Blog powered by Typepad

« In which I wax lyrical | Main | Plucky little Hong Kong and, er, plucky little Switzerland »

Tuesday, 02 July 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I would choke off the demand. Go after the nice "ordinary people" who currently buy the stuff with impunity, and lock them up for a bit. Word would soon get round when a few teachers and local government clerks get a nasty shock and are not seen for a couple of months. Then watch the dealers go out of business.

Drugs are called "dope" for a reason. Some form has and always will be with us and there will be those who abuse themselves with them. Bigger picture, a society that will place few if any restrictions on drugs or abortion is a society that is okay with destroying itself. The lingering effects of abortion and drugs last a long time.

Prohibition failed dismally with alcohol - expanding both criminality and danger due to unregulated, unsafe and dangerous drinks. Drug laws have failed just as dismally, we now have a vast aggressive criminal subculture supplying them and users dying from impurities. Virtually all the problems would simply evaporate if they could be bought at an off licence.

Whitewall, the situation in Glasgow and most major cities in the UK is that drug takers are living on the streets because they will not accept housing allocation by the councils and housing is available. Health and Safety laws do not allow alcohol and drug use in hostels. So the Dopes prefer the streets. It is self destruct. Even the Scottish National Party has given up on blaming Labour and the Tories for the situation and are just allowing the addicts to die in their corner. There is no political leverage to be gained.

Ice seems to be the big problem in Australia. It is absolutely terrifying.

The drug laws are enforced with sufficient rigor to ensure that no respectable outlet will supply.
We have two choices, and of course no politician wants to make a decision for which he might be held to account.
If we are to eliminate drugs (presumably including alcohol and nicotine) then we need to go hard after the users. Long sentances, maybe the lash for the slightest offence. We could offer immunity to dealers so long as they shop their customers. Expect an absolute uproar when sixteen year olds are punished for what everyone will see as an act of youthful folly. Indeed it's fear of that outrage that has prevented the draconian enforcement needed to effectively stop people taking drugs.
Alternatively we can regulate the trade so that only respectable people supply, the stuff will then be as described, instead of the variable strength supplied today, and will contain no brick dust, rat poison or other unadvertised contaminants. The harm to users will therefore be mostly eliminated. Criminal drug dealers will be out of business, and no longer knifing each other to defend their sales pitch. And with drugs bought from pharmacies they will no longer have the bad boy image that attracts people to start.
So there's your choice. Lock up and permanently blight the lives of a lot of people, mostly young, who were harming nobody, except perhaps themselves.
Provide legal access to drugs in a safer form.
Or carry on pretending to ban them.
I'm damn sure the drug dealers favour the latter solution. Their business has increased a thousand fold since we "banned" drugs

The comments to this entry are closed.