Well done Singapore.
The rattan cane is also a good idea provided it is administered in public.
This story makes me very happy.

Who is going to tell el Head Honcho drug baron that his crop has to meet EEC directive 2006 Drugs, Cnuts, for the use of 6 /345a and his heavy mob should attend bullying and harassment reduction training?

The reason these gangster's came about in the first place was because governments around the world banned a product that was in demand and created more problems than it managed to solve.
Let's take the American prohibition of alcohol for example. Alcohol consumption actually went UP when the US Federal Government banned the sale, distribution and manufacture of alcohol between 1920 and 1933.
The modern american mafia was created in this period, because there were huge profits to be made by organised criminals in dealing with a banned substance in heavy demand were an artificially-high (no pun intended) price could be maintained.
Prohibition was eventually repealed when politicians finally wised up to the problems it was creating, as well as the frankly nannyish attitude of seeking to tell people what they can do to their own bodies.

Should EEC farmers be subsidised to grow drug of choice so it can come under Government control, scientists diverted from doing important stuff (cures for cancer, finding more oil or alternatives to it?) to certify the stuff? Another layer of Civil Servants to add to bureaucracy, and the public purse.

Well, I certainly wouldn't advocate subsidies for growing recreational drugs, but then, I don't agree with private businesses being subsidised by the public purse full stop unless there is some over-riding public or national interest in doing so.
As for being a burden on the public purse and the health service. Many of these same arguments are made for ciggarettes, despite the fact that tax revenue from tobbacco amounts to over ten times the amount that it costs the NHS to treat smoking-related illnesses. ( http://www.ash.org.uk/html/smuggling/html/whytax99.html )

Drugs and drugs-related issues are already a heavy strain on the public purse, whether it's drugs related illnesses or locking 10,000s of people up every year for drugs-related offences, either due to possesion of said drugs, or because they tried to commit crimes to pay for the outrageously high price of illegal drugs.
The main difference is, we can't tax illegal drugs to pay for for their cost to the NHS, nor do have to lock people up potential tax payers simply for possesing and using fags.

El head honcho will just stand aside for the competition, farmers needn't fear the representatives of South American/ Jamaican / Taliban types dropping in for a chat?

If drugs were legalised, they wouldn't need to have armies of mercenaries to protect them from government forces. I do know it wouldn't be in the best interests of the drug barons to legalise cocaine etc, because it is more profitable illegal than illegal, but if they do decide to move into other areas of organised criminal activity, there would be more law-enforcement resources available to tackle real crimes involving real victims, such as child pornography, human trafficking and fraud, not to mention terrorism, as well as more space in the prison system to lock the cunwats up for longer periods of time.

There would still be a black market, still be addicts with no money. They'd just need to steal less. But I'm all ears.

What black market would this be, apart from smuggled 'duty free' contraband?
Sure, there would still be addicts, and they wouldn't have to steal as much, but, er, what is the problem with this? Surely that is a good thing?

Good.

Originally Posted by Anothermedalwonderer

Who is going to tell el Head Honcho drug baron that his crop has to meet EEC directive 2006 Drugs, Cnuts, for the use of 6 /345a and his heavy mob should attend bullying and harassment reduction training?

The reason these gangster's came about in the first place was because governments around the world banned a product that was in demand and created more problems than it managed to solve.
Let's take the American prohibition of alcohol for example. Alcohol consumption actually went UP when the US Federal Government banned the sale, distribution and manufacture of alcohol between 1920 and 1933.
The modern american mafia was created in this period, because there were huge profits to be made by organised criminals in dealing with a banned substance in heavy demand were an artificially-high (no pun intended) price could be maintained.
Prohibition was eventually repealed when politicians finally wised up to the problems it was creating, as well as the frankly nannyish attitude of seeking to tell people what they can do to their own bodies.

Should EEC farmers be subsidised to grow drug of choice so it can come under Government control, scientists diverted from doing important stuff (cures for cancer, finding more oil or alternatives to it?) to certify the stuff? Another layer of Civil Servants to add to bureaucracy, and the public purse.

Well, I certainly wouldn't advocate subsidies for growing recreational drugs, but then, I don't agree with private businesses being subsidised by the public purse full stop unless there is some over-riding public or national interest in doing so.
As for being a burden on the public purse and the health service. Many of these same arguments are made for ciggarettes, despite the fact that tax revenue from tobbacco amounts to over ten times the amount that it costs the NHS to treat smoking-related illnesses. ( http://www.ash.org.uk/html/smuggling/html/whytax99.html )

Drugs and drugs-related issues are already a heavy strain on the public purse, whether it's drugs related illnesses or locking 10,000s of people up every year for drugs-related offences, either due to possesion of said drugs, or because they tried to commit crimes to pay for the outrageously high price of illegal drugs.
The main difference is, we can't tax illegal drugs to pay for for their cost to the NHS, nor do have to lock people up potential tax payers simply for possesing and using fags.

El head honcho will just stand aside for the competition, farmers needn't fear the representatives of South American/ Jamaican / Taliban types dropping in for a chat?

If drugs were legalised, they wouldn't need to have armies of mercenaries to protect them from government forces. I do know it wouldn't be in the best interests of the drug barons to legalise cocaine etc, because it is more profitable illegal than illegal, but if they do decide to move into other areas of organised criminal activity, there would be more law-enforcement resources available to tackle real crimes involving real victims, such as child pornography, human trafficking and fraud, not to mention terrorism, as well as more space in the prison system to lock the cunwats up for longer periods of time.

There would still be a black market, still be addicts with no money. They'd just need to steal less. But I'm all ears.

What black market would this be, apart from smuggled 'duty free' contraband?
Sure, there would still be addicts, and they wouldn't have to steal as much, but, er, what is the problem with this? Surely that is a good thing?

Knobber.

I can't imagine a UK farmer's field of cannabis plants surviving until harvest. Anyway, we should be using fields to grow food (and stuff for making beer!)

Anothermedalwonderer wrote

What black market would this be, apart from smuggled 'duty free' contraband?

Do you think the drug barons will just do a resettlement course and reappear as driving instructors?

Sure, there would still be addicts, and they wouldn't have to steal as much, but, er, what is the problem with this?

Whether my mother was mugged by a smackhead and relieved of £1 or £100, she has still been mugged.

I wonder what Nigeria, a country that I believe has the death penalty,would have done if they had caught 2 foreign nationals drug smuggling

Originally Posted by Seadog

I can't imagine a UK farmer's field of cannabis plants surviving until harvest. Anyway, we should be using fields to grow food (and stuff for making beer!)

Why beer and not cannabis? If Cannabis was legalised, it would be a lot cheaper than it is now, and it simply wouldn't be worth someone's while to go around nicking cannabis crops anymore than it would scrumping apples or corn.

Do you think the drug barons will just do a resettlement course and reappear as driving instructors?

Nope, I've already answered that. Either they will become legitimate dealers, or they will move into other areas of organised crime, were they can be pursued by the newly-freed up resources of law enforcement and criminal justice to bring them to book and give them even harsher sentences (hopefully at the hands of some worthy and belated successor to Mr Pierrepoint)

Whether my mother was mugged by a smackhead and relieved of £1 or £100, she has still been mugged.

How many people have you heard of being mugged to pay for booze and fags?
If addicts don't need as much money, they are less likely to mug and steal.

And what happens if legal hardcore drugs replace binge drinking as THE young persons hobby.

When its all legal and they only have to pop into an off licence to buy crack wheres the stigma or detterant, your effectivly saying it's ok because it's legal, fill your boots, then of course if you make it legal you then have to make it illegal for workplaces to decriminate against addicts, so then you introduce "crack breaks" and a "designated tooting area".

You dumb cnuts really haven't thought this through have you?

Originally Posted by mark1234

And what happens if legal hardcore drugs replace binge drinking as THE young persons hobby.

When its all legal and they only have to pop into an off licence to buy crack wheres the stigma or detterant, your effectivly saying it's ok because it's legal, fill your boots, then of course if you make it legal you then have to make it illegal for workplaces to decriminate against addicts, so then you introduce "crack breaks" and a "designated tooting area".

You dumb cnuts really haven't thought this through have you?

Part of the attraction of drugs is their illegality. As I mentioned before, during the American Prohibition, alcohol consumption and it's associated problems actually rose:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html

Besides, if people really did want to 'fill their boots'. I say let them. It shouldn't be the role of the law to protect people from themselves. It should be up to the individuals themselves to decide whether or not they want to become a loser in life. I've never turned up to work drunk, because I know if I did so, I'd be sacked, so should it be with people who turn up to work high. Then if they then can't support themselves and turn to crime because they're an unemployable junkie, then they can be sent for a nice, long stay in one of Her Majesty's newly capacious prisons to give them some time to reflect on what they want to make out of their life.
I'm sure most people will make the right choice when confronted with the harsh realities of what will be the likely consequences of becoming overdependent on 'hard core' drugs....

Should be standard over here too, along with dealers.

well in Singapore