Ainsworth: Decriminalise all drugs

#2
Much as I detest Ainsworth and his Party, I cannot see an alternative to de criminalising Hard Drugs.
So much petty crime is drug related and the Empires built up by the serious players are never truly touched.

john
 
S

Snoreador

Guest
#3
Indeed, I certainly think that (if intelligently done) decriminalisation could be a Good Thing(TM). Along with proper social steps taken to stop people (or help people out) falling into the hard-drugs gutter.

The thing that peed me off was yet another example of a lack of integrity from a politician. I should be numb to it now, but I'm not.
 
#5
A politician talking sense on this subject... finally
 
#7
A politician talking sense on this subject... finally
Agreed but for him and the rest of Liebour,had 13 years do this and didnt apart from the cannabis turnaround which went to ratshit alittle later.Its very easy to stand on the sidelines and gob off about how things would be done "if I were in power".
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#8
What a pity he did not choose to say this when he was the minister in charge.
 
#9
do you honestly think decriminalising drugs will help cure criminal behaviour?

users will still need money to buy their gear, making it legal does not give anyone any more money except the Government IMO, is Holland crime free?

will there be more discarded needles/packs in your neighbourhood for kids to play with?

how many more overdoses to deal with people trying it "because it's ok, it's legal".

I wouldn't rush into this as its nothing more than a fund raising scheme they are on about, will they deal direct with the Taliban/opium dealers or will they of course just be "farmers" or, undermine say the countries governments, by dealing with drug barons that grow the stuff that is illegal in most of the modern world
 
#10
Ainsworth is an idiot and a hypocrite.

Like many of our social ills, people who have no first hand or in depth knowledge like to pontificate about them. Taking drugs is never alright or harmless. The Islington set who snort a line of coke at a dinner party are as bad as the heroin addict shooting up behind the bins in a council high rise.

What the chattering classes fail to realise is that the coke that they harmelessly snort came here up a Jamaican's ********, funded by ruthless organised criminals who will kill and maim to make their obscene profit from the drug trade. Its a line of misery from the grower, the courier and right up to the consumer.

They talk as if the war on drugs is lost, but there have only been skirmishes, and considering the rsources in place, the autorities don't do too badly. If we declared a proper war on drugs it would have to be on all fronts, and the biggest front is the consumer. Fine/name and shame/Jail the users, especially the chattering classes who think there is nothing wrong with it. If we take out the market, the crime lords will suffer in the pocket. The crime lords are too well placed, well organised to be taken on by the shoestring budgets of the law enforcement agencies, and take sufficient steps to always be one step ahead, or just outside the loop. But if you follow the cash, or cut it off at its source, the consumer, it will pay off. The second front of this war should be the cash channelled by the criminal gangs out of the country to fund more drug purchases and production. This can have a serious effect.

The war on drugs has not been prosecuted properly either. But what else can we expect from the 'Not fit for purpose' Home Office as it general staff in that war? With their confusing messages about classification, sentencing and various experiments such as the Commander Paddick nonsense in Brixton they have lost all credibility. Ainsworth, the HO, and to some extent the Police, HM Customs/HMRC must share the blame for this failure to join the battle in earnest.

If we walk away from this, if we decriminalise, the criminals won't become legitimate businessmen and start paying taxes. They will simply move into whatever new criminal enterprise can make them obscene amounts of money. And in 10 years time this country will be as lawless as Mexico.
 
#11
do you honestly think decriminalising drugs will help cure criminal behaviour?

users will still need money to buy their gear, making it legal does not give anyone any more money except the Government IMO, is Holland crime free?

will there be more discarded needles/packs in your neighbourhood for kids to play with?

how many more overdoses to deal with people trying it "because it's ok, it's legal".

I wouldn't rush into this as its nothing more than a fund raising scheme they are on about, will they deal direct with the Taliban/opium dealers or will they of course just be "farmers" or, undermine say the countries governments, by dealing with drug barons that grow the stuff that is illegal in most of the modern world
I think it would cut down on criminal behaviour. Turf wars would go, smuggling would go, prices would stabalise or even go down (cost of pharmaceuticaly pure opiates and cocaine derivatives are , I believe, a lot less than the street price, the commercial imperative of trying to 'hook' new users would be removed, supplies would be clean so cut down on NHS costs, less people going through courts and prison, etc., etc.

Upside - some numpties will OD so improving the gene pool.

As Bob said, at present the drugs trade is in the hands of criminals, and everything else that's been tried has failed. Much as I hate t agree with a Liebour politician, it is time to get real about drugs.
 
#12
I just wonder when someone actually in authority will say this, and do something.
Speaking as someone who knew someone who died of heroin, I can only say the sooner this is done, the better. It will happen, one day, as surely as when America ditched prohibition of alcohol. To those who think this is a bad idea - do you call the status quo success?
 
#13
I just wonder when someone actually in authority will say this, and do something.
Speaking as someone who knew someone who died of heroin, I can only say the sooner this is done, the better. It will happen, one day, as surely as when America ditched prohibition of alcohol. To those who think this is a bad idea - do you call the status quo success?
Heroin doesn't kill you. The impurities do, and the hectic and unhealthy lifestyle that addicts live doesn't make them good insurance propositions either. Alcohol, smoking and obesity has killed many more.

The American example of prohibition or the Volstead Acts is not really a valid comparison. The prohibition was more about Christian fundamentalism than public health. America did not have a drink problem prior to this legislation. Shortly after it did, and it involved serious criminality too.

The status quo is not that bad, considering the resources that maintain it currently. But we should first try and win the war on drugs rather than just a continuing holding action. I believe we can win it if we want too. Or do you think we should just surrender without a fight? What are we now? Skint we may well be, but we're not French?

The biggest threat to the safety and security of this country is the drugs trade. Not terrorism.
 
#14
I think the aim of this thread was less to discuss the decriminalisation proposed and more to criticise the spineless idiot who, having been in a position where he could have done soemthing about it, failed to do so but now wishes to criticise those who are not doing it now.

He was a member of the Nu Liarbour Government so no great surprise that he is a two faced hypocryte really is it!
 
#15
As a former hostel worker working with the bottom level of the most chaotic drug users never in three years working in a south east coast town did any client ever say I just can't find any smack today even on days when the news were showing big busts or the police were catching dealers commuting from london. the drug war was lost before it started.
Bobs right he's also right that any minister in power who said what he said of any party would be out on his ear. Same as saying law abiding english men should be allowed to own pistols (frankly the scots worry me and not even sure the welsh count as human :)).
Our drug laws make about as much sense as our firearm laws and have diffrent but equally irrational dangers behind them.
cocanie was outlawed due to the fear of black musicans taking advantage of white women. makes slightly less sense than removing machine guns because of the fear of revoultion.
I actually think Bob is a decent bloke whose saying what an awful lot of people belive.
Walt is right drugs and the drug trade cause a lot of misery removing some of the junkies and casual users and replacing illegal es etc with legal and safer alternatives would cut down on the mayhem. you'd still have some illegal trade I'd guess a lot less though why buy dodgy drugs when you could get fair trade cocaine or virgin Es?
 
#16
Proibition never worked, all it did was make scumbags into millionaires, wuld we still get problems if they were legalised - yes absolutley, but drugs on their own aren't bad.
The effects of drugs being illegal is what everyone see's crime , degradation, violence. The big worry would be how would millionaire scumbags take to having their cashflow stopped?
 
#17
The American example of prohibition or the Volstead Acts is not really a valid comparison. The prohibition was more about Christian fundamentalism than public health. America did not have a drink problem prior to this legislation. Shortly after it did, and it involved serious criminality too.

The biggest threat to the safety and security of this country is the drugs trade. Not terrorism.
I think you just stepped into the trap WOTW, I think the US example is EXACTLY analogous to the problem we are facing here.. I'm not that sure you are right about the US not having a drink problem prior to 1920 - I suspect most of the Scots/Irish settlers brought the alcohol gene with them (along with the puritan religion gene as well!)

Yes the 1920 prohibition thing may have been driven from the religious establishment, but remember in the the 1920s the "establishment" WAS religious (or at least church based). I suggest that the current "establishment" may not be church based, but are acting in the same way as they always have - a minority thinking they are better than the majority and acting in their own self interest..

Anyhow, the effect is still the same - we are empowering and bankrolling a criminal class which will take generations to wash out of the culture. I disagree with you that the drugs trade is the biggest threat to the country, I would suggest the criminal gangs and the money flowing in to them and the terrorist communities are..

The current "establishment" is made up from an unholy alliance of politicians, the media and a host of vested interests in the legal, administrative and "caring" industries who are making a nice little life for themselves on the "ethical" back of the drugs trade. They have a formula for screwing money out of our pockets for a lost cause and really don't want it to change...

So Bob, I think you were a bit of a cock in the MoD, but I'm with you on this one...
 
#18
Taking drugs is never alright or harmless.

Do you enjoy a pint?

It's do-goody, nanny state lunatics like you that are hypocritical. If people want to do drugs, let them - and they can get a clean and regular supply with medical help when they need it.

Beats gifting the criminals a £4.5bn pa tax free jolly.

msr
 
#19
niether alcohol or smoking would be legal if invented now.
so squaddies who have many a drunken escapade to their credit going on about drugs bad kill them all etc while getting smashed on alcohol bit hypocritcal.
at least a junkie once gouging out stay in one place and makes a handy buckeroo pony "just how much crap can you balance on a teetering junkie"
drunks a niether quiet stationary or safe to be around:(
 
P

pp0470

Guest
#20
Do you enjoy a pint?

It's do-goody, nanny state lunatics like you that are hypocritical. If people want to do drugs, let them - and they can get a clean and regular supply with medical help when they need it.

Beats gifting the criminals a £4.5bn pa tax free jolly.

msr
Best legalization arguement there is - prohibition doesn't work, so control it, regulate it and tax it!
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Top