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 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.

I wonder why.

And that's the sort of thing that rubs the shine off a brilliant post. (which it wasn't, and never will be)

I saw an excellent documentary that saw a group of independent scientists take a whole new fresh look at drug classification, they ranked 20 drugs in order of danger.

If recall correctly they defined "danger" as the danger the drugs do to the takers, society, and the severity of the drug's addictiveness.

The results were very interesting. If you get the chance I highly recommend watching it.

In fact here's a link to the main page that provides the option of watching it online:

BBC Horizon: Is alcohol worse than ecstasy?

and here's the blurb for those too lazy to click the link

Recent research has analysed the link between the harmful effects of drugs relative to their current classification by law with some startling conclusions. Perhaps most startling of all is that alcohol, solvents and tobacco (all unclassified drugs) are rated more dangerous than ecstasy, 4-MTA and LSD (all class A drugs). If the current ABC system is retained, alcohol would be rated a class A drug and tobacco class B.

The scientists involved, including members of the government's top advisory committee on drug classification, have produced a rigorous assessment of the social and individual harm caused by 20 of the UK's most dangerous drugs and believe this should form the basis of future ranking. They think the current ABC system is arbitrary and not based on any scientific evidence.

The drug policies have remained unchanged over the last 40 years so should they be reformed in the light of new research?

and just to make sure that this eventually veers off topic, also check out "How to make better decisions" which was also great.

Well yes, if alcohol were introduced today it wouldn't be allowed - thank goodness we've had it for years!

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.

There are no paradoxes. the profit on drugs are counted in the 1000's of percent. Government could still sell and tax and still keep it below the cost of illegal drugs. The government will not have to pay bribes, or, transport it clandestinely, which all add to the cost. Government will always be able to undercut criminals on price.

I don't see the problem with government control of drugs and educating the public against using it. What's the problem.

We cannot keep going on as we have been. Pouring billions down the drain. It doesn't work. Something new must be tried.

Thaddeus must have drunk some whine made with sour grapes.

1. Kill all drug dealers.

2. Kill all drug users.

Finally !!

A voice of reason in a sea of fence sitters.

Thaddeus must have drunk some whine made with sour grapes.

No, Thaddeus lost a sister to a heroin overdose.

I could go off on a rant now, but to be quite honest mate..... you are not worth it.

Thaddeus must have drunk some whine made with sour grapes.

No, Thaddeus lost a sister to a heroin overdose.

I could go off on a rant now, but to be quite honest mate..... you are not worth it.

No mate he is worth it..........rant on.

If you allow the like to spout without challenge, you end up with a " politically correct " world defined by the socially acceptable, who have insured that the sadly often stoic middle ground, have been led by the nose and trampled on, as the new leadership munch on their prawn sandwiches washed down with a caramel latte or two.

Thaddeus must have drunk some whine made with sour grapes.

No, Thaddeus lost a sister to a heroin overdose.

I could go off on a rant now, but to be quite honest mate..... you are not worth it.

Very sorry to hear that, if it's true.

In very bad taste, if it isn't.

Thaddeus must have drunk some whine made with sour grapes.

No, Thaddeus lost a sister to a heroin overdose.

I could go off on a rant now, but to be quite honest mate..... you are not worth it.

Very sorry to hear that, if it's true.

In very bad taste, if it isn't.

Thad, as someone who has lost a sibling to not the same but just as tragic circumstances, I do know how you feel, so my condolences.

Suiging, we are all allowed our comments, however distasteful to our own view, Sir Burr has every right to his own, whether we agree on them or not.

Sir Burr, you have now lost any support you might have garnered from me with this comment, which is distasteful to the extreme, there is no call for it and it shows you to be the mean spirited character that I had hoped you were not.

I guess I have mis-judged somebody once again.

Thad, is liked and respected on this forum and I personally have now taken quite a distaste to you.

I will request your comment to be removed.

Now sod off where you feel more at home.

Moss

What's wrong with my comment?

It means just what it says.

I am not completely sure if it's true and I've said if it is I'm very sad to hear this. If it was intended as a wind-up, then I find it in bad taste.

PS. Me sodding off is not your decision to make, now is it?

Calm down, calm down, calm down!

Calm down, calm down, calm down!

A A A tatty 'ead, don fret, i'll ged down from the chimknee before I get a nose bleed ok.

That was the vague attempt at humour comment .... guess what's next.... I haven't done it for a long time, so I may be a little rusty, but I'll do my best.

What's wrong with my comment?

It means just what it says.

I am not completely sure if it's true and I've said if it is I'm very sad to hear this. If it was intended as a wind-up, then I find it in bad taste.

PS. Me sodding off is not your decision to make, now is it?

You are truly sickening.... I may be flippant from time to time, sarcastic frequently and permanently pedantic, but, and it's a big but, I never lie.

My favourite sister, Norma (or 'Hoss' to me, she gave great piggy-back rides when I was a kid) died when she was just 28 years old from an overdose of a drug that you want to make legal....... yay, that's forward thinking isn't it.

I would suggest that you stick to more harmless subjects in future, you know the ones, getting a good gardener or maid, that sort of stuff, you're good at that, and every now and again you can be amusing, but when it comes to any subject more serious than which are the best brand of nail clippers.... you haven't got a clue.

P.S. you are absolutely correct when you say that your sodding off is not a decision that Moss can make on his own, however, you can add at least one more to that and I would be very surprised if the total stopped at two..... go bang on another door.

And yet you say:-

That was the vague attempt at humour comment .... guess what's next.... I haven't done it for a long time, so I may be a little rusty, but I'll do my best.

Which is the more sickening?

Your sense of humour, I think.

I would suggest that you stick to more harmless subjects in future, you know the ones, getting a good gardener or maid, that sort of stuff, you're good at that, and every now and again you can be amusing, but when it comes to any subject more serious than which are the best brand of nail clippers.... you haven't got a clue.

P.S. you are absolutely correct when you say that your sodding off is not a decision that Moss can make on his own, however, you can add at least one more to that and I would be very surprised if the total stopped at two..... go bang on another door..

Calm down, calm down, calm down!

A A A tatty 'ead, don fret, i'll ged down from the chimknee before I get a nose bleed ok.

Is that my frigging video?

I'll have a Guiness and black! (Or is that 'blaccchhhk'?)

Suiging, we are all allowed our comments, however distasteful to our own view, Sir Burr has every right to his own, whether we agree on them or not.

Totally agree. Nowhere have i said otherwise ( I think ? ) Debate is good, if we all thought or knew the same things pretty crappy world all round.

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!

Singapore hasn't won the war on drugs.

Singapore has quite a big drug problem, they have just won the war on hiding it.

They also have big issues with presciption drugs being abused...

Singapore is certainly no model.

http://www.thinkcentre.org/article.cfm?ArticleID=960

Drug addiction continues to be a serious problem among the poor and low educated in Singapore despite harsh anti-drugs laws.

What's wrong with my comment?

It means just what it says.

I am not completely sure if it's true and I've said if it is I'm very sad to hear this. If it was intended as a wind-up, then I find it in bad taste.

PS. Me sodding off is not your decision to make, now is it?

I am aware it means what it says, which is exactly why I have taken exception to it, you suggested that Thad might have made up that comment, for whatever reason and for this reason, reason escapes me.

I am fully aware that it is not my decision to make, it was a personal remark in the hope that you would, not an executive one.

I did request its removal on distaste grounds, yet it remains, so perhaps Bedlam is allowed to sink to the depths of certain posters in certain areas of other domains.

And yet you say:-

That was the vague attempt at humour comment .... guess what's next.... I haven't done it for a long time, so I may be a little rusty, but I'll do my best.

Which is the more sickening?

Your sense of humour, I think.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or dense or are you really having to work hard at it? Thad's ,' vague attempt at humour', was relating to the nose bleed comment, not a previous post.

Moss

Well, obviously I got my wires crossed, so apologies.

Back to the OP.

If government took control of supply and there were clinics where addicts could get clean needles and supervision, then this would lessen the chances of over-doses and HIV infections from shared needles.

In fact, in Canada, there are places for needle exchanges where a registered nurse can supervise intravenous injections. It has already proved to be cheaper than after care for HIV infected addicts, so, it does work.

PS. Read back through the thread and have a look who is throwing personal insults at whom, yet, you'll never find me going bleating to mods.

"Hi Little Jimmy and what do you want today ? "

"Me ?.................Well I thought I'd try smack "

" Sure !!!... You've come to the right clinic !! Now we the Government control this stuff, all the needles are clean and I'll even bang it straight in the old vein for you "

" Wow great, and the tax on the shit will help with my pension some day"

" Sure will.......................if you live that long "

Mmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Utter tripe.

How about a constructive suggestion?

How would you do it keeping in mind that the present method hasn't, doesn't work.

How to win the war on [sic] drugs? Well, how about how to win the war against rape, or murder, child-abuse or war itself?

It seems to me that this topic is generating more heat than light and is based upon the, in my view, mistaken premise that man is perfectible; a well-meaning, victorian theory that never really took into account the fact that a lot of people rather enjoy doing the wrong thing.

Sorry to appear negative; I just happen to believe that that's just the way it is. You can't save people from themselves especially when they don't want to be saved.

If that is true, then should drug-users be thrown in jail for years, when their only crime is to ingest a chemical that at this moment in time is considered illegal?

Is it a criminal problem, or, a health and social problem?

I think it's all three. I just don't happen to believe that this is a war that can be "won". And no, I'm not just suggesting that we should all apathetically shrug our shoulders and let 'em get on with it. I would suggest, however, that whatever the judicial system dreams-up, people are going to want to clamber into another dimension using whatever comes to hand. The only way to "win" this battle would be to keep the entire population under 24-hour surveillance. Actually, for some governments, that would sound quite attractive...

Is it a criminal problem, or, a health and social problem?

As Micky said, it's probably all three.

My main objection to the original post were the lines 'make all drugs legal' which imo would be completely foolish, and 'it's a victimless crime' which, sadly, it isn't.

Thaddeus must have drunk some whine made with sour grapes.

No, Thaddeus lost a sister to a heroin overdose.

I could go off on a rant now, but to be quite honest mate..... you are not worth it.

Very sorry to hear that, if it's true.

In very bad taste, if it isn't.

PS. Read back through the thread and have a look who is throwing personal insults at whom, yet, you'll never find me going bleating to mods.

I went bleating to the Mods because I thought your post was distasteful in the extreme, I explained this at the time, something I would do again, you were not just impugning a poster, but alleging he was using a lost sibling to strengthen an argument, if that is not distasteful I do not know what is.

If you would like to abuse me then fine, I will counter but not 'bleat', but I still find you distasteful unless of course you retract the allusion!!

Moss

I will counter but not 'bleat'

Too late. You already have.

I will counter but not 'bleat'

Too late. You already have.

Crikey, you are dense.

Read my post again, slowly this time.

....and you are blind!

Try reading the first line of post #50.

Maybe you should go back to the "change a letter" thread. I'm sure you would feel more at home there.