Legalise cannabis?

[Carl the Llama]

But take away the legal policy and they won't just exist they will flourish, softness on drugs is not an option for any government. What is a option is to make the smuggling, trafficking and selling of class A drugs a capital punishment as it is in several country's. Zero tolerance certainly works for them, compare their drug related crime to our own.

But they don't flourish, the Portuguese have shown that. That's what I was trying to tell you with the article from a few posts ago! (here it is again)

[flowwolf]

Which countries are those then?

The ones that clearly state at their airports what the punishment for drug trafficking is . You need to travel a bit more or look it up on google if your that interested.

Edited 9 November 2012 by flowwolf

[flowwolf]

But they don't flourish, the Portuguese have shown that. That's what I was trying to tell you with the article from a few posts ago! (here it is again)

Ok Ok . But what do you think about zero tolerance of traffickers and pushers any sympathy for them ? because remove them and you no longer have a future problem with vulnerable people getting hooked on drugs that are no longer available. ps I think I have already made it clear what I think of so called expert reports / articles .

Edited 9 November 2012 by flowwolf

[sphericalfox]

The ones that clearly state at their airports what the punishment for drug trafficking is . You need to travel a bit more.

Interesting, they post their crime statistics at the airport...good thing you have a great memory,eh?

Which countries were those btw?

Edited 9 November 2012 by sphericalfox

[leicsmac]

Ok Ok . But what do you think about zero tolerance of traffickers and pushers any sympathy for them ? because remove them and you no longer have a future problem with vulnerable people getting hooked on drugs that are no longer available. ps I think I have already made it clear what I think of so called expert reports / articles .

So your view on this is utterly absolutist then...you will accept no other point of view than your own?

[flowwolf]

Which countries are those then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_for_drug_trafficking.

There is that clear enough for you ?

[21st Century Fox]

So all the countries that are labelled as 'savages' in any other thread?

[flowwolf]

So your view on this is utterly absolutist then...you will accept no other point of view than your own?

No but I am waiting to see the response to how people think about zero tolerance to the traffickers . I am willing to change my mind if I see a clear well thought out argument that nullifies my own but so far on this page I have seen nothing of the sort.

[flowwolf]

So all the countries that are labelled as 'savages' in any other thread?

I did not say I agreed that it should be a capital offence I said it's effective.

[ADK]

Zero tolerance policies arnt very good. The problem is when you have a black market the more you restrict supply the greater the marginal cost of the product and the more lucrative that black market becomes.

[21st Century Fox]

I did not say I agreed that it should be a capital offence I said it's effective.

I agree, if you're caught trafficking you should be stoned....

[sphericalfox]

http://en.wikipedia....ug_trafficking.

There is that clear enough for you ?

Your link leads to nothing.

[flowwolf]

I agree, if you're caught trafficking you should be stoned....

It would help, you could laugh as they do it.

Your link leads to nothing.

Bit like you opinions then.

[leicsmac]

No but I am waiting to see the response to how people think about zero tolerance to the traffickers . I am willing to change my mind if I see a clear well thought out argument that nullifies my own but so far on this page I have seen nothing of the sort.

Ah right.

Well...my twopennyworth is that zero-tolerance approaches work...but only if you are willing to spend gross amounts of money on policing it. Also countries with big borders - either land or sea - will have a lot of trouble preventing smuggling due to the sheer amount of area required to cover. Also from what I can tell most states that carry out a zero-tolerance approach are either politically or religiously conservative anyway, and that belief in the majority of the population helps dissuade drugs from becoming widespread.

For me though, the biggest threat to zero-tolerance approaches is the sheer economics of the thing. By the very virtue of its illegality, the drugs trade is insanely valuable, and that money naturally breeds corruption, even amongst the most hardcore conservative governments. To make sure no one profits from drugs in your country, you have to have law enforcement that is next to incorruptible. Again, with small countries this is possible, but bigger ones?

So for smaller countries, I think zero-tolerance can work, but for bigger, more populous ones I don't think it can. And for most bigger countries, they instead adopt a half-arsed approach that benefits no one.

[sphericalfox]

It would help, you could laugh as they do it.

Bit like you opinions then.

You fail to provide statistics that a zero tolerance approach provides a reduction in crime in countries that take that approach, and my opinions are invalid. Great logic.

[MooseBreath]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_for_drug_trafficking

Guess this is flowwolf's link.

The list doesn't exactly scream crime free to me

[Webbo]

, so the treasury is missing out on £££££'s. This money could be ploughed back into the system to educate kids at school and help those addicted to the stronger stuff.

People who take drugs are already knowingly breaking the law, why would they want to buy a legal version, unless of course we could could undercut the criminals and make drugs cheaper. Hardly discouraging.

As for education, let's not pretend kids aren't constantly bludgeoned with safe sex/anti drug,drink, cigarette and everything else education. It never makes any difference.

[MooseBreath]

People who take drugs are already knowingly breaking the law, why would they want to buy a legal version, unless of course we could could undercut the criminals and make drugs cheaper. Hardly discouraging.

As for education, let's not pretend kids aren't constantly bludgeoned with safe sex/anti drug,drink, cigarette and everything else education. It never makes any difference.

you posting that while sipping a little moonshine, i suppose?

[Webbo]

you posting that while sipping a little moonshine, i suppose?

No.

[MooseBreath]

No.

don't you regularly drink alcohol bought from the black market then?

[Webbo]

don't you regularly drink alcohol bought from the black market then?

Does Asda count?

[foz.foz]

People who take drugs are already knowingly breaking the law, why would they want to buy a legal version, unless of course we could could undercut the criminals and make drugs cheaper. Hardly discouraging.

As for education, let's not pretend kids aren't constantly bludgeoned with safe sex/anti drug,drink, cigarette and everything else education. It never makes any difference.

Webbo fella. We want it as cheap as possible for a start off. Like this Country That way people will be more tempted to buy from a reliable source, where the dose and strengths of the drug can be controlled and people are not buying shit from down the dark alleys where they don't know the strength of what they are buying. Decriminalisation is the way forward to win the drugs war not the way most western governments work. Look at Portugal and the way it is now approaching drugs.... Their 21st century approach seems to be working a treat unlike the 20th century way we use in the UK.

[flowwolf]

Ah right.

Well...my twopennyworth is that zero-tolerance approaches work...but only if you are willing to spend gross amounts of money on policing it. Also countries with big borders - either land or sea - will have a lot of trouble preventing smuggling due to the sheer amount of area required to cover. Also from what I can tell most states that carry out a zero-tolerance approach are either politically or religiously conservative anyway, and that belief in the majority of the population helps dissuade drugs from becoming widespread.

For me though, the biggest threat to zero-tolerance approaches is the sheer economics of the thing. By the very virtue of its illegality, the drugs trade is insanely valuable, and that money naturally breeds corruption, even amongst the most hardcore conservative governments. To make sure no one profits from drugs in your country, you have to have law enforcement that is next to incorruptible. Again, with small countries this is possible, but bigger ones?

So for smaller countries, I think zero-tolerance can work, but for bigger, more populous ones I don't think it can. And for most bigger countries, they instead adopt a half-arsed approach that benefits no one.

Good points and I accept them thank you. The one thing zero tolerance does achieve however is fear. Fear is a mighty powerful weapon when applied to those who choose to trade in the drugs misery as a way of life. Death is the ultimate deterrent and I'm sure those who fancy their chances at trafficking in countries who execute drug runners think long and hard before trying it.

[ADK]

Not really, the ones doing the trafficking are the most desperate. Do you think the people making the money would risk their lives?

[flowwolf]

You fail to provide statistics that a zero tolerance approach provides a reduction in crime in countries that take that approach, and my opinions are invalid. Great logic.

Christ you are thick. When have I tried to provide any statistics ? How can anyone tell if the death penalty for drug running works, it is unquantifiable. But the governments of those countries believe it works and that is why it is still in place. One thing is for sure they do not have the drug problem on the scale that we the " tolerant " countries do. Oh and your opinions are not invalid just rare. you prefer to put up silly images instead of putting up an argument.