DRUGS and other bad shit!

[c.j.jaxxon]

Same here in the states. If they would legalize it (word to the late great Peter Tosh) our government as we say would go broke worse than they are now and our jails would be less crowded, less addicts etc. I've heard the term "victimless crime" which would apply to people who take drugs. Some of these peolpe are the ones who fill up the jails on taxpayers money and I really don't think our government wants to save these people. They make the laws so extreme for so little. It's like having one joint is worth ten years in the big house and disproportionately it's black people who fill those jails. Don't get me wrong, I've seen addicts in the whites and mexicans as well where I live and it's a sad sight. I've seen the most beautiful of girls lose their looks over crack. Heck, I had them in my house doing their thing and seeing it is not pretty. Note:Letting them in your house is risky. If it's a women, watch your baking soda. If it's a dude, watch all your small belongings. Needless to say I'd rather keep them out of my house. Lesson learned.

[strictlybroadband]

The two things are related: Noel Edmonds' comeback can only mean that Channel 4 execs are stoned out of their boxes.

[strictlybroadband]

The Last Word wrote:

> Flat_Eric wrote:
>
> > Legalising drugs would - as said above - wipe out a huge
> amount of organised and violent crime almost overnight.
>
> And what are the organised gangster/criminal fraternity
> supposed to do after this then? A number of flakey,
> part-timers might wise up sure, but large numbers would
> probably move on to some other crime, if necessary.

You are taking the piss aren't you? You want to keep drugs illegal to keep the criminals busy? Why not make coffee illegal too - that will really keep crime off our streets!

[Flat_Eric]

strictlybroadband wrote (wrongly quoting Flat_Eric):

>>>

No: I said exactly the opposite - read what I typed previously, you're getting your quotes and your posters mixed up!!! It was "The Last Word" who apparently favours keeping drugs illegal to give the crooks something to do (and it was him you quoted in the second part of your quote).

[strictlybroadband]

c.j.jaxxon wrote:

> Same here in the states. If they would legalize it (word to the
> late great Peter Tosh)

Oh at last someone with decent taste in music. Welcome!

[Sam Slater]

How can anyone think that legalising drugs will stop people wanting to take it, because it's 'not so cool'? I mean, I understand it can be 'cool' to do something we're not allowed to, but you're all missing a few crucial points.

If we legalise drugs, at what age are kids allowed to purchase them?

Young teens are notorious for hangin on corners with bottles of cider & packets of Bensons & Hedges, and they cause enough trouble already. A few kids 'pissed up' on cider might be a pain in the ass, but they're much more liable to kill themselves -or others- in a 'drug enduced frenzy'.
Ok, so we legalise drugs for adults over 18, then we're back at the same problem, it's 'illegal' for younger teenagers, so it's still concidered 'cool' to take them!

As for dealers. Well they'll go on to other types of crime, or concoct different chemicals to produce even stronger drugs then the one's legally available. So we'll have the same problems but with even more dangerous drugs peddled on the streets. Really smart move innit?

As for Amsterdam having no problems, we'll it seriously depends where you go. The places where there's no problem are basically 'set-up' for the tourists. There are never problems in these places cos it's bad for bussiness. If you're a resident of Amsterdam however then going to the local coffee shop isn't as 'nice' as a few of you think.

I've heard the Swiss are pretty liberal in regard to their views on heroin use, and they don't have the problems we have? I've one answer to that 'Culture'. The Swiss have had an army for thousands of years and never ever used it! You give Swiss people guns, and they take them to pieces to make fucking cuckoo clocks!

The Germans drink more alcohol than the Brits but never have much 'aggressive behaviour' in their 'pub culture'. Kids in France & Spain drink wine freely with their meals but never become drunken yobs on street corners. You see, because certain laws work for one country, doesn't mean it will work in other countries.

Though alcohol is an addictive drug, most 'stable minded' people can go 60 years just having a drink at weekends with their friends, without problems. I think a society where you can go to a 27/7 chemist to pick up LCD and a few lines of charlie -on top of alcohol- will produce a very dangerous society indeed.

Going around to see a few friends and having a spliff probably seems harmless, granted, but 40 million people being allowed access to whatever drug they want is a different story indeed, and anyone who doesn't see the dangers hasn't seriously thought it through thoroughly enough.

[Sam Slater]

Sorry strictlybroadband, my post was meant to be a reply to the whole thread, not you specifically.

[Flat_Eric]

Sam:

I can respect your point of view and you argue it logically.

HOWEVER - the current government policy in the UK, with its draconian drug laws but a drug problem that's still spiralling ever more out of control, has clearly failed miserably and is a recipe for disaster.

I'm not saying there should be a free-for-all with drugs readily available to anyone, but clearly some degree of decriminalisation and carefully controlled supply clearly would make sense, that way you'd at least remove SOME of the organised crime element, reduce SOME of the general demand and reduce SOME of the attraction to SOME youngsters.

There's no easy answer, but to me, saying "oh we might as keep it illegal because the criminals would only go and do something else instead anyway" is defeatism in the extreme.

And anyway Sam, a lot of these kids of whom you speak ARE ALREADY IN A DRUG-INDUCED FRENZY!!! And they account for a hell of a lot of crime in Britain's inner cities, on the estates and to an increasing extent in (for want of a better term) "middle England".

[c.j.jaxxon]

Hey Flat! I live here in the states and every now and then I hear the term "estates". Is this where low income people stay in Britain?

[eroticartist]

Hi c j,
Estates are where most of the workers live. Because land is expensive people are stacked on top of one another in apartments. These are called flats. They are run by local council /local government.
Mike Freeman.