egafd.com

I think he means the cost of treating addiction, the cost of the crime to fuel said addictions and the cost of crime involved in the supply of those addictions

diplodocus wrote:

> I think he means the cost of treating addiction, the cost of
> the crime to fuel said addictions and the cost of crime
> involved in the supply of those addictions


Really?

Well, as to the first point, I saw an item on BBC News a few years ago, in which it was pointed out that the cost to the National Health Service of treating problems associated with the smoking of tobacco was then 3.4 billion pounds per annum. However, the same item also pointed out that the Treasury received 11 billion pounds per annum in taxes on tobacco. I have no doubt that, like alcohol and tobacco, other drugs would be similarly taxed, if sold in normal retail outlets.

As to the second point - well, it actually describes the current state of affairs.

As to the third point - please see my reply to the first point.

Anyone who puts strange chemicals in their bodies will behave irrationally.Sad about this guy but he was a volunteer for the shit he brought upon himself.

Just heard that British Transport Police report that he was found hanged in a remote building on the Paddington railway station site.
b217bravo

Mark used recreational drugs for his own personal use, he never trafficked or stole to feed whatever habit he may or may not have had.
Its just so very sad that racked with guilt, he opted to check out for good.
I never saw him on TV, but by all accounts, he was very good.
I am more than a bit concerned at some of the labels targeted at him here these past few days.

I don't disagree, just pointing out the cost of the current state of affairs, personally the only realistic way of stopping the rising costs is to legalise them, but no government is ever going to do that in my lifetime I think

Schadenfreude always tastes good until someone else is eating it and you're the dish.

Which brings it back to my original question:

Drugs always were legal, as they should be, so who gave these politicians the right to stop us enjoying them?

This is freedom?

Hardly.

unfortunately we gave them the right, we voted for them

any party that had a legalise drugs policy would never be elected, until the majority of the public change their attitude to drugs they will be illegal

diplodocus wrote:

> unfortunately we gave them the right, we voted for them...

..and, in doing so, we signed away our personal freedoms?

That was never supposed to be the deal.

Something went very bad, somewhere along the line.