How To Win The War On Drugs.

1. Legalise all drugs.

2. Government takes control of supply.

3. Tax the shit out of it.

4. Educate against it.

This would:-

a. Keep the addicts out of jail (it's a victimless crime).

b. Destroy all the criminal organisations that thrive on the drugs trade.

c. No more overdoses, or deaths due to lethal mixes to cut the drug.

d. Will raise money by taxes and savings from not putting people in jail, instead of throwing billions away on an unwinable "war".

e. Educate against it like they have done with tobacco. Cigarette smoking has gone from 'Cool' to seriously 'Uncool' in my lifetime.

I concur (and have made that point before!)

One reason why it's still illegal could easily be that those in power directly or indirectly are profiting from the trade. Think about it!

I really couldn't care less if someone wants to destroy themselves using drugs, but I would prefer they don't hurt my family trying to find money for their habit.

I concur also.

The illegal trade would never be completely erradicated, especially if the then legal drugs were taxed highly, however generally speaking, your average citizen would buy the legal option.

Educate and give people freedom of choice.

One drawback to this plan though, Sir Burr:

Would you not agree that during the course of your lifetime (and perhaps especially in the past 1/2 decade) the whole concept of "freedom to choose" has also been chipped away at?

Freedom of choice has become limited to government stamped, PC, health and safety compliant, "do as we, your gov't, deem for you to do" ?

I too concur Sir Burr (that's a good rhyme)

Except to the title. The 4 steps would be far from easy, especially the educating bit.

Also, it isn't a victimless crime (even if it was made legal). The addicts, if kept out of jail, often mug old ladies and rob houses to fund their habit. Yes, they would hopefully be caught eventually but how many battered old ladies and people with their houses burgled would it be before catching them?

I couldn’t disagree more. There is no empirical evidence to support this liberal view. The only country that has actually won the war on drugs is Singapore. If you want to clear up the drug dealers, give em a dam_n good thrashing, or better still, hang em high!

Also, it isn't a victimless crime (even if it was made legal). The addicts, if kept out of jail, often mug old ladies and rob houses to fund their habit.

There are plenty of people that mug old ladies that are not on drugs. There are existing laws to deal with them.

I couldn’t disagree more. There is no empirical evidence to support this liberal view. The only country that has actually won the war on drugs is Singapore. If you want to clear up the drug dealers, give em a dam_n good thrashing, or better still, hang em high!

There is plenty of empirical evidence that the "War on drugs" as it is being waged now, harsh penalties etc etc. has failed and it's costing the US tax-payer billions with nothing to show for it.

High ranking police officers think that drug taking is a social and health issue, not a criminal one. Police rescources could be used better to catch real criminals.

Also, it isn't a victimless crime (even if it was made legal). The addicts, if kept out of jail, often mug old ladies and rob houses to fund their habit.

There are plenty of people that mug old ladies that are not on drugs. There are existing laws to deal with them.

Yes i know but with this there will undoubtedley be more. Like i said above, how many will they mug before they are caught and then dealt with by the relevant law.

This is why, in principle, i concur with your idea but which is why i also said "the 4 steps would be far from easy"

A very interesting debate. In the UK they made Canabis less of a crime by re-classiying it and it's usage reduced! I wonder if there's a link?

ps They are at present debating whether to make it more of a crime.

The only problem with "taxing the shit out of them" is that the drugs would be so expensive that a black market would thrive.

Ciggarettes case in point.

Then the only laws the criminals would be breaking is competeing with a government monopoly & failure to pay tax.

I’d like to ban the whole lot including most forms of alcohol and caffeine.

Anyone caught drinking those horrid milky concoctions in a mug that lower class Brits call “coffee” should be issued an on-the-spot flogging.

Champagne, fine wines and classic cocktails should all remain legal. However those revolting girlie cocktails and those sordid ones with names like “screaming orgasm” should carry the toughest penalties. I should like to see the ducking stool re-introduced to punish such atrocities.

Further more, in my view, the most serious of crimes – drinking cocktails in an un-ironed shirt wearing neither tie nor cravat, should be punishable by being tarred and feathered.

If people legalised drugs, people would be going to work off there faces, driving while peaking off there face etc.

Would be a disaster

I'm not going anywhere near this subject, Tigs will remember why.

Except to say that it is a 'victimless crime' is totally ludicrous.

I'm not going anywhere near this subject, Tigs will remember why.

Except to say that it is a 'victimless crime' is totally ludicrous.

Well, that's a bit of a throw-away post. A cop out, in fact.

What's the point in posting that you're going to stay away from the subject? Better to have not posted at all.

Try "contributing".

Why don't you think it's a victimless crime? The vast majority of drug users don't mug old grannies.

Yes, these are the measures that are generally espoused by folks that are more concerned with protecting their property than with the health of their society and fellow citizens. Didn't work too well in Zurich as I recall.

I’d like to ban the whole lot including most forms of alcohol and caffeine.

Anyone caught drinking those horrid milky concoctions in a mug that lower class Brits call “coffee” should be issued an on-the-spot flogging.

Champagne, fine wines and classic cocktails should all remain legal. However those revolting girlie cocktails and those sordid ones with names like “screaming orgasm” should carry the toughest penalties. I should like to see the ducking stool re-introduced to punish such atrocities.

Further more, in my view, the most serious of crimes – drinking cocktails in an un-ironed shirt wearing neither tie nor cravat, should be punishable by being tarred and feathered.

A gentleman to the last. Not too sure about banning caffine though...

I'd like to ban the whole lot including most forms of alcohol and caffeine.

Anyone caught drinking those horrid milky concoctions in a mug that lower class Brits call "coffee" should be issued an on-the-spot flogging.

Champagne, fine wines and classic cocktails should all remain legal. However those revolting girlie cocktails and those sordid ones with names like "screaming orgasm" should carry the toughest penalties. I should like to see the ducking stool re-introduced to punish such atrocities.

Further more, in my view, the most serious of crimes – drinking cocktails in an un-ironed shirt wearing neither tie nor cravat, should be punishable by being tarred and feathered.

A gentleman to the last. Not too sure about banning caffine though...

Oh totally agree. Caffeine would be perfectly legal if consumed as cappuccino, espresso, café latté and the old favourite in the south of France: “La noisette”. However anyone caught putting spoonfuls of supermarket instant coffee into a grubby mug with…well I think I have made my views clear on this matter.

An interesting concept Sir Burr, but in my opinion a bridge too far.

Keep the addicts out of jail (it's a victimless crime).

Not too worried about that, but the addicts if they choose or commit crimes should be given help to kick the habit, if they continue to break the law, then sufficient sanction must be levied against them.

Destroy all the criminal organisations that thrive on the drugs trade.

This is a major bridge too cross, who could organise such a campaign, just look at the Cali and Medellin cartels in Columbia, they have small armies and the Afghan Mujardeen for another example, both tall tasks.

No more overdoses, or deaths due to lethal mixes to cut the drug.

I presume you mean only from lethally mixed cuts, and so yes this would be a major advantage.

Will raise money by taxes and savings from not putting people in jail, instead of throwing billions away on an unwinable "war".

Well, I do believe it to be unwinable in it's present context and taxing it would be a healthy economic solution, if that is not an oxymoron, but if taxed too heavily will drive the exact gangs operating as they do at present.

Educate against it like they have done with tobacco. Cigarette smoking has gone from 'Cool' to seriously 'Uncool' in my lifetime.

Again I have to agree, I cannot believe the sea change that has happened in the UK inthe last five years in particular.

More time to ponder on this issue I believe.

Moss

Youth will always rebel. The degree of rebellion is what you need to control. The extremes of youth go the hard drug way and always will. Legalize drugs and what do the possibly controllable rebellious youth do then ?

The Oooops let's be naughty for a nano second smoke pot. Legalize it and they will have their one kick at the system at a much higher level, perhaps one they can not control with horrific consequences . legalize the lot and "teenage kicks" become something I don't even want to contemplate.

You do not control addiction no matter how smart " You think" you are.

I suggest all sit through the film "Rush" before further comment.

For those who have not figured it before, I have been a cop for 28 years. That does not my comments valid in any way, except for the fact that i have seen the consequences of drugs, not only on the participants, but also on the families at too many funerals to bloody count. I taught at the Police College in HK for many years. Being none to squeamish, the autopsies part of the course usually fell to muggings. For those who wish to pour scorn on the premiss that drugs do not take innocent, wonderful lives, I am sure I can still arrange a visit.

When I get pissed ( and boy I get pissed ), I lose track of time, but luckily, I am not too violent a drunk. I have never found it necessary to steal for my habit, and on the advise of a good pal who is a doctor, try to give it up for a month to ease my shattered liver. I have yet to meet a young heroin addict who has not sold themselves, or other peoples property to feed their addiction, and I have yet to meet one who gives it up at will, for a while on health grounds. I am not proud of my drinking, but thank which ever G-od I choose on the day, that I do not take anything else.

There are many articulate, strong characters on here who can handle " recreational drugs ". There are none who can handle hard drugs and if you think you can, you are in serious denial and should seek help before it is too late.

The call from Sir Burr to legalize drugs, is a common one, Further define " drugs" and I will happily chew the fat with you, while I have a beer and you smoke something that turns your clock back a year or two. Continue to spout about legalizing, indiscriminately the lot..........and well........

Oh totally agree. Caffeine would be perfectly legal if consumed as cappuccino, espresso, café latté and the old favourite in the south of France: “La noisette”. However anyone caught putting spoonfuls of supermarket instant coffee into a grubby mug with…well I think I have made my views clear on this matter.

Coffee snob.

Yes, these are the measures that are generally espoused by folks that are more concerned with protecting their property than with the health of their society and fellow citizens. Didn't work too well in Zurich as I recall.

Your darn right i'm more concerned with protecting my property than i am with the health of a smack head. And why shouldn't i be?

Tell you what. Let's change the laws first to protect the innocent citizens who live in the society before we molly coddle the knob heads. I say change the law so that we can shoot the robbing bast4rds if they set foot on our property.

I was "lucky" once, when i smacked someone trying to steal from my home. He reported me to the cops but i just got a caution.

I'm not going anywhere near this subject, Tigs will remember why.

Except to say that it is a 'victimless crime' is totally ludicrous.

Well, that's a bit of a throw-away post. A cop out, in fact.

Trust me, it isn't a cop out.

I have a fairly strong standpoint on which drugs should be legalised and which shouldn't and I have made this point perfectly clear in the past, just in this small section of a global forum.

To legalise all drugs, all narcotics, all euphoria enticing products is just gross stupidity, plain and simple.

I had the opinion that you were more intelligent than that ...... opinions can change.

Of course there'll be casualties, but, give it thirty to forty years and you'll see an improvement.

If the media turns the spotlight on these 'legal' drugs, like they did tobacco, it's garuanteed.

We've already had thirty to forty years of harsh penalties. It hasn't worked and the drug cartels have got richer.

The status quo is unacceptable, so what is the plan?

Yes, these are the measures that are generally espoused by folks that are more concerned with protecting their property than with the health of their society and fellow citizens. Didn't work too well in Zurich as I recall.

Your darn right i'm more concerned with protecting my property than i am with the health of a smack head. And why shouldn't i be?

Tell you what. Let's change the laws first to protect the innocent citizens who live in the society before we molly coddle the knob heads. I say change the law so that we can shoot the robbing bast4rds if they set foot on our property.

I was "lucky" once, when i smacked someone trying to steal from my home. He reported me to the cops but i just got a caution.

I wasn't suggesting that anyone should be "molly coddled". In fact I think stronger penalties should be enforced, partiularly for repeat offenders. I do believe legalization is a very shortsighted solution though and will not achieve the desired results. It just smacks of "ain't my problem", which of course it is. Legalization certainly didn't work in Zurich, the example I cited.

Good debate.

One of the reasons behind the calls for all-out legalisation I believe is owing to the antiquated way the law in the UK currently views drugs. The whole class A, B, C nonsense was (as far as I understand) originally proposed way back in the 60's. Since then, Ecstasy has somehow managed to appear in this same class ranking alongside heroin. There's also the complete farce behind the attempts to get cannabis reclassified as a class C, and then probably back to B again in the near future.

It's an old, stale viewpoint to an ever-modernsiing problem. I'm personally at a loss with a suitable system which could replace it, but I'm pretty sure there's some scientific minds out there that could have a good shot, providing they're prepared to put up with the ill-advised sensationalism the tabloids will probably throw at it.

I couldn't imagine the most liberal parents being happy with heroin available over the counter at the high-street, but perhaps a more enlightened viewpoint from the law would be welcome.

Youth will always rebel. The degree of rebellion is what you need to control. The extremes of youth go the hard drug way and always will. Legalize drugs and what do the possibly controllable rebellious youth do then ?

The Oooops let's be naughty for a nano second smoke pot. Legalize it and they will have their one kick at the system at a much higher level, perhaps one they can not control with horrific consequences . legalize the lot and "teenage kicks" become something I don't even want to contemplate.

You do not control addiction no matter how smart " You think" you are.

I suggest all sit through the film "Rush" before further comment.

For those who have not figured it before, I have been a cop for 28 years. That does not my comments valid in any way, except for the fact that i have seen the consequences of drugs, not only on the participants, but also on the families at too many funerals to bloody count. I taught at the Police College in HK for many years. Being none to squeamish, the autopsies part of the course usually fell to muggings. For those who wish to pour scorn on the premiss that drugs do not take innocent, wonderful lives, I am sure I can still arrange a visit.

When I get pissed ( and boy I get pissed ), I lose track of time, but luckily, I am not too violent a drunk. I have never found it necessary to steal for my habit, and on the advise of a good pal who is a doctor, try to give it up for a month to ease my shattered liver. I have yet to meet a young heroin addict who has not sold themselves, or other peoples property to feed their addiction, and I have yet to meet one who gives it up at will, for a while on health grounds. I am not proud of my drinking, but thank which ever G-od I choose on the day, that I do not take anything else.

There are many articulate, strong characters on here who can handle " recreational drugs ". There are none who can handle hard drugs and if you think you can, you are in serious denial and should seek help before it is too late.

The call from Sir Burr to legalize drugs, is a common one, Further define " drugs" and I will happily chew the fat with you, while I have a beer and you smoke something that turns your clock back a year or two. Continue to spout about legalizing, indiscriminately the lot..........and well........

Darn good post there mate!

I can see the revision argument about the law, I really can.

However, the law is not made for the well educated, travelled usually middle class who can eruditely argue their point for personal freedoms, the law is there to protect the weak and vulnerable.

There are laws against people who attack the elderly. There are laws against those who abuse children. You do not here the clamor to change those, as the perpetrators are not in the class of those mentioned above and the victims are more clearly defined.

Drugs are similar. The majority who propose a slackening of the law are certainly not those vulnerable enough to be affected, or people who I respect on here. Certainly the victims are less well defined, but never forget there are many of them and if you live in inner city UK, you are odds on to become one too. Burglary fueled by the need for quick cash to feed a habit, anti-social behavior and violence on the streets due to popped up disaffected youth, or the crumbling health service straining to a degree to " look " after the takers and the givers ( often shot, stabbed etc in turf wars throughout the country )

Not a simple question. dam_n difficult for any society to get right.

I hate to get all serious in posts but being trained in macro economics and formal logic, I feel duty bound to comment. While I admire the cavalier attitude of the OP, I must point out, there are logical inconsistencies.

Proposition 2 and 3, assert:

“2. Government takes control of supply.

3. Tax the shit out of it.”

So we are looking at expensive state controlled drugs. So what is to stop the private drugs barons continuing in their business ventures? When our heroine addicts become “financially embarrassed”, as is their won’t, might they not discontinue their order with statesmack.com and go back to the drugs barons who are undercutting the state? I suppose you would have to make it illegal to sell drugs without a license. So we are pretty much back to square one.

Propositions 2 and 4 state:

“2. Government takes control of supply.

4. Educate against it.”

So who would educate against it? Who normally controls education? Why the government of course. So this could put the government in a self contradictory position. While they are happily supplying the little green pills and making a pretty penny out of it, they are encouraging their customers not to buy it. Well…it’s a bit doubtful.

The OP proposition sounds great. It’s bold, it’s controversial, it’s outspoken. It’s a bit like that phrase “all is fair in live and war”. As long as you don’t think too much about what it means, it sounds fine.

I'd like to ban the whole lot including most forms of alcohol and caffeine.

I hope that coffee enemas are not on your black list??

Anyone caught drinking those horrid milky concoctions in a mug that lower class Brits call "coffee" should be issued an on-the-spot flogging.

Champagne, fine wines and classic cocktails should all remain legal. However those revolting girlie cocktails and those sordid ones with names like "screaming orgasm" should carry the toughest penalties. I should like to see the ducking stool re-introduced to punish such atrocities.

Further more, in my view, the most serious of crimes – drinking cocktails in an un-ironed shirt wearing neither tie nor cravat, should be punishable by being tarred and feathered.

now we're on the same page!

Oh totally agree. Caffeine would be perfectly legal if consumed as cappuccino, espresso, café latté and the old favourite in the south of France: "La noisette". However anyone caught putting spoonfuls of supermarket instant coffee into a grubby mug with…well I think I have made my views clear on this matter.

tar and feather again...afterwards quartering on the market square!

How To Win The War On Drugs.

1. Legalise all drugs.

2. Government takes control of supply.

3. Tax the shit out of it.

4. Educate against it.

This would:-

a. Keep the addicts out of jail (it's a victimless crime).

b. Destroy all the criminal organisations that thrive on the drugs trade.

c. No more overdoses, or deaths due to lethal mixes to cut the drug.

d. Will raise money by taxes and savings from not putting people in jail, instead of throwing billions away on an unwinable "war".

e. Educate against it like they have done with tobacco. Cigarette smoking has gone from 'Cool' to seriously 'Uncool' in my lifetime.

Brilliant post!! I would just like to suggest more funding for very controlled sobreity programs. I have a friend that is still getting methadone (sp?) after two years, they never seem to want to take him off the crap and he is still paying for it.