Crosswords0 min ago
Legalise ALL drugs?
Richard Brunstrom, the Chief Constable of North Wales and one of Britain's most senior police officers has called for all drugs � including heroin and cocaine � to be legalised.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/arti cle3061121.ece
Class A drug use in England and Wales costs the country up to �17bn a year, 90 per cent of which is due to crime.
He argues that prohibition has created a crisis in the criminal justice system, destabilised producer countries and undermined human rights worldwide
In Scotland, 13,000 people died from tobacco-related use in 2004 while 2,052 died as a result of alcohol. Illegal drugs, meanwhile, accounted for 356 deaths.
He says:
* British drugs policy has been based upon prohibition for the last several decades � but this system has not worked well. Illegal drugs are in plentiful supply and have become consistently cheaper in real terms over the years.
* The number of drug users has increased dramatically. Drug-related crime has soared equally sharply as a direct consequence of the illegality of some drugs. The vast profits from illegal trading have supported a massive rise in organised crime.
* The ABC classification of drugs is said by the RSA Commission to be indefensible and is described as "crude, ineffective, riddled with anomalies and open to political manipulation". Most importantly, the current ABC system illogically excludes both alcohol and tobacco.
* Mr Brunstrom says: "If policy on drugs is in the future to be pragmatic not moralistic, driven by ethics not dogma, then the current prohibitionist stance will have to be swept away as both unworkable and immoral. Such a strategy leads inevitably to the legalisation and regulation of all drugs."
Do you think there's any merit in what he's
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/arti cle3061121.ece
Class A drug use in England and Wales costs the country up to �17bn a year, 90 per cent of which is due to crime.
He argues that prohibition has created a crisis in the criminal justice system, destabilised producer countries and undermined human rights worldwide
In Scotland, 13,000 people died from tobacco-related use in 2004 while 2,052 died as a result of alcohol. Illegal drugs, meanwhile, accounted for 356 deaths.
He says:
* British drugs policy has been based upon prohibition for the last several decades � but this system has not worked well. Illegal drugs are in plentiful supply and have become consistently cheaper in real terms over the years.
* The number of drug users has increased dramatically. Drug-related crime has soared equally sharply as a direct consequence of the illegality of some drugs. The vast profits from illegal trading have supported a massive rise in organised crime.
* The ABC classification of drugs is said by the RSA Commission to be indefensible and is described as "crude, ineffective, riddled with anomalies and open to political manipulation". Most importantly, the current ABC system illogically excludes both alcohol and tobacco.
* Mr Brunstrom says: "If policy on drugs is in the future to be pragmatic not moralistic, driven by ethics not dogma, then the current prohibitionist stance will have to be swept away as both unworkable and immoral. Such a strategy leads inevitably to the legalisation and regulation of all drugs."
Do you think there's any merit in what he's
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Sweep2k. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I say legalise all drugs,they can then be sold in authorised outlets where the quality can be assured if they are produced by reputable pharmacists etc. The government can also take a portion of the cost in tax therefore funding any medical treatment users may require from missuse. Also some sort of system could be put in place where a card is needed to buy the drugs and you are only allowed so much at a time. It would obviously have to be thought about long and hard but it could work.
Theft and sexual assault costs the Govt and Police billions each year as well. should they be leaglised??
I have never heard such utter nonsense. Drugs are for the weak and lonely and should further criminalised NOT downgraded.
Drug users should be locked up for a very long time. That'll teach the scum to stop taking them.
and all this talk about drugs being ripe in Gaol, well employ better screws!!!!
I have never heard such utter nonsense. Drugs are for the weak and lonely and should further criminalised NOT downgraded.
Drug users should be locked up for a very long time. That'll teach the scum to stop taking them.
and all this talk about drugs being ripe in Gaol, well employ better screws!!!!
What next ?
One of Britain's most senior police officers is to call for all serious crimes � including murder, rape and paedophilia � to be legalised and urges the Government to declare an end to the "failed" war on crime.
Richard Brainstorm, the Chief Constable of Cloud Cuckoo-Land, advocates an end to UK crime policy based on "prohibition". In his radical analysis, which he will present to the North Cuckoo-Land Police Authority today, Mr Brainstorm points out that crime is now more plentiful than ever before, and police arrest and conviction rates are abysmally low. His logical conclusion is that, if all serious crime were to be legalised, it would make life a lot simpler for hard-pressed police forces.
At present, the police are buried under a mountain of paperwork relating to crimes that have come into existence since the present Government introduced about 3,000 new offences. �My proposals make perfect sense,� said Mr Brainstorm. �If the police don�t have to bother with these old-fashioned so-called serious crimes, it will free us up to deal with all the exciting New Crimes introduced by New Labour. Smoking, eating while driving, putting the wrong things in your dustbin�. These are much easier for us to sort out, and have the added bonus of not putting us in any danger, so we can comply with Health and Safety too.�
When asked if he would be concerned by the fact that dangerous criminals would be free to roam the streets and cause trouble, Mr Brainstorm responded: �Just let them try dropping a bit of litter near one of our talking surveillance cameras � we�ll give them a jolly good ticking off, I can tell you!�
One of Britain's most senior police officers is to call for all serious crimes � including murder, rape and paedophilia � to be legalised and urges the Government to declare an end to the "failed" war on crime.
Richard Brainstorm, the Chief Constable of Cloud Cuckoo-Land, advocates an end to UK crime policy based on "prohibition". In his radical analysis, which he will present to the North Cuckoo-Land Police Authority today, Mr Brainstorm points out that crime is now more plentiful than ever before, and police arrest and conviction rates are abysmally low. His logical conclusion is that, if all serious crime were to be legalised, it would make life a lot simpler for hard-pressed police forces.
At present, the police are buried under a mountain of paperwork relating to crimes that have come into existence since the present Government introduced about 3,000 new offences. �My proposals make perfect sense,� said Mr Brainstorm. �If the police don�t have to bother with these old-fashioned so-called serious crimes, it will free us up to deal with all the exciting New Crimes introduced by New Labour. Smoking, eating while driving, putting the wrong things in your dustbin�. These are much easier for us to sort out, and have the added bonus of not putting us in any danger, so we can comply with Health and Safety too.�
When asked if he would be concerned by the fact that dangerous criminals would be free to roam the streets and cause trouble, Mr Brainstorm responded: �Just let them try dropping a bit of litter near one of our talking surveillance cameras � we�ll give them a jolly good ticking off, I can tell you!�
-- answer removed --
It's daft to equate the legalisation of drugs with rape and murder etc. What is it that people actually hate about drugs
1. The crime associated with obtaining them, and funding a network of further criminal activity
2. The deterioration of a person's health through their use
I'm not sure that you can genuinely care about the second one if you're prepared to allow alcohol and tobaco to be legal, so perhaps it must purely come down to a crime issue. If we could lessen that then surely it would be a good thing, unless
3. There is a moral issue concering taking an intoxicant.
In which case no amount of reducing crime or anything else is going to affect your standpoint, that it's morally wrong. Again, you would surely have to have a substantial problem with alcohol. But WHY would you have a moral problem with someone taking an intoxicant of some description? I've never understood that.
Given that I'm only concerned about crime and the affects on society, I'm in favour of anything that wouild reduce that. Anyway it's all nonsense given that you can't even eat a chip these days without the government warning you about obesity. Lord knows what would happen if you could buy high grade smack over the counter at Boots.
1. The crime associated with obtaining them, and funding a network of further criminal activity
2. The deterioration of a person's health through their use
I'm not sure that you can genuinely care about the second one if you're prepared to allow alcohol and tobaco to be legal, so perhaps it must purely come down to a crime issue. If we could lessen that then surely it would be a good thing, unless
3. There is a moral issue concering taking an intoxicant.
In which case no amount of reducing crime or anything else is going to affect your standpoint, that it's morally wrong. Again, you would surely have to have a substantial problem with alcohol. But WHY would you have a moral problem with someone taking an intoxicant of some description? I've never understood that.
Given that I'm only concerned about crime and the affects on society, I'm in favour of anything that wouild reduce that. Anyway it's all nonsense given that you can't even eat a chip these days without the government warning you about obesity. Lord knows what would happen if you could buy high grade smack over the counter at Boots.
So, by Lonnie's reasoning, anything that is now criminal cannot ever be decriminalised, since whatever that criminal offence may be, legalising it is exactly the same as making it legal for everyone to carry a gun.
It should be noted that Lonnie's Rule applies even, and this must be made clear, if it patently isn't true if you give it even a cursory thought, and the comparison is absurd.
It should be noted that Lonnie's Rule applies even, and this must be made clear, if it patently isn't true if you give it even a cursory thought, and the comparison is absurd.
I think the reason that Brunstrom has singled out drugs is that taking drugs is harmful only to the user.
It's the fact that they're illegal that harms others through theft, gang warfare and the like. Which is what he wants to eliminate.
That's why I don't quite understand the analogies about rape, murder and gun possession. They're clearly activities that directly harm others. Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick?
It's the fact that they're illegal that harms others through theft, gang warfare and the like. Which is what he wants to eliminate.
That's why I don't quite understand the analogies about rape, murder and gun possession. They're clearly activities that directly harm others. Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick?
Sweep a lot of "illegal" drugs are less harmful than alcohol
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5230006 .stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5230006 .stm
Agreed, Rev.
What I'm saying is that the state doesn't stop us from drinking, or smoking, or sky diving, or eating deep-fried food, or rock climbing, or pot holing, or getting your private parts pierced. Or committing suicide come to think of it.
We generally operate under a principle that we have our own free will when it comes to our own health and well being.
So surely harm to ourselves is not the reason why drugs are illegal. In which case, what is the reason?
What I'm saying is that the state doesn't stop us from drinking, or smoking, or sky diving, or eating deep-fried food, or rock climbing, or pot holing, or getting your private parts pierced. Or committing suicide come to think of it.
We generally operate under a principle that we have our own free will when it comes to our own health and well being.
So surely harm to ourselves is not the reason why drugs are illegal. In which case, what is the reason?
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
Developing Fast': Britain Facing...
News15 mins ago
Crosswords22 mins ago
ChatterBank22 mins ago