That is the way to go - $0.5 Billion seized!

...

You educate instead of criminalising it.

Cigarettes are perhaps one of the worst drugs out there, every cigarette you smoke takes an average of 11 minutes off your life. If you smoke 50 a day, that's a day off your life every 2 and a bit days. Now why the fuck is that better than taking MDMA?

Alcohol is also much worse than most illegal drugs.
Heck, only several other drugs are more addictive than it.

People aren't going to suddenly start injecting heroin overnight.

Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal - Forbes


That case study from Portugal is pretty compelling. Richard Branson is leading a campaign to get drugs decriminalised in the UK.

However, if drugs were decriminalised who would control the supply? (it would for sure need to be controlled in some way). The government? Private business? How would you regulate that?
 


Interesting comment. Yesterday I watched the movie American Gangster. Apparently it's based on a true story about a black drug dealer called Frank Lucas. He was supplying the best heroin at half the market rate and doing incredibly well financially. But success draws haters and he made a couple of mistakes and the house of cards came tumbling down.

I admired this character because of his approach but then I thought about the misery left in his wake: death, crime, untold unhappiness, orphans.

In the UK approximately 40% of crime is drug related. I had my house turned-over while I was on holiday by a drug addict. It wasn't pleasant.

I would be interested therefore to hear why you think the police in the above story are fascist idiots.

Watch this:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSrN2zIRwN8]Versus War on Drugs Debate - YouTube[/ame]

It is known that criminals that produce and distribute drugs support drug prohibition because it creates those nice profit margins they thrive on.
 
However, if drugs were decriminalised who would control the supply? (it would for sure need to be controlled in some way). The government? Private business? How would you regulate that?
Who would build the roads?

Who would run the schools?

Who would grow the cabbage?

Who will make the iphones?
 
However, if drugs were decriminalised who would control the supply? (it would for sure need to be controlled in some way). The government? Private business? How would you regulate that?

Not that im a proponent of regulation, but isnt government regulating all kinds of shit from apples to suntan without criminalizing it?
 
That case study from Portugal is pretty compelling. Richard Branson is leading a campaign to get drugs decriminalised in the UK.

However, if drugs were decriminalised who would control the supply? (it would for sure need to be controlled in some way). The government? Private business? How would you regulate that?

Why would it need to be regulated?
 
Interesting comment. Yesterday I watched the movie American Gangster. Apparently it's based on a true story about a black drug dealer called Frank Lucas. He was supplying the best heroin at half the market rate and doing incredibly well financially. But success draws haters and he made a couple of mistakes and the house of cards came tumbling down.
You should check out American Drug War: The Last White Hope | Watch Free Documentary Online "American Drug War" with Ricky Ross, largest crack dealer who claims he got coke from Gov officials. He asks why the justice department never was interested where he was getting it, you'd think if you had the largest crack dealer in history you'd want to track down the source and how they were getting it into the country?
 
In the UK you can't buy booze if you're under 18. That's a sensible regulation passed down by the government to stop 12 year old kids drinking themselves into oblivion. Same with drugs, isn't it?
Right, because the problem with alcohol is drunk 12 year olds, not drunk 40 year olds...
 
Right, because the problem with alcohol is drunk 12 year olds, not drunk 40 year olds...

Come on, that's not what I meant. The example of regulation I gave was about protecting young people from doing something stupid before they've learned good judgement. This is a good example of regulation, isn't it? I doubt you think a 10 year old should be allowed to walk into a supermarket and buy a bottle of vodka?
 
You should check out American Drug War: The Last White Hope | Watch Free Documentary Online "American Drug War" with Ricky Ross, largest crack dealer who claims he got coke from Gov officials. He asks why the justice department never was interested where he was getting it, you'd think if you had the largest crack dealer in history you'd want to track down the source and how they were getting it into the country?

I've heard that the CIA is involved with drug-dealing. Doesn't that sicken you? Sorry to sound naive but why haven't the people strung-up the politicians involved in this?
 
Come on, that's not what I meant. The example of regulation I gave was about protecting young people from doing something stupid before they've learned good judgement. This is a good example of regulation, isn't it? I doubt you think a 10 year old should be allowed to walk into a supermarket and buy a bottle of vodka?

Yes, they should. However they shouldn't do it, because their parents should have taught them not to. But because the state bans it, parents rely on the state to do their parenting for them.

Having a nanny state makes people weak-minded and feeble. If they were allowed to harm themselves more often, they'd be more careful.

People ask me how my daughter is so sensible for a two year old. They're often shocked when I tell them it's because we allowed her to hurt herself when she was younger, by not bothering with stair gates etc. Yes, she fell down the stairs a few times and got some nice bruises. Now she's careful, because she's learned that if you do stupid stuff, it hurts. This means that I don't have to watch her constantly, whilst a lot of my friends are scared to leave their kid alone for 2 minutes in case they pull a over bookcase on themselves or something.

Regulation is like covering your house in stair gates, padding and making your child wear a crash helmet when they're learning to walk. Sure, they won't hurt themselves, but they'll never learn to look out for themselves either.
 
Come on, that's not what I meant.
You meant, "What about the children?"

The example of regulation I gave was about protecting young people from doing something stupid before they've learned good judgement.
Do you really think that judgment is a function of age? Do you feel many adults exercise good judgment?

This is a good example of regulation, isn't it? I doubt you think a 10 year old should be allowed to walk into a supermarket and buy a bottle of vodka?
Why shouldn't they?

I am being 100% serious.
 
Come on, that's not what I meant. The example of regulation I gave was about protecting young people from doing something stupid before they've learned good judgement. This is a good example of regulation, isn't it? I doubt you think a 10 year old should be allowed to walk into a supermarket and buy a bottle of vodka?

That regulation is called good parenting.
 
You meant, "What about the children?"

Yeah, in this example I meant that.

Do you really think that judgment is a function of age? Do you feel many adults exercise good judgment?

That's two different things. Judgement comes with emotional maturity and children develop that over time.

Why shouldn't they?

I am being 100% serious.

Because if they bought and drank the vodka they stand a good chance of killing themselves. They may not have been taught self control or how to make the right choices or may just be too immature. Should the kid be punished for lack of good parenting? I don't think so. Sometimes society has to step in and I don't mean a nanny state, controlling every step, I just said some regulation was a good idea and my example was not allowing kids to buy alcohol.

The guy who wrote about training his baby by letting her experience accidents is, in the case of no stair gates, irresponsible. Falling down the stairs is just too risky a learning experience - the child could have broken a limb. I used stair gates with my kids and when we took them away they didn't suddenly start falling down the stairs. They learned to respect the stairs without the need for falling down them first.
 
The guy who wrote about training his baby by letting her experience accidents is, in the case of no stair gates, irresponsible. Falling down the stairs is just too risky a learning experience - the child could have broken a limb. I used stair gates with my kids and when we took them away they didn't suddenly start falling down the stairs. They learned to respect the stairs without the need for falling down them first.


How to Land Your Kid in Therapy - Magazine - The Atlantic

Consider a toddler who’s running in the park and trips on a rock, Bohn says. Some parents swoop in immediately, pick up the toddler, and comfort her in that moment of shock, before she even starts crying. But, Bohn explains, this actually prevents her from feeling secure—not just on the playground, but in life. If you don’t let her experience that momentary confusion, give her the space to figure out what just happened (Oh, I tripped), and then briefly let her grapple with the frustration of having fallen and perhaps even try to pick herself up, she has no idea what discomfort feels like, and will have no framework for how to recover when she feels discomfort later in life. These toddlers become the college kids who text their parents with an SOS if the slightest thing goes wrong, instead of attempting to figure out how to deal with it themselves. If, on the other hand, the child trips on the rock, and the parents let her try to reorient for a second before going over to comfort her, the child learns: That was scary for a second, but I’m okay now. If something unpleasant happens, I can get through it. In many cases, Bohn says, the child recovers fine on her own—but parents never learn this, because they’re too busy protecting their kid when she doesn’t need protection.

Perhaps we could strap pillows to the bodies of toddlers to protect them from falling on rocks in the park. After all, they could break a limb upon hitting the ground. I have a thousand other helpful recommendations, all in the spirit of protecting our youngsters from harm.

Or here's a crazy thought: we could just let amateursurgeon parent his own fucking kids.
 
not sure if troll.... or incredibly stupid....

33b0976.jpg
 
Because if they bought and drank the vodka they stand a good chance of killing themselves. They may not have been taught self control or how to make the right choices or may just be too immature. Should the kid be punished for lack of good parenting? I don't think so. Sometimes society has to step in and I don't mean a nanny state, controlling every step, I just said some regulation was a good idea and my example was not allowing kids to buy alcohol.

Children can, and do, kill themselves regularly in home swimming pools. Why don't we regulate or ban those? Surely people should need a license for something so dangerous?
 
People ask me how my daughter is so sensible for a two year old. They're often shocked when I tell them it's because we allowed her to hurt herself when she was younger, by not bothering with stair gates etc. Yes, she fell down the stairs a few times and got some nice bruises. Now she's careful, because she's learned that if you do stupid stuff, it hurts.

Not what you call responsible parenting. How about a duty of care? Would you let your daughter play in traffic so when she gets run over she will learn not to do it? Give her a loaded gun so when she shoots herself you can say 'you won't do that again will you?' Where does that end?

Sure, they won't hurt themselves, but they'll never learn to look out for themselves either. Today 04:40 PM
Says who?