons, and we know how fucking costly child care and medical expenses can be.
Yeah, lets just add to the misery shall we?
I have lived the past 26 years in East Baltimore, as my handle suggests. (Fells Point is just east of downtown, and the original port of Baltimore). I can attest to the fact that the TV show “The Wire” is just about as real as it gets. Not to say that Baltimore is not a great city, and downtown is as safe as can be – I’d let my mother and daughter walk thru Harborplace any night.
West and South-west Baltimore, and some parts in East, are pretty bad. Don’t go out to North Avenue anytime, and stay away from Edmonton Ave.
Drugs feature, but only in the “wrong” places, and you gotta go looking. The program is a factual representation of life during the past 20 years. Much safer now, thanks to successive mayors who moved on to be State Governor.
How do I know about this? I worked closely with the cops on security issues not unrelated to the drugs industry (theft being the main source of drug money for punters). When the cops cleared the streets and confined the area, it worked for a while on reducing killings. Next step should have been the city (or state) selling the drugs cheap to ‘licensed’ addicts, taking the trade away from the drug-lords, and working on the addiction problem. Unfortunately, there was a huge vested financial interest in the political hierarchy, so the whole idea died. Who was going to provide the money to run for political office – it had ALWAYS come from drug crime. To this day, it is still in a holding pattern, just waiting for the right person to restart the whole clean-up process.
Canada is bad, Vancouvers ‘China Town’ was one of the worse scenes i’ve ever seen in my entire life. I tried to visit the gardens and save abit of money by walking through that part of town.
the place was chaos, like an African refugee camp without the Africans, just druggies literally hundreds of people with little to no clothing just lying out and about on the streets, strung out or sunbathing or lining up into shops with bags and bags of tin cans and stuff.
you couldn’t walk down a back alley with disgusting skeleton whores propositioning you or asking for change or having sex with people in broad daylight.
couldn’t walk down a street without someone trying to sell you dope or smack or asking for change.
the looks we where getting as well would of aged any normal person by 10 years with nervous stress hoping we wouldn’t be mugged.
as soon as we heard gun shots!! i mean guns in Canada what the hell!! and everyone including us that was it we where gone, hopped in the first cab back to the hotel and never ventured outside the mainstream tourist area of Vancouver for the rest of the holiday.
never again i do not recommend venturing out of the ‘safe zones’ to anyone.
Look its very simple…..if you want to get rid of heroin trafficking then take the money out of drugs….
1. Buy all the opium produced direct form the growers for medical use.
2. Open centers where registered addicts go to be administered with as much heroin as they need for free (It is cheaper than policing drugs) so they do not need to fund their habits with crime. The knock on effects of this will be drug dealers will only have first time users who then go to the clinics when they are hooked making the whole business less profitable and not worth the risk…..so the dealers will leave.
3. That’s all it will take…….end of problem.
thats a good idea but , the dealers are always one step ahead they dont need any admin cost so it will never be cheaper of the state
Will they leave? Or will they tell their “customers” they have better stuff?
The latter, I suspect.
no because they dont have to pay admin staff or fill in paperwork it will be cheaper
Rule 1 economics.
Demand expands supply.
And supply is dictated by availability and profit margins for suppliers.
I can see it now,every smack-head in the world will be on easijet or ryanair to get free health care, housing benefit,council tax benefit,free school meals,assisted entry to uni,assisted entry to work in public sector and now free smack.
OR is that British smack for British junkies can you all not see that the a branding excercise has been run for the last five years t soften up public opinion on this.
Go to the multan region of Pakistan where the heroin begins its journey to the tower blocks of Europe,heroin is not illegal,it is very cheap,it is very pure,have a look at the thousands of addicts here and tell me from your comfortable home we could do it better.
That’s where buying from the producers comes in………removing the potential for first time users by preventing it getting into the hands of dealers to prevent it coming to the housing blocks in Europe.
And your absolutly correct it would need to be an international coordinated effort to prevent the UK becoming the smack head hub of the world…..
Such a scheme has been tried in various places for short periods and localized drug related crime fell by over 90% in most test cases.
All admin costs pale into insignificance compared to the costs of policing, the reduction in household insurance etc……..
Heroin when bought in bulk by the state from the producers will remove the average drug dealer from the equation 10 steps before he enters the food chain.
….and you don’t think these people will sell harder stuff at an over-inflated price?
Replicate the idea for what ever drug they wish to push……….
guido and all this is a good idea in theory but , it wont work , if the state allowed it sold in shops that would need regulation ( cost money ) the dealers wont have that so will be able to undercut the price and if you wanted to buy some gear why go to a shop with cctv when you can have someone drop it off to you ? would you pay £ 50 a onuce of the state or £40 of someone you know ?
£40 for Cocaine + Glucose + Speed + any other white powder close at hand from dealer
or
£50 for pure Cocaine.
any dealer that sells shit gets comeback not good for buissness
Can you imagine the law suit some smart arsed Lawyer wud launch when someone died as a result of being a Legal Drug ?
and who would foot the bill ?
Yes Benson and Hedges get sued every day by lung cancer victims.
with brown in power with the mendacious mandelbum as his partner in crime i think the uk must be putting heroin in the water!!!!!!
why else would we put up with these two hooons? ( and the other 640 odd)
Most Drugs were legal in this country till we caved in to US pressure in 1971. I’m old enough to remember buying over-the-counter cough medicine containing opium and cocaine. Good stuff!
The streets weren’t full of drug-crazed criminals, and legalising stuff again would actually reduce crime.
What were those Leeds fans on?
drugs have been legalized in Portugal………
and it is working………time to stop the ya boo sucks media and politicians talking shite-
In the face of a growing number of deaths and cases of HIV linked to drug abuse, the Portuguese government in 2001 tried a new tack to get a handle on the problem—it decriminalized the use and possession of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other illicit street drugs. The theory: focusing on treatment and prevention instead of jailing users would decrease the number of deaths and infections.
Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006, according to a report released recently by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C, libertarian think tank.
Most of their smackheads moved to London,I have six Portugese colleagues at work all users and three of them are parents
Dont mind smackheads but them parents are the scum of the earth.
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.
[i] Philip Larkin [/i]
Drugs have been decriminalised in Portugal. There is a difference.
you lot love the market ? well there is another market the black market you can get whatever you want cheaper , drugs, fags ( not mandy ), booze , maybe the penny will drop one day , we dont need a goverment telling us what is good and what is bad
no matter what tax you put on things you can always get in cheaper somewhere else , so no tax then and you save some money
guido your artilce is great in theory but wont work in the real world people still get cheap fags ( not mandy ) and booze and they are legal
Next time you go to the market see if you can sort me some light bulbs.
will be cheap no vat
How About Tax disc’s Mot Cert’s ,insurance docks ,passports, driving licenses etc ive seen all these for sale and no doubt immigration papers ! Britain is great under labour !
The reality is that you can set up a criminal enterprise on this scale,and be raking in vast profits very quickly. If you get caught,what is the sentance you could expect? 5 years max. out in half. And a nice pension secured overseas. It’s like winning the lottery,but with better odds.
I can see the logic of legalising drug use.
But can anyone imagine a world where they take their kid on their 16th birthday to Boots so they can buy there first Speed Ball and then you both sit around the lounge getting shit faced all day?
Its not a world i’d want to live in.
The only difference between your scenario and now is you dont have to go to Boots.
A 16 year old would probably want to spend the evening getting shitfaced with his mates,not his dad.
my friend took his son to amsterdam for his 16th.we sat in a bar, i had a few beers,they had an orange juice and a joint.everyone had a nice time!!!!
Then while his dad shagged a tom, he read the next Harry Potter chapter.
What a sad Hunt !This Is Your future Son !
And when he grows into a man with all the attendant unfullfilled dreams,he can satisfy his perverted lusts in trawling sad blogs,posting distant recollections of how he would change the world.
Or he could “just say no” go to university, become a doctor and he can satisfy his perverted lusts in trawling sad blogs,posting distant recollections of how he would change the world.
Or he could become a doctor and satisfy his perverted lusts in bumping off old croakers.
Old Street. Yes, you’re right. That’s what would happen. Just as you describe it. Every single 16 year old. Every last one.
Just as when the age of consent was lowered to 16 every single boy was gang raped by 45 year old leather boys on their 16th birthday.
Just like Richard Littlecock said they would.
he is actually going to uni……..
all his mates smoke.wake up.they all do……..
ffs!
just like i used to go to the pub every friday when i was 14!!!!!
we all did!!!!!!!!
accept the situation……..people are going to do what they want……
the kid is 6 feet 5in.!!!!!!
hurry up and ban tobacco you thick shits so me n the boys can become rich over night.
I hope your Tax returns are up to date.
this is why there is such a gap between westminster and the real world , if they want to control drugs they will have to chip us all and monitor us , make us show id on demand
the dealers are and will be one step ahead
either you treat all drugs like tea bags or you keep them banned , if you regulate them that will mean they are cheaper off a dealer than the shop or state
1 box of THC Tips please.
you get a free monkey with them this week
£500, in that case I will have 2 boxes.
the monkey comes in two colours , one of each ?
claret and blue.
Fuck me. Are you lot still at it?
The BBC are in the firing line as well and this is only to do with Shisha:-
http://www.pr-inside.com/bbc-accused-of-gross-exaggeration-in-shisha-worse-than-cigarettes-story-r1453218.htm
BBC work experience wanker cuts and pastes any old press release shoka!!!!
I’d like to decriminalise Mrs Gobshite. She stopped me from “growing my own” years ago.
By the same logic we should decriminalise murder. No amount of hangings, electric chairs or life sentences seem to have stopped people killing each other.
So let’s decriminalise murder and then police can concentrate on other matters. Like parking on double yellow lines and speeding f’rinstance.
Scotland just has.
So have we.
Is that what stops you murdering someone? You’re about to stab someone up proper and then you think, “No Phil, remember the trouble you got into last time”.
The real issue is the availablity of easy money in the deregulated banking sector. Thus the fault lies with Mrs Thatcher.
It also started in America.
not true , its down to self control
has dave ( if he took coke ) stole for his habit ? dont think so
has the smackhead whore who sells her body out of control ? yes
its the same with booze
Dave claims his on exes.
I totally agree with Guido’s analysis – and the reason the authorities don’t want this? There are too many vested interests in keeping the drug trafficking alive. Jobs depend on it!
Just think about the human cost of decriminalisation. Just sit and think about the poor old plods who wouldn’t be able to get their face in the news with another dawn raid. Just think about the poor middle management pigs whose career stalled a few years back. You’re taking away one of their few pleasures in life. What will they do if they can’t appear in front of a press conference telling hacks that with this operation they have captured drugs with a street value of a million billion trillion pounds. What is he going to do, eh? No more pretending to be in the Sweeny for them.
What about the bobby on the beat. What is he going to plant on dark skinned types now? Have you tried planting a gun in someone’s jacket without them noticing? Even the simple, homespun stop and search of some Asian youths will be fraught with problems as they desperately think of some other reason to harass them.
Customs officers. What are they going to do now? Did you even think aboput them before you started this liberal legalisation crap? Now they are going to have to find a real boyfriend who will let them do things after lights out.
Just think about the poor sniffer dogs in the kennels looking for another home. They’re the true victims of legalisation.
Why not give all those arseholes at the west ham/millwall game who went on a trip a large dose of lead poisoning?
A dose of heavy metal would just make them more angry.
A .45 always soothes a savage breast
I agree with most of what Guido says above. The exception is towards the end, where he says that the end of prohibition undermined the Mafia. It didn’t: they turned to other areas of crime. Prohibition gave organised crime a grip on America that has never been broken. I’m afraid it would be the same with ex drug traffickers. The only consolation might be that in their new guise they might be less frightening.
” they turned to other areas of crime ” yes prohibited drugs.
The mafia turned from bootleg liquor to drugs. Drugs,loan sharking,politics,prostitution,gambling,assassinations,accountancy,law,the stock market. The possibilitys are endless. Its the old story of supply and demand. You want it? I’ve got it,and a lot cheaper than getting ripped off by those government crooks.
Yep, think of the state as a mafia and the world makes alot more sense.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6809976.ece
As a steam powered brtish car breaks a long standing world record , we find a presbyterian powered PM hardly breaking wind , indeed it seems no sooner does he appear infront of cameras then he is off again , it could be a record.
The USA is claiming middle east peace deal is on and simultainiously re appoints Ben bernake but keeps quiet about the future $8 trillion dollar debt which turns out to be $26k per man woman and child . Normal american crapping it over debt (quite rightly) yet no mentions of the Uk figure is $40k start factoring in off balance sheet such as PFI and public sector pensions, and ben bernakes got it easy .
As Charles Bean introduces some ecnomic terminology (the great credit panic) he perhaps right that the wreckless greedy instabilities brought about by corporatists and NWO nutters mean that new disciplines will have to be inbuilt into capitalist structures , banking will have to be more defined and more accountable . look forward to charles ideas showing up who brokered the frauds and explaining what long term sobriety looks like .
The ruins press briefing today had to be handled by Tessa Jowell , and kirsty seemed to understand scotish mood well , however this not having a view business starts the ruins return , with another running off and then disappearing episode , which as kevin mcguire pointed out is not what labour Mps wanted to see to save there asses . This tension of him not listening to his advice on calling an early election , will perhaps be one of those classical political studies , the longer you delay the more progress the opposition can make into winning there argument with your core vote ,where a downturn is wholly the goverments fault .
new mortages up by 77% , might not be so good if most of them are not long term fixed rates , inflation outlook is as yet unclear although QE seems to have helped medium term .
bob dylan may become the new voice of sat nav , just remember drug taking in the 60s wasnt a preicse science , when your stuck on a bridle way on the moors !!
Man! Your dealer has some serious shit. Got his number?
D rugs are dangerous. That’s a large part of the attraction. People do all sorts of things that are dangerous,but exciting. D rugs are instant excitement without having to go to the effort of climbing a mountain,or sailing an ocean. Like TV,they are a synthetic answer to our instant gratification society. Anybody who has experienced an LSD trip will know that while it was a truly mind altering journey,not always pleasureable,nobody in their right mind would encourage others to try it,least of all a naive,inexperienced young person.
Because stranger things have happened.
Of course, if drugs were legalised, I would be able to cook-up some new pharmaceuticals for you.
[...] points out that parts of Britain are worse than Baltimore, which is where The Wire is set. And Guido does something that politicians of both parties seem reluctant to do – actually offer a soluti…. And his idea – decriminalising drugs – would actually do a great deal to make our streets less [...]
decriminalize drug taking, what ever next decriminalizing expenses fraud by politicians?
You read it here first, folks.
addicts don’t belong in the healthcare system either. I suggest you read junk medicine by theodore dalrymple.
OT, re Megrahi, looks like Christine Grahame MSP who has the whole story on the CIA, FBI, the Iranian aircraft and who the real bomber were and are and where they are now might spill the beans under Scottish parliamentary privilege.
We all watch “Spooks” and tales of double agents, this is going to be a doozy.
Let’s see who calls for an enquiry and who buries their heads wishing that the whole thing went away.
Milliband may be called for evidence, previous pollies from the 90′s, even Gadaffi. Certainly prosecutor Mueller may regret being so anti scottish as the whole thing is about to get disctinctly anti-corruption, read anti-american.
Brown now knows that the truth will come out, he cannot win, but this is not just a Labour cover up.
Rubbish, ANYBODY caught with any substance stronger than alcohol or tobacco should be executed on the spot without trial. The police should have special execution vans patroling the streets, one final injection, problem solved.
Do you worship the Zanu Lab deity KRATOS?
What you’re saying makes Jacqui Manybellies sound like Pamela des Barres.
Excellent idea. If executions are too strong for the pro-drug wanking posters then I suggest that all druggies be forced to OD. That should solve the problem – and rid us of the Cameroons, Beeboids and the London metropolitan elite. Taking drugs may be great for the middle classes, but try living on a drug-taking council estate.
Well said, anon!
Full weight, 32-ply ignorance. What would you all do when a representative of the presumably brown-shirted dispensers of summary ‘policy’ arrived at your door in the middle of the night and invited you to accompany them to identify the mortal remains of somebody dear to you or somebody you know – because a number in their mobile telephone came back to your address? Would your Roehmian bluster help in that situation – or would you be demanding the names of the detail who offed young Fiona on her 21st when she was having a super time as the pics on her memory card testify? Who would be there to listen to your port addled protests?
I don’t understand a word of this. Please write English.
I suspect there are many things which surpass your and others on this thread’s understanding. Thought and contemplation sometimes helps.
Ich stehe, wie immer, zu Befehl.
JCDM. I have a vague sympathy for you, cos yu ain’t been tuaht to spake egnilsh. Come back when you can.
Apols. JCDM. Sounds like you had a really traumatic experience, and much sympathy from me. Not sure how it’s relevant to the thread though?
Because summary execution is a serious matter. It is a sanction which should be reserved for despots and those committing malfeasance in public office.
In the light of New Labour’s record on state homicide, I had thought the majority here would be opposed, yet all you anonymous c’unts are slavvering for it to be introduced to deal with a matter of which you clearly have scant experience or understanding.
erm, it’s called trolling? you utter fucking cripple?
there can be only one top boy.
Well, that would wipe out half of Parliament, so good start!
Brill idea, Guido. But why stop at chemical life-enhancers?
Who needs liberty? Let’s have licence, bread and circuses.
There is no such thing as society, after all.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law!
And Devil take the hindmost before the uplifted jackboot.
most people I know who like their drugs are “wankers” as in “nice enough bloke, but a bit of a wanker” – sort of sums up Cameron
Sure, legitimize it, tax it, regulate it.
NuLabour did the same with the IRA, they legalised and legitimized terrorism. Milliband recebntly endorsed it himself. Hey WTF, legalise everything, crime, rape murder, theft – EVERYTHING, then the govt won’t need to worry about paying for policing, prisons or meeting any targets except on paper wiping out crime in one stroke – and could impose heavy taxation on the sale of guns and ammunition. Win-Win, doubles all round in the taxpayer subsidized HoC Bar!!
Oooohh lets all take drugs wow thats exciting.
Alternative reality way out man.
Yawn.
Anyone fancy doing something more challenging like growing up ?
Agree entirely, but at the moment the tedious twats at least think they have a thin veneer of edgy excitement because they are so totally sticking it to The Man.
At least if it were all legal they’d be thought of as the pub bores they are.
This gives the argument from a US point of view:
http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php?name=Content&pid=28
The experienced US lawmen in favour of decriminalisation.
Well worth watching the video.
To my mind Guido is on the right track, in as much that the wider issue is the insidious restrictions and nannyisim that erodes personal freedoms in the first place.
Light up a ciggy get a bit pissed that’s ok as its massively taxed, snorting and shooting up isn’t, or even downloading the odd CD track you shouldn’t.
The most amusing aspect is that people think government can solve their problems when it is blatantly obvious that government doctrine is the root of the problem rather than the solution.
Throw in a few bent MP’s (well a lot actually) squealing media, never had a proper job journo’s the odd hairy shirt in fact all those generally on the make via the public purse and you can begin to see why so many fall by the wayside sickened by the general scramble to make enough to pay these parasites to prop up a crumbling system that treats people like cattle.
Moooooooooooooooooooooo!
The economy would crash if we legalise drugs outside Westminster. The prols. would be too stoned to wake up for work.
(Oh shit, I’ve been told the economy’s already crashed. Oh well, line another one up, Gieves…)
Guido, for once we disagree. I’m with Floating Voter on this. If you want to see what a “free trial period” of decrimiminalising drugs looks like to see if it would work, then just walk through any run down city suberb (perm any one from ten thousand) and you’ll get the picture.
In these areas, drugs are effectively legal, coz they are no go areas for police and justice. They are hell-holes of avarice, protitution, murder and…drugs. Drug sales fuelling the aforementioned.
Legalising drugs in this country (or any country) would turn the whole land into a cess-pit.
Its bad enough already. We need to look and act a bit more like Singapore. Rant over!
Can we legalise murder and rape as well then please?
This would of course free up the police to deal with hate crimes etc…
you are peter sutcliffe and I claim my £5.
Got a number of 4 star nutters commenting here, executing junkies drug dealers what problem is that going to solve?. Drugs don’t do much harm (rock climbing is much more dangerous)its the illegality that causes crime and as it doesn’t directly harm anyone else ingesting anything you choose should be legal. For those duffers who can’t see it this is what distinguishes drug taking from crimes of violence or against property but when the the carpet chewers and mouth foamers have finished extirminating the rest of the rest of the human race they probably still will fail to understand it.
In order to pay for their drugs, users commit crimes. In fact drug crime is the world’s largest business.
The more we control the drugs, the higher their cost and the more the crime needed to pay for them.
There are drug dealers on every street corner. The drug they sell is the world’s most dangerous. It’s legal, but the world hasn’t collapsed because of it.
Tobacconists have shown us the way out of this mess.
world hasn’t collapsed just because the
The following represent the ONS data of the total number of deaths from drug use involving the following drugs in England and Wales from 2000 to 2004 which vary as indicated. The figures are based on the International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision – ICD 9 (from 2001, cause of death is coded to ICD-10) -No differentiation is made as to whether the underlying cause of death was drug dependence, accidental poisoning/overdose, related to the drug use or whether one or more drug was implicated – resulting possibly in some double-counting.
Table 1 Drug-related deaths in England and Wales 2000 to 2004[4]
Cocaine 575
Amphetamine 384
Ecstasy 227
Solvents 246[3]
Opiates (heroin, morphine & methadone) 4,976
Alcohol 25,000 – 200,000 approx.
Tobacco half a million approx (UK – [1]
Table 2
Number of deaths England and Wales in 2003 and 2004 (substance is mentioned on the death certificate) [4]
2003 2004
Cocaine 113 147
All Amphetamines 66 83
Ecstasy 33 48
Solvents 42 [3] 45 [3]
Opiates (heroin, morphine & methadone) 766 944
Cannabis 11 16
All deaths 2445 2598
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
now compare these figures to the amount of deaths caused by the nhs and big pharma!!!!!!!!!!!!!
time to grow up people………take responsibility and stop allowing spineless turdburglars like brown and mandy dictating to us …….
Call me Dave’s done loads of coke – we’ll hear all about it when new labour unleashes the proof its been sitting on nearer the next election.
A simple case well put. Anyone who doesn’t get it is a self-deluding cretin.
100% agree with you, Guido.
Don’t do them myself either. But so long as people are informed about the effects, let them take the things freely, and let’s be open about the problems. End the drug hypocrisy.
very much agree guido. such a waste of time and energy signifying nothing. unfortunatly Labour flip floped on their policy, and its highly unlikely an incoming tory government would have amsterdam style canabis cafes high on its priority list.
Quite correct, Guido.
War on drugs = price support system for drug lords (at taxpayers’ expense – of course)
Scrap it now.
Why aren’t the anti drug campaigners up in arms over the the number of deaths from tobacco, (over 300 per day in the UK), or alcohol, (over 60 per day in the UK). Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
So long as we create an island for all the drugged-up lung-cancered binge-drinking chubbers to talk tedious shite/cough their guts up/vomit as they swing off-target punches/waddle around with their cottage-cheesey muffins hanging out… I’m all for it.
make “money” illegal- it is by far the biggest killer. we all have no choice but to be addicted to it.
I’ve posted this sort of thing before here but I feel it’s a point worth making (So sorry)
I’ve seen the damage that drugs can cause, the misery the heart ache. Broken bones and broken homes, it’s all true, and you know what: Alcohol is every bit as bad as the illegal drugs. Sorry guys, but it’s true.
I see a lot of talk about the misery that drugs CAN bring (Remember, you only see the bad cases that are good ‘news’) The problem you get is that the illegality makes them that little extra ‘scummy’ but to say all drug users are are crime insane addicts is like saying everyone of you enjoying a glass of wine after work tonight is like one of the special brew drinkers on your near by park benches.
It’s tempting to want to ban things that cause harm, god I know as much as anyone, I’m tempted to say that about alcohol! But it would be wrong as people need to be free to live their lives. I don’t believe in punishing the many for the crimes of a few.
Need one say any more ???
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209187/Deaths-cocaine-overdoses-soar-number-drug-users-shoot-up.html
If drugs were decriminalised – what tosh what utter crap from a former crap head.
Decriminalise drugs and see loads of people driving round high killing people. getting ill dying adding to insurance and NHS costs.
Cigs and booze are bad enough there are enough psychotic sociopaths people walking the streets as it is. Are we to say that we should benefit via tax from the use of heroin? You sound off about morals and ‘troughers’ Mr Fawkes but you are just plain full of shit.
But hey Mr Fawkes you are proud to come from the land of the bogs – is it you want to see us no better than head hunters from the rain forest?
Is this what society must come to? We are no nbetter than savages?
The Wire – its a polemic a political statement by its creator.
Guido accurately states:
“If things had gone slightly differently for David Cameron instead of being on the verge of becoming PM, he could be yet another former public school boy who ended up squandering his privileges and doing jail time for possession of cannabis and cocaine. The current President of America could just be another black ex-con from a broken home.”
Besides using the photo of the Release London bus campaign. the deck of cards we recently published illustrates the above point perfectly – check it out at:
http://www.release.org.uk/nicepeopletakedrugs/deck-of-cards/
If bloggers cant have a sensible debate about Drug Policy – how on earth do you think the politicians will!
Some of the comments on this blog are ridiculous – extreme!
Legalisation may not be the answer….but the current system is ineffective!
You have young teenagers trying cannabis being criminalised, which is likely to affect their future career paths. The school’s where we send our children – to not only obtain a decent standard of education but also to develop them into well-rounded individuals are reporting these children to the police.
If teachers cannot teach our children the vital lessons about the potential health harms associated with some drugs, but instead report them to the police and thereby disenfranchising them with a single phone call – what hope do our young people have for the future?
Too many teachers are on power trips – and like to show children that they are the boss! I understand that they have a duty to protect other children from pushers etc – but surely the kid who is caught with cannabis is more vulnerable and thus needs greater support.
Talk about kicking someone when they’re down!
All the people on this blog who argue for drug users to be killed……I know that you have a friend/family member (who you like) that misusers drugs!
Whether its your pal from school who smokes a joint or your mother who is addicted to prescription meds that she obtains legally from her GP!
It is sad that the above will not realise this until their child/nephew/niece etc is caught with cannabis/coke or an E.
Thank you Guido. I have been an addict for 29 years. I first became an addict at 14 years old, when I was far too young to know better, and I am sick of being demonised. My mental illnesses (genetically inherited and not caused by drugs) mean I can’t leave the house so although I have asked for treatment many many times I have been told I can’t be treated at home due to budgetry restrictions (and, believe it or not, health and safety). The freeing of the massive amounts of money spent on the so-called war on drugs would make treatment for people like me possible.
Anyway, what one does with ones own body is a matter of freedom and personal choice.