gazzthompson Posted January 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 I suppose you could use the example of the decrease in racketeering following the repeal of prohibition in the states. Long time ago I know, but same principle. Still feels like caving in though...... No need, use Portugal and Holland as modern day examples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catweazle Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 We live and learn...anyone got change of a quid? You off for a bit of self employment ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR1960 Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 No need, use Portugal and Holland as modern day examples. yes, but they haven't had long term results yet, and what worries me about using the usa example is of course they all simply transfered to the illegal drugs market etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) I thnk you are missing one vital element. There are legal drugs and illegal drugs. The government makes the call. And, Branson may be successful, but look at the help he gets. Northern Rock springs to mind. Yes there are legal and illegal drugs... which is decided by the government. Are you saying someone who goes to work every day, doesn't steal or rob people's houses but then every night goes and gets plastered, is that ok ? But some one who is exactly the same but instead does for example goes home and smokes some Cannabis. You think the latter person deserves to go to Prison, because someone in Parliament says the first is fine but the other one is a big crime I can think of far worse people in society than people who do some drugs socially. I DO NOT think they should just start handing out drugs to anyone that asks, but imagine all the money the users spend on it, MILLIONS every year, that is going to be spent either way that ends up in the pockets of dealers. Rather it ended up going into the NHS... might actually make a profit Edited January 25, 2012 by Bigthug87 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperfection Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Legalising drugs wont make it go away-it will just go further underground.Tobacco is legal and taxed,but i bet almost everyone on here knows someone of someone who can get them cheap baccy.Same goes with alcohol.Drug taking has a big knock on effect like costing the NHS millions,insurance companies and then us policy holders millions (from skanks who thieve to fund their habit) etc etc. Before Branson comes up with another hairbrained scheme he ought to go live in a skanky neighbourhood where drugs are rife and he might have a rethink.Stiffer penalties for those who cultivate,import,use,distribute,sell is the way forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazzthompson Posted January 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) Legalising drugs wont make it go away-it will just go further underground. What? What is this based on? this makes no sense and real world examples (Portugal, Holland, US Alcohol prohibition) Show the complete opposite. Tobacco is legal and taxed,but i bet almost everyone on here knows someone of someone who can get them cheap baccy.Same goes with alcohol. Really? im only 21, but still, have NEVER heard of some "underground" method of getting drink/Tobacco. Everyone i know uses tescos! .Drug taking has a big knock on effect like costing the NHS millions,insurance companies and then us policy holders millions (from skanks who thieve to fund their habit) etc etc. Completely true, Completely caused by prohibition. You want to decrease use and cost on NHS? Want to decrease drug related crime? the ONLY method shown to do this is de-criminalization . Stiffer penalties for those who cultivate,import,use,distribute,sell is the way forward. Because that works doesn't it? (See: US massive failure of a drug "war") Edited January 25, 2012 by gazzthompson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 And the observed decrease in usage, Crime related to drugs, saving millions fighting a massively failed "war", taking the money form street dealers etc etc Not at all. Societies evolve and change , normally for the better. Law should as well, How many laws have been changed/repealed in the last 100 years? Going to the extremes in an attempt to prove a point fails. Especially in this case. you're right, we need to reduce usage , free up police, and reduce crime .... wait.. sound familiar? decriminalisation has shown to do all of these. Prohibition has shown to make all of these. Everything you complain about is BECAUSE of our current process, BECAUSE of Prohibition and has been shown to be decreased by the very thing you don't want.. No. The reason the current system doesn't work is because in reality, not what politicians and senior police officers want you to believe, but in reality there is no deterrent. They have effectively de-criminalised it by introducing drugs rehabilitation programs and offender management units that have been such a failure that you are advocating dropping the pretence of punishment and giving them even more soft options. We have effectively already got the system that you believe is the answer. Don't tell me that punishment doesn't work for drugs offences until we actually punish drug users and dealers. As for using extremes to prove the point - they actually do prove it. Just because we cannot deal with a problem should not mean that the answer is to decriminalise it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperfection Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Really? im only 21, but still, have NEVER heard of some "underground" method of getting drink/Tobacco. Everyone i know uses tescos! Then you must be in the minority.I know of several people who activley sell baccy and fags which is usually either smuggled in or immitation so you could be smoking floor sweepings. Have you ever been to Holland? I have,several times infact.Coke,heroin and crack is sold on the streets despite cannabis being decriminlised.People will always want to open pandoras box. Yep,stiffer penalties starting at the bottom of the chain.None of these warnings for being in possesion-just get them into court and give em' a nice criminal record plus a good fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) The deterrent method isn't working because there is no deterrent. Any offenders coming into the system with drug related issues is put on drug rehabilitation programs - basically anything to keep them out of prison. They are a joke and the system is played by the addicts. They turn up late or not at all and nothing is done about it. They are put on expensive drug substitutes only to come off and go back on drugs thus starting the whole costly cycle time and time again. We don't imprison drug addicts any more. The cost of keeping these addicts inside prison should cost no more than the cost of their benefits (including all the Mobility cars and sickness enhancements), drug counsellors, drugs testing procedures AND we wouldn't have them on our street, in our hospitals and all the other places where decent people now fear to go. It also means that their crimes are reduced significantly. Get Beardy a council flat on a typical estate and see whether he still thinks they aren't criminals. The biggest problem with drug abuse isn't the drugs or the users but the Cartels, Dealers and the entire supply chain... They are the ones who cause missery, perpetuate crime, violence, gang culture too to a large degree.. Most of the one Trillion pounds spent to date trying to police and 'fix' the drug problem has been spent on trying to police and shut down the supply chain, not on helping the users... legalise the stuff and you will close most of the supply chain overnight... there are tax revenues to be had and the health bill cost to society will be little different to what it is today. Remember, heroine is just a diamorphine derivitave, it is produced and exists in our medical system, doesn't cost much to produce and can be supplied in vast quantities if necessary... it is the underground drug trade that keeps the street price high.. As far as I'm concerned, legalise, tax & treat... far better than the complete waste of money and resources that is thrown at the problem today.. Remember, this isn't getting 'soft' on the problem.... this is getting 'sensible' on the problem and in the process probably removing much of it in the process. An example is smoking... at the moment ciggies are legal, there is a small (in relative terms) black market because of the high price but other than that, little organised crime or criminal activity related to or perpetuated by tobacco supply. Also, slowly but surely, smoking is losing it's appeal and it's use will probably all but disappear over the next few decades. Now... criminalize it's use and supply and all of a sudden, you would have a supply chain just like the class A drugs have today with money laundering, gangs, cartells and a whole range of other not nice activities all sprouting up.... Remember also that a gret deal of 'users' did not start 'using' by choice... dealers are very good at pursuading future clients (including impressionable school kids) to 'give it a go'and thus guaranteeing they will become future users! Legalise and a lot of potential users will not become users in the first place! Prohibition does not work, on pretty much anything... even guns! Edited January 25, 2012 by Vipa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Addicts will just become thieves, burgulars and muggers to buy something that is legal. Therefore not solving crime. I tend to agree with this, it chimes with the fact that many people on these £26,000 benefits we've been hearing about have never and will never do a days work in their lives. This is a very interesting thread, so far, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazzthompson Posted January 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) More punishment ? Look at the US, MASSIVE failure. Look at the UK before this "effectively de-criminalised" , MASSIVE failure. Senior police officers? well heres ones view: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/legalise-all-drugs-chief-constable-demands-end-to-immoral-laws-396884.html As for using extremes to prove the point - they actually do prove it. Just because we cannot deal with a problem should not mean that the answer is to decriminalise it. No. Comparing legalization of drugs (With a proven positive result) to Terrorism and paedophilia is like comparing the legalization of pistols to anti tank weapons or flame throwers. Its stupid and makes no sense. Addicts will just become thieves, burgulars and muggers to buy something that is legal. Therefore not solving crime. decriminalization has been shown to lower usage and the resulting crime. It seems the people who are against decriminalization want the exact results decriminalization has been shown to provide, out of a failed method (prohibition)? Edit: Very well said Vipa , completely agree. Edited January 25, 2012 by gazzthompson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 The biggest problem with drug abuse isn't the drugs or the users but the Cartels, Dealers and the entire supply chain... They are the ones who cause missery, perpetuate crime, violence, gang culture too to a large degree.. No. For most ordinary decent folk the problem is with the druggies themselves. Most people never come into contact with the dealers other than the dodgy bloke down the street who sells a bit from the door every evening. All the gang wars that you hear about tend to be self focussed - i.e. targeting other dealers, not the ordinary man on the street. Go into A&E or better still, visit someone in the pulmonary ward at hospital and see what misery these smackheads cause innocent patients and hospital staff. Walk through the bus station on an evening or go into a chemist that does Methadone dispensing. Then you'll see the local impact. Most of the one Trillion pounds spent to date trying to police and 'fix' the drug problem has been spent on trying to police and shut down the supply chain, not on helping the users... legalise the stuff and you will close most of the supply chain overnight... there are tax revenues to be had and the health bill cost to society will be little different to what it is today. Remember, heroine is just a diamorphine derivitave, it is produced and exists in our medical system, doesn't cost much to produce and can be supplied in vast quantities if necessary... it is the underground drug trade that keeps the street price high.. The reason why the problem is not solved is as I have already quoted; There is no deterrent. You, like others on here are under the misapprehension that the deterrent hasn't worked. That is because there isn't one. That is the problem. As far as I'm concerned, legalise, tax & treat... far better than the complete waste of money and resources that is thrown at the problem today.. Or what about doing the job properly and replacing all those drugs counsellors and offender managers with gaolers? Remember, this isn't getting 'soft' on the problem.... this is getting 'sensible' on the problem and in the process probably removing much of it in the process. It is soft. It is not sensible at all. An example is smoking... at the moment ciggies are legal, there is a small (in relative terms) black market because of the high price but other than that, little organised crime or criminal activity related to or perpetuated by tobacco supply. Also, slowly but surely, smoking is losing it's appeal and it's use will probably all but disappear over the next few decades. Now... criminalize it's use and supply and all of a sudden, you would have a supply chain just like the class A drugs have today with money laundering, gangs, cartells and a whole range of other not nice activities all sprouting up.... Prohibition does not work, on pretty much anything... even guns! Prohibition worked in as much as it drove the alcohol consumption into privacy. If that could be applied to drug use we would be a big step towards solving the social problems caused by the smackheads who brazenly wander around the streets off their face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 More punishment ? Look at the US, MASSIVE failure. Look at the UK before this "effectively de-criminalised" , MASSIVE failure. Senior police officers? well heres ones view: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/legalise-all-drugs-chief-constable-demands-end-to-immoral-laws-396884.html Yes, and that is literally ONE view. I'm afraid the Traffic Taliban of North Wales isn't the best champion to further your cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazzthompson Posted January 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) The way i see it we all want the following: Lower drug use Lower cost on tax payer(Health, Prisons, policing) Lower drug related crime . All have been shown to be reduced by decriminalization. All have increased with prohibition. So our options? Continue with failed policies (not just in our country) and "risk" it, or "risk" it and try something with a proven track record. Edited January 25, 2012 by gazzthompson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 The way i see it we all want the following: Lower drug use Lower cost on tax payer(Health, Prisons, policing) Lower drug related crime . All have been shown to be reduced by decriminalization. All have increased with prohibition. So our options? Continue with failed policies (not just in our country) and "risk" it, or "risk" it and try something with a proven track record. If it has such 'proven track record' then why hasn't it been endorsed and brought in by a majority of countries? Because they know that it won't work. A few cherry-picked examples here and there don't reflect the true situation. You say prohibition didn't work in the States, but it certainly kept drunks off the street and out of hospital. That is all we really want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazzthompson Posted January 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) If it has such 'proven track record' then why hasn't it been endorsed and brought in by a majority of countries? Because they know that it won't work. A few cherry-picked examples here and there don't reflect the true situation. You say prohibition didn't work in the States, but it certainly kept drunks off the street and out of hospital. That is all we really want. Why haven't countries adopted it ? Same usual out of touch ******** politics. "drunks off the street and out of hospital." Is worth the resulting major boost in Organized crime, Violence, racketeering, Alcohol related crime, theft and burglaries, homicide, drug addiction and cost by the tax payer ? but its okay because all they really wanted was "drunks off the street and out of hospital." (which also failed, and put a lot more people in hospital) Edited January 25, 2012 by gazzthompson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Legalise it all tax it job done, prohibition hasn't worked, we still pay to pick up the pieces chase and lock up the dealers etc etc to what benefit? They could solve the current global recession in one fell swoop - the amount of money spent on drugs every day / weekend would amaze the Daily Mail readers amongst us. The irony is that alcohol and ciggies are super bad for you, but through historic chance are legalised and taxed. If booze was invented now and someone started selling it over the internet and called it Meow Meow Grog, well it would be Class B at the very least by the weekend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr W Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Go into A&E or better still, visit someone in the pulmonary ward at hospital and see what misery these smackheads cause innocent patients and hospital staff. Walk through the bus station on an evening or go into a chemist that does Methadone dispensing. Then you'll see the local impact. I think alcohol related issues in those same places probably dwarves the drug users. How much police time is wasted policing our streets for trouble caused by drunks come kicking out time. The reason hospitals need security is mostly for drunks. Most drugs don't cause you to run riot (except perhaps crack but it's use is relatively very small). I'm not suggesting banning alcohol but that causes a much larger problem to society. There is no easy fix to the issue but giving it to those that want it along with treatment might be one way to stop them committing crimes to fund their habits, (on the flip side if you continue to give it for free to addicts what reason is there to stop). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wharf Rat Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 I tend to agree with this, it chimes with the fact that many people on these £26,000 benefits we've been hearing about have never and will never do a days work in their lives. This is a very interesting thread, so far, IMO. As far as I understand, producing most drugs costs peanuts. If the stuff was legal, people would have to sell it based on price and promotion rather than killing the competition. If druggies wanted to stay at home all week on an ounce of skag that only cost a £10, then they are not breaking into my house, car, business etc to pay £25 for a quarter of a gram thats been cut? Also, a lot of soft drug users and alcoholics, are often undiagnosed mentally ill people who try and self medicate as they have slipped through the health system. When they do turn up, it is often via the police who have nicked 'em for something that hurts you or I. They then have an addiction on top of whatever else their original problem was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 As far as I understand, producing most drugs costs peanuts. If the stuff was legal, people would have to sell it based on price and promotion rather than killing the competition. If druggies wanted to stay at home all week on an ounce of skag that only cost a £10, then they are not breaking into my house, car, business etc to pay £25 for a quarter of a gram thats been cut? Fair point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 We have had some belting subjects to discuss over 40 days and this is another. As several of you have already said, the current system is not working. The reason it is not working is because it is not properly enforced. Two of my relatives are in police forces around the country and they spend 80% of their time with the same 20% of the population normally drugs related. At the last count 75% of domestic burglary in west Yorkshire was for feeding drugs habits. In answer to the question about what the differences between alcohol and drugs, it's easy I know exactly what is in a pint of beer, lager or a spirit. As I have already stated earlier I have no issue with what people do in the privacy of their own homes. If you wish to take any form of drug and it's in the four walls, no problem. Just don't steal my car, break into my house or mug my mother to feed your habit. Sadly most drug taking scrotes do all of the above to feed their habit. If you legalise it there will still be a cost. The NHS cannot afford its current setup so I assume that they will not be expected to fund people's habits. The same scumbags who currently take drugs will still not be able to work as they will still be spaced out between fixes so therefore they will still need to pay for their drugs so what changes? If it were down to me I would make sure sentences were tougher and I would look to take out the distributors and those higher up the chain. Surely with modern technology and intelligence techniques this can be done. If there are no suppliers for a product people cannot buy it, simple. What brought home to me the risk of drugs was a lady who used to work for my wife she has two daughters who were twins aged 19. They both tried some strong cannabis I believe late night. It has fried their brains after just one try, God knows what it was mixed with and they are now both in full-time care with paranoid schizophrenia. They will never lead an independent life again. How many young lives do we need to lose to do something about this scourge on society you. Both I and my mother have been burgled in recent years by this scum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oisin og Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 I believe that there should be a serious public debate about this issue and, I further believe that currently unlawful drugs should be "legalised". However, unlike other posters I arrive at this conclusion from an anti corruption/law enforcement perspective. The value of the illicit drug market is extremely difficult to estimate. The few serious attempts which have been made have resulted in widely varying figures. A United Nations publication of 1998, "Economic and Social Consequences of Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking," states that: "With estimates of $100 billion to $110 billion for heroin, $110 billion to $130 billion for cocaine, $75 billion for cannabis and $60 billion for synthetic drugs, the probable global figure for the total illicit drug industry would be approximately $360 billion. Given the conservative bias in some of the estimates for individual substances, a turnover of around $400 billion per annum is considered realistic." The majority of this money is paid out in the developed world and, if anything, this figure has increased in the last decade. With this sort of money available the capacity of the illegal drug industry to corrupt is virtually infinite. It corrupts all that it touches; individual users, politicians, law enforcement personnel, customs officers, judges, legislators,local communities ect. etc. It has an inexhaustable supply of persons willing to risk long periods of imprisonment because the rewards it offers are so enormous. For so long as this continues to be the case society is fighting a losing battle. The addicts and users are victims. The manufacturers, importers, distributors etc. are criminal thugs, even those who are reputedly upstanding members of society but secretly fund the illicit drugs industry. We need to try something different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 I believe that there should be a serious public debate about this issue and, I further believe that currently unlawful drugs should be "legalised". However, unlike other posters I arrive at this conclusion from an anti corruption/law enforcement perspective. The value of the illicit drug market is extremely difficult to estimate. The few serious attempts which have been made have resulted in widely varying figures. A United Nations publication of 1998, "Economic and Social Consequences of Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking," states that: "With estimates of $100 billion to $110 billion for heroin, $110 billion to $130 billion for cocaine, $75 billion for cannabis and $60 billion for synthetic drugs, the probable global figure for the total illicit drug industry would be approximately $360 billion. Given the conservative bias in some of the estimates for individual substances, a turnover of around $400 billion per annum is considered realistic." The majority of this money is paid out in the developed world and, if anything, this figure has increased in the last decade. With this sort of money available the capacity of the illegal drug industry to corrupt is virtually infinite. It corrupts all that it touches; individual users, politicians, law enforcement personnel, customs officers, judges, legislators,local communities ect. etc. It has an inexhaustable supply of persons willing to risk long periods of imprisonment because the rewards it offers are so enormous. For so long as this continues to be the case society is fighting a losing battle. The addicts and users are victims. The manufacturers, importers, distributors etc. are criminal thugs, even those who are reputedly upstanding members of society but secretly fund the illicit drugs industry. We need to try something different. Yep... To those who say.. "tougher punishments" and "ensure punishments are properly handed out" ..... The death penalty still exists in most of the USA... Hasn't stopped people being murdered. Harsh penalties do not deter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR1960 Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Screw that i like the IOW..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR1960 Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Maybe we should legalise it and start producing and exporting, we could do with the money...... :look: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.