>>And what are the organised gangster/criminal fraternity supposed to do >>after this then?
That's a good question. When prohibition of alcohol ended the Mafia almost went under. It was only moving into drugs that kept them going.
Nothing else has the profit margins of drugs. Without drug money organised crime would lose 90-95% of their power and influence. Personally I think it would be better if they were earning ?200 a week out of fruit machines than ?500,000 a week from drugs.
>>You sure? Children strangers to cigarettes and alcohol are they?
Are they any more strangers to pot because it's illegal? All you're doing is forcing them to associate with drug dealers instead of shop owners.
>>And as with cigarettes and alcohol, there would still be a large black market for any drug made legal.
Depends how you legalise it. The only reason there's a black market in alcohol and cigs is because of very heavy taxation.
DRUGS and other bad shit!
Re: DRUGS and other bad shit!
You're onto something there. Imagine the money you'd save legalising drugs. All the countless billions pissed away in locking people up, paying cops overtime, sending troops to Afghanistan.
Not to mention that even if you only taxed them at a very low rate you would earn enough to allow everyone to retire on a very healthy state pension a lot sooner than 68.
Not to mention that even if you only taxed them at a very low rate you would earn enough to allow everyone to retire on a very healthy state pension a lot sooner than 68.
Re: DRUGS and other bad shit!
Flat_Eric wrote:
>>>
To which The Last Word replied:
>>
To which Flat_Eric now responds:
Maybe. But the point is that drugs would then be taken out of the equation as one possible source of income for organised gangs. They'd have one less way of making money and surviving. What on Earth could be wrong with that?
And in case you hadn't noticed, most lower-level drug related crime (muggings, burglaries, petty theft etc.) is committed by "flakey part-timers" after the cash for their next fix. The whole reasoning behind legalising drugs is that it would make it an easier problem to manage and, in the long term greatly reduce it (including the number of addicts who commit such crimes).
Flat_Eric wrote:
>>
To which The Last Word replied:
>>
You're missing a crucial point here and quoting me selectively. I said that making drugs legal would reduce their attraction to kids, and I stand by that. The point you're missing is that while legal for adults, fags and booze ARE still "forbidden" for kids, and hence there's a serious degree of "coolness" in using them. And before you jump in and say it: No, I'm not advocating dishing out free fags and booze in secondary schools. But for youngsters there IS an attraction in the forbidden (like fags and booze) and although legalising drugs wouldn't put off ALL kids (which isn't what I said in any case), drugs would no doubt then become less appealing to many teens, I think.
You're right, there'd probably still be a sizeable black market in drugs. But NOTHING LIKE the one that exists now.
Seems to me like you're advocating a "do nothing" approach, my friend.
>>>
To which The Last Word replied:
>>
To which Flat_Eric now responds:
Maybe. But the point is that drugs would then be taken out of the equation as one possible source of income for organised gangs. They'd have one less way of making money and surviving. What on Earth could be wrong with that?
And in case you hadn't noticed, most lower-level drug related crime (muggings, burglaries, petty theft etc.) is committed by "flakey part-timers" after the cash for their next fix. The whole reasoning behind legalising drugs is that it would make it an easier problem to manage and, in the long term greatly reduce it (including the number of addicts who commit such crimes).
Flat_Eric wrote:
>>
To which The Last Word replied:
>>
You're missing a crucial point here and quoting me selectively. I said that making drugs legal would reduce their attraction to kids, and I stand by that. The point you're missing is that while legal for adults, fags and booze ARE still "forbidden" for kids, and hence there's a serious degree of "coolness" in using them. And before you jump in and say it: No, I'm not advocating dishing out free fags and booze in secondary schools. But for youngsters there IS an attraction in the forbidden (like fags and booze) and although legalising drugs wouldn't put off ALL kids (which isn't what I said in any case), drugs would no doubt then become less appealing to many teens, I think.
You're right, there'd probably still be a sizeable black market in drugs. But NOTHING LIKE the one that exists now.
Seems to me like you're advocating a "do nothing" approach, my friend.
Re: DRUGS and other bad shit!
I think the 'eye,s have it! drugs are really no different to any other vice! booze, fags, gambling, watching Noel Edmunds!! all these will probably kill you, so why not add drugs to the list, and put an end to the misery of addicts, spend the money thats used to pay big fat pensions and salaries to drug tzar,s and government agencies on rehabilitating the users who GENUINLY want to stop, just like we do with smoking clinics...
[_]> No Liberals were harmed during the making of this post.
Re: DRUGS and other bad shit!
Tell it like it is Flat_Eric!! 
)
Couldn't agree more. Fuck the prohibitionists. We've tried it their way and look at the mess we're in. It's time for a new approach.
)Couldn't agree more. Fuck the prohibitionists. We've tried it their way and look at the mess we're in. It's time for a new approach.
-
The Last Word
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: DRUGS and other bad shit!
Flat_Eric wrote:
>And in case you hadn't noticed, most lower-level drug related crime (muggings, burglaries, petty theft etc.) is committed by "flakey part-timers" after the cash for their next fix.
Fair point.
>The whole reasoning behind legalising drugs is that it would make it an easier problem to manage and, in the long term greatly reduce it (including the number of addicts who commit such crimes).
Okay. Lower-level drug-related crime would probably drop (though not crimes committed whilst under the influence, which may well increase). To legalise any drug is to widen its availability, and as such I don't subscribe to the theory that legality would decrease the number of addicts. If anything, I'd say it would increase (as would the attendant social problems addiction brings with it). This is perhaps the crux of the whole matter.
>and although legalising drugs wouldn't put off ALL kids (which isn't what I said in any case), drugs would no doubt then become less appealing to many teens, I think.
I doubt the easy, convenient purchase of any legal drug would lessen its appeal, frankly. True, for the impressionable youth there might be no illicit glamour, but ultimately the drug is the thing, not where it came from. If anything, having it become a commercially available product* like booze and fags in the consumer-minded society we have now may well broaden the appeal, especially across a broader age spectrum.
*and surely commercialization is the only route any recreational drug could take to legality. So from initial production to final sales point you're looking at a massive set-up that would require enormous investment and, for sales reasons, the involvement of numerous other countries with the same legal stance. I'm no expert, but there must be a huge question mark over legalising drugs regarding its actual practicality. How much would they cost? Where would you buy them from? Must Google this.
>Seems to me like you're advocating a "do nothing" approach, my friend.
About what? I don't claim to know all the answers on the drug issue, but I think our drug laws should stay as they are for the time being. Partly out of instinct, and partly because I've yet to hear a cohesive and workable argument for their decriminalisation that convinces me otherwise.
>And in case you hadn't noticed, most lower-level drug related crime (muggings, burglaries, petty theft etc.) is committed by "flakey part-timers" after the cash for their next fix.
Fair point.
>The whole reasoning behind legalising drugs is that it would make it an easier problem to manage and, in the long term greatly reduce it (including the number of addicts who commit such crimes).
Okay. Lower-level drug-related crime would probably drop (though not crimes committed whilst under the influence, which may well increase). To legalise any drug is to widen its availability, and as such I don't subscribe to the theory that legality would decrease the number of addicts. If anything, I'd say it would increase (as would the attendant social problems addiction brings with it). This is perhaps the crux of the whole matter.
>and although legalising drugs wouldn't put off ALL kids (which isn't what I said in any case), drugs would no doubt then become less appealing to many teens, I think.
I doubt the easy, convenient purchase of any legal drug would lessen its appeal, frankly. True, for the impressionable youth there might be no illicit glamour, but ultimately the drug is the thing, not where it came from. If anything, having it become a commercially available product* like booze and fags in the consumer-minded society we have now may well broaden the appeal, especially across a broader age spectrum.
*and surely commercialization is the only route any recreational drug could take to legality. So from initial production to final sales point you're looking at a massive set-up that would require enormous investment and, for sales reasons, the involvement of numerous other countries with the same legal stance. I'm no expert, but there must be a huge question mark over legalising drugs regarding its actual practicality. How much would they cost? Where would you buy them from? Must Google this.
>Seems to me like you're advocating a "do nothing" approach, my friend.
About what? I don't claim to know all the answers on the drug issue, but I think our drug laws should stay as they are for the time being. Partly out of instinct, and partly because I've yet to hear a cohesive and workable argument for their decriminalisation that convinces me otherwise.
"Let's do it..."
Re: DRUGS and other bad shit!
The problem with most class A's is that they are grown in poor countries. The West are scared to death of creating another OPEC, but with drugs instead of oil. That said, given the shit that gets put into commercial heroin (brick dust, talcum powder, chalk dust etc), Ecstacy (everything from amphetamines and Ketamine to banned food dyes), cocaine (just about any shit they can find and then some), if the production of the drugs was regulated there'd be fewer deaths.
About 10 years ago in Brighton they had a trial where registered heroin addicts could get their stuff on prescription. Burglaries and muggings were down about 30% and there were fewer beggars on the streets. It had police support as a result but the Home Office put a stop to it without giving any reason. Porn and drugs are similar in many respects- the government is convinced that SENSIBLE users are still a threat to our society and that to FULLY legalise drugs and porn would lead to the wholesale corruption of not just our youth but our society as a whole.
Oh, and it's estimated (rather conservitavely I think) that there are 150,000 tablets of Ecstacy taken every single weekend in this country, and only 12 Ecstacy-related deaths a year (I include accidents and people drinking too much water in that statistic). That actually makes it safer than taking Paracetamol.
About 10 years ago in Brighton they had a trial where registered heroin addicts could get their stuff on prescription. Burglaries and muggings were down about 30% and there were fewer beggars on the streets. It had police support as a result but the Home Office put a stop to it without giving any reason. Porn and drugs are similar in many respects- the government is convinced that SENSIBLE users are still a threat to our society and that to FULLY legalise drugs and porn would lead to the wholesale corruption of not just our youth but our society as a whole.
Oh, and it's estimated (rather conservitavely I think) that there are 150,000 tablets of Ecstacy taken every single weekend in this country, and only 12 Ecstacy-related deaths a year (I include accidents and people drinking too much water in that statistic). That actually makes it safer than taking Paracetamol.
Every pair of breasts large OR small has their own merits. Implants are just sheer wanton vandalism
Re: DRUGS and other bad shit!
The Last Word:
I understand your thinking mate, but I still can't agree with you.
I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this.
I understand your thinking mate, but I still can't agree with you.
I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this.
Re: DRUGS and other bad shit!
>>Okay. Lower-level drug-related crime would probably drop (though not >>crimes committed whilst under the influence, which may well increase). >>To legalise any drug is to widen its availability, and as such I don't >>subscribe to the theory that legality would decrease the number of >>addicts. If anything, I'd say it would increase (as would the attendant >>social problems addiction brings with it). This is perhaps the crux of the >>whole matter.
Yeah but get a grip. How many illegal drugs are there that are addictive? Heroin and crack. We could still legalise mushrooms, LSD, pot, Ecstasy etc etc with no problem.
And the number of addicts tends to stay stable. That's why everyone who drinks alcohol isn't an alcoholic. There's only a certain type of person who gets addicted.
>>but there must be a huge question mark over legalising drugs regarding >>its actual practicality. How much would they cost? Where would you buy >>them from? Must Google this.
You ever been to Amsterdam? Nice pleasant coffee shops selling pot. No problem.
>>Partly out of instinct, and partly because I've yet to hear a cohesive and >>workable argument for their decriminalisation that convinces me otherwise.
You surely don't believe the drug war is working?
Yeah but get a grip. How many illegal drugs are there that are addictive? Heroin and crack. We could still legalise mushrooms, LSD, pot, Ecstasy etc etc with no problem.
And the number of addicts tends to stay stable. That's why everyone who drinks alcohol isn't an alcoholic. There's only a certain type of person who gets addicted.
>>but there must be a huge question mark over legalising drugs regarding >>its actual practicality. How much would they cost? Where would you buy >>them from? Must Google this.
You ever been to Amsterdam? Nice pleasant coffee shops selling pot. No problem.
>>Partly out of instinct, and partly because I've yet to hear a cohesive and >>workable argument for their decriminalisation that convinces me otherwise.
You surely don't believe the drug war is working?
Re: DRUGS and other bad shit!
Until the early 1920s all drugs were perfectly legal and we did not have a 'drug problem'.