Did you catch Mark Easton’s glowing report on Portugal’s policy of not prosecuting anyone caught in possession of hard drugs? Here is the content of it. What struck me was the subtle but all too evident admiration Easton exhibits for a government that has given up on the war on illegal narcotics. As Easton concludes…..
Some question aspects of the system but what Portugal’s controversial experiment has demonstrated is that, if you take the crime out of drug use, the sky doesn’t fall in.
Why stop there? Why not dissolve the police and the judiciary system and go for anarchy? Then we can at least defend ourselves properly against people we consider to be wrongdoers.
What does Portugal gain? That drugs no longer require gangsters for distribution. What does Portugal lose? That there is no longer any social censure for drug usage. In the end Portugal will lose the benefits of a first world country.
I'm off to Portugal to get stoned. Talk to you in a couple of weeks.
"a government that has given up on the war on illegal narcotics"
Obviously poor little David got too tired to read the sentence "drug trafficking remains a serious criminal offence – Portugal hasn't legalised drugs."
Still, as we know from numerous previous instances, Vance thinks it's okay to completely misrepresent things if it furthers his own goals. Not for him any sense of responsibility or ethics, oh no. The truth is for wimps! And if anybody dares suggest otherwise, he'll just throw a couple of schoolboy insults their way. That'll teach the rotters!
By far and away the greatest problem with ALL types of DRUGS in general, is the price of them. Which is extremely high.
The production costs of one kilo of coke is estimated to be under $10.
The price on the street, is measured in many thousands.
The cost of cancer or anti HIV drugs for example, is infinitely small compared to what the public, or their so called health services actually pay for them.
Therefore someone with an extreme amount of black or white cash to spend/bribe with, is having without doubt an extremely profound amount of financial and therefore political control over our own governments policies
This can not be a good thing, whatever way one looks at the issue of illegal or legal drugs.
For I see no real difference between the two. Other then one type creates very high BLACK profits for high establishment criminals. The other are prescribed by doctors and create even vaster WHITE profits for exactly the same high establishment criminals.
As you hopefully can see. The price of ALL forms of drugs would not be so incredibly high, and therefore the profits so incredibly vast, if the establishment and their very own medical and/or judicial professions, did not have their greedy power crazed fingerprints all over the crime-scene.
However; we have a very real problem whatever we do.
If we try to make legal drugs very cheap the establishment will simply stop producing them, other then the ones that make us ill in the first place.
If we take away the laws against the possession and consumption of illegal drugs. The price will still be made to be as high as possible simply because our own establishment almost completely control the means of production and above all distribution.
Therefore there really is only ONE solution that has a chance of actually working for the benefit of society as a whole, and the individuals that inhabit it.
Small, very small or even one man business must be allowed to not only produce but also distribute drugs, in a completely free market. This without any other laws other then the ones currently in force concerning our food.
As this form of answer has not been tried for thousands of years. It most certainly is not going to be even considered never mind tried any time EVER.
As for the BBC; believe anything they say, at your own risk.
Atlas shrugged
The criminals simply move on to other things. But the mess that drugs make of people's lives doesn't change.
Considering how many beeboids openly use drugs (I'd really like to do a random drugs test at the BBC) and support their use Easton's report is no surprise. So will beeboids agree that train drivers or pilots should be able to take smack legally?
Drug use is also low or non existant in Singapore but not because they are limp wristed like shithead Easton would like.
We all know that most beeboids would like hard drugs to be made legal and for it to be OK to bugger a 14 year old boy.
Easton has long lost any credibility as a journalist.
Does anyone know if beeboids are subject to a drugs and alcohol policy? Most employers these days have them and many back it up with random testing.
You can see how such a soft on drugs policy would benefit the colleagues of Mr Easton who work for the Great Satan — Johnny Walker, Richard Bacon, Angus Deayton, Frank Bough, Nigel Wrench etc. etc.
"Frankly, if you made class A drug abuse a barrier to being a BBC presenter, then I'm afraid you'd be left with probably Moira Stuart and that's about it" Piers Morgan
"Extended use of this amphetamine[Ecstasy] causes difficulty differentiating reality and fantasy, and causes problems concentrating. Studies have found that ecstasy destroys certain cells in the brain. While the cells may re-connect after discontinued use of the drug, they don't re-connect normally. Like most drugs, this one impairs memory and can cause paranoia, anxiety, and confusion."
So plenty more future Labour supporters.
And so Lisbon sucks in all the scum of the world and becomes the new Amsterdam.
That is VERY VERY dangerous.
Credit to Mark Easton though for revealing one fact I certainly didn't know – that by dealing with 80% of drug cases here in England with a caution, the Police/CPS have taken us eight tenths of the way down the road to Portugal without any debate or legislation in Parliament.
That's sly.
And not very democratic.
I wonder if there is a reluctance to legalise drugs to it's fullest extent because the druggies might turn on the government in years to come + sue them for condoning what is a dangerous habit.
Think of the fag companies
Anyway —noone told me Portugal was good for it last time I went!
If you took a sniffer dog to Broadcasting House it would probably have a seizure in reception.
As I understand it, drug use has been falling in most Western countries since the mid-1990s, so I'm not really sure what these figures prove.
But one thing's for certain: there isn't and never has been a real war on drugs in the UK. If there were, the price of drugs would escalate so greatly that no-one but film stars and BBC journalists could afford them.
lets face it – governments right now are short of tax revenue.
and there's a rather nice potentially enormous tax revenue stream in the legalisation of drugs.
for example, one drug – heroin – well, we even have troops in place to protect that trade.
doesnt take a genius to figure out where this is heading.
to be honest – i see nothing wrong with it – lets remember that the entire British Empire was built at a time when there were NO drug laws.
however there is a counter argument that i recognise , and that most pro-legalisation folks ignore – a hundred years ago , people were vastly more religious. there was no need for drug laws – religion was the substitute and provided the discipline.
but i agree in general – it is a bit nuts to ban stuff, which only gives the criminals enormous markups.
11:46 PM, July 01, 2009
that is actually a darn good point – explains the level of "cautions" being given out.
just imagine the lawsuits over Pfizer LSD tablets. would be nightmare – in fact, i think if they DID legalise, i cant see a single pharma company wanting to make the stuff.
the threat of damages lawsuits would be too great. so back to square one – criminals control the traffic.
10:08 PM
Obviously poor little David got too tired to read the sentence "drug trafficking remains a serious criminal offence – Portugal hasn't legalised drugs."
Still, as we know from numerous previous instances, Vance thinks it's okay to completely misrepresent things if it furthers his own goals.
Which part of "not prosecuting anyone" didn't you understand? The laws on the books are now irrelevant. Hello? McFly? Anyone home?
That's a cheap, trolling shot, martin
Alcohol is legal, so a pilot or train driver could be drunk then?
pathetic
I feel sorry for the our Muslim friends. They're going to be flocking on holiday to Portugal in the hope of seeing people get stoned. They're going to be disappointed.
David Preiser: "Which part of "not prosecuting anyone" didn't you understand? The laws on the books are now irrelevant. Hello? McFly? Anyone home?"
Jesus. Ignoring the point and being a patronising twat to boot. Are you David Vance's less intelligent twin, or something?
The Portuguese system is concentrating on trafficking, rather than adding to the problems of end users who have ended up addicts by prosecuting them.
That's not giving up on a drugs war, that's using a different tactic.
Martin: "We all know that most beeboids would like hard drugs to be made legal and for it to be OK to bugger a 14 year old boy."
Martin, again your obsession about homosexuality. You know, if there's anything you want to get off your chest, there are safe and supportive environments where you can do so. I don't think Biased BBC is one of those places, though…
Scott M,
Go on and pretend like the rest of them that such tactics actually work. The direct result of the policy is to condone casual drug use. That's the complaint. I'm not arguing for or against the legalizing of whatever drugs here, of course. But it's wrong for you to say that DV is making stuff up when he isn't. You twisted it into something else.
One of these days maybe you'll also drop the pretense that you think this site would be of value if only nasty David Vance left. You always take the side of the BBC and the far Left on all issues. So I no longer believe you have any other purpose here than to defend the BBC at all costs.
If its not safe to fly a plane or drive a car under the influence, how much more so to try and run a country? Breathylse MPs returning from lunch, I say.
Scott M: What's up Scott, the truth hurting?
Scott M: you been having trouble scoring or what?
I recall a high officer in the Commonwealth (AUST) Police, more than twenty years ago, commenting that after millions of dollars and a proportionate number of police man hours effort they were stopping 10% of drugs entering Australia. Then as an afterthought he commented that some experts thought the figure was less. Does anyone in the B-BBC community think the figures have improved since then?
There is actually a midway between legalisation of drugs (alcohol, tobacco, stimulants, medicinal drugs, etc are already legal) and Prohibition. That way is controlled delivery. A drug addict must convince a competent panel (doctors, psychologists, health workers) that he or she is incurably addicted to drugs. Upon convincing them the addict is permitted a daily, measured dose to be delivered by a trained professional (nurse or health worker) to be consumed on premises. Because the addict receives only the measured, minimum dose to avoid the pain and that portion leaves the distribution centre in the blood of the addict the possibility of resale is practically eliminated.
The advantages: reduced costs in crime as the addict doesn't need to steal or prostitute to procure a fix; health care, as most drug illnesses and death come from impure drugs, infection and cross infection or the occasional, too pure drugs entering the market; leading to overdose; reduced police corruption; reduced administration, gaol and court costs; the possibility that the addict, in the same sense that the diabetic is addicted to insulin, may go on to lead a relatively normal working life or even eventually conquer the addiction. Also all the attraction of drug use as a sign of rebellion or social interaction is much reduced. In addition, pilot schemes can be conducted in a small geographical area, such as a small city to iron out the kinks before going national.
The disadvantages: not all addicts will take advantage of the program or last the course; drug addiction although a physical problem mostly has psychological roots -'the addictive persona'; people with high incomes e.g. BBC types will still go on partying with social drugs; not all drugs will be covered, for example, paint and glue sniffing or painkiller addiction. In addition, we can expect those who profit, directly and indirectly from the drug trade to attempt to sabotage the programme.
In all, worth trying.
deegee
FWIW I agree with you and the process you recommend was more or less the one in effect in the UK until 1967 (or thereabouts) except that the process was even more informal: the system relied on the professionalism (remember those days – "professionals" were expected and allowed to be "professional"!) of GPs to prescribe (or not) narcotics to their patients. The egregious splurging of confetti drug prescriptions by a couple of loony doctors in London allowed the then government (Labour, if memory serves) to ride the wave of an artificially induced moral panic (encouraged by newspaper coverage of members of popular beat combos smoking cannabis) and get the restrictive (if counter-productive) drugs legislation we know and love on to the statute books.
The danger has not been solely the health effects on those pathetic enough to succumb to drug addiction, it has been the secondary criminal effects of prohibition: the wave of petty (and not so petty) crime by the addicts seeking funding for their next fix and the enormous and socially corrupting profits accruing to the criminals who provide the sole source of banned substances.
I have yet to hear an adult discussion on the BBC where legalisation (or controlled distribution) of narcotics is discussed. I'm mildly surprised that the BBC has apparently allowed Mark Easton to comment favourably on the Portuguese practice but, forgive my cynicism, such a report is mere fluff and is going nowhere in terms of serious discussion of the problem in the UK. Those advocating complete legalisation are generally treated as drug-crazed nutters by the political class, the police and the BBC. There again, that doesn't surprise me. I've yet to hear a MMGW sceptic get a fair hearing (or any hearing) on the BBC so any challenge to the alleged "consensus" on drugs, immigration, education, public health or any other "agreed" matter is not something the BBC is set to entertain.
It doesn't ring true and nothing exists to show that it is.
BBC should concentrate on the issue of drug abuse in Britain and rising crime it brings.
Perhaps Labour's planning 'cut backs' on the serious drug issue and drug related crime – spending instead on profitable PFI's.
I feel sorry for the our Muslim friends. They're going to be flocking on holiday to Portugal in the hope of seeing people get stoned. They're going to be disappointed.
Or off their heads rather than off with their heads.
Disgusting – Easton should not give his (BBC's) opinion.
JPT,
That's really the whole problem with these Beeboid blogs, isn't it? The line has been not so much blurred as erased all together.
I don't think they even realize it.
While BBC's Easton applauds drug laxity, back in Britain:
"The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. "
By James Slack
[Extract]:
"Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it is revealed today.
"Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa – widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries. "
Above, 7:14 pm, from 'Daily Mail'.
So who are you then – statists just like the BBC and the left wing.
All credibility to this site has been lost for me now.
If you support laws against drugs, you are no different from the PC mob, placing rules on how others shall live their lives.
Cut benefits and help for druggies, cut any help away from them, other than basic medical care.
Step back a second and look at the issue – why are tobacco and alcohol legal then? Surely if some of its bad, then it all should be criminilased.
Abortion banned next. The whole point of moving against the cowards that are trying to sleepwalk us into facism is we should be fighting ALL controls in our lives, and just because tobacco and alcohol feel "normal" to you is a stupid argument.
I'm very right wing, but very liberal. If you back these types of laws you are a lefty statist facist, trying to make descisions for people.
idiots.