I think you can only usefully moralise re: drug-takin' as far as "consume responsibly", as is done in the case of alcohol. That can be pushed more assertively. Clearly, the medical realities of addiction can make that difficult for mere human beings to operate within the bounds of at all times, but we're talking about moralising here, which is to say ethical ideals.

With a vague appeal to realism, I don't think you can successfully push narc reform during a period of socio-economic gloom, not least because it becomes too easy to construct compelling scenarios whereby a depressed workforce would find it more tempting to drown their sorrows in all that new drugtacular bounty yadda yadda. Saying Yes to drugs is about, ultimately, the extension of privilege and a degree of trust to your polity, and societies tend to only be comfortable doing that when they're feeling more generally optimistic.

At the same time, it's not like legal intoxicants are getting any more popular. I think we can say at this point that decades of slowly rolling towards a better realisation of the impact of, say, smoking has exerted a downward pressure on consumption. Perhaps that's a point in favour of legalisation.

My bowels tell me I just want brown people to stop getting chainsawed, and I think you need deep solutions to the causes of that. For the time being, a nice stop-gap might be confiscation of prohibited substances sans any other legal rebuke.

People with kids are always going to be afraid that it's their kids that end up addicted.

There's also the chance that even if legalisation had an overall beneficial effect, there might be people who'd suffer terribly because of it. The status quo at least means that everyone has had fair warning.

Kow wrote:

You can't grow acid, mdma, speed, etc from seeds.

I thought these were all catered via other legal chemical compounds?

My point about the phone is that we likely carry more sensitive information on our phones than in our homes. I feel that to inspect my phone should require a warrant, I'd be surprised if it didn't, and disappointed

I didn't say coppers were bent I gave an example of an action which was the root of my personal distrust

I'm kind of hoping not too.

Legal or illegal is one argument but not in 100 yards of a school, wtf. Utter gubbins, I live opposite a school, why should it be illegal for me but fine for the guy who's garden backs onto mine?
Also illegal for parents?
Stupid caveat, throw it out

beano wrote:

Mod74 wrote:

People with kids are always going to be afraid that it's their kids that end up addicted.

See this is it. All drugs should be legal. Only law against carrying and consumption is when you are within 100 meters of a school. This would protect bus routes to and from schools & colleges and as a result a lot of urban and suburban districts.

You weren't being serious there were you?

Most def the shit in bold. Everything, legalised. Even the opiates.

But how would this protect children when, you know, they spend a lot of time more than 100 yards from a school?

I said years ago, should've gone on dragons den for this bad boy, them high pitched speakers that shop owners use to keep kids away, and I hear them a little and do my head in, anyway put them on ankle tags and on paedos, 95% serious, it should work

If not, there's always the Korean solution

Gary Glitter sings in the lower range.

cockbeard wrote:

Legal or illegal is one argument but not in 100 yards of a school, wtf. Utter gubbins, I live opposite a school, why should it be illegal for me but fine for the guy who's garden backs onto mine? Also illegal for parents? Stupid caveat, throw it out

No one stop you from producing your own and I am sure the lords would make it possible for you to carry enough for 'yourself' for when go clubbing or other reasonable 'leisure' activity...you're for the decriminalisation of drugs?

edit: what i mean is such a debate would have to take place if you were, no?

Erm, you insert a small device the size of a pea into the paedophiles rectum. The device is activated by the sound of children's laughter. Upon activation it swells to the size of a fridge and Bam, the children are safe

No beano, it wouldn't be ok would it I am within 100 yards of a school. Also your logic is flawed because is we have to protect children from something then maybe we need to protect our populace from it as well. Or is your logic, no it's ok for adults to choose to be a mong, but protect the kiddies. I suggest we need the adults not being mongs in order to provide for the kiddies

Was it not called the "Korean solution", I've not seen paedogeddon for ages

beano wrote:

The message is- take a drug dealer, baron or otherwise out and he gets replaced. Arresting anyone on the street or in the supply chain isn't going to do anything.

Dunno, vivid experience in a middle eastern country tells me this isn't the case.  Man A is promoted to be a mid-level commander in charge of drugs.  Man A is arrested.  Man B is promoted into Man A's role.  Man B is killed.  Man C is promoted into Man A/Bs job.  Man C is killed.  Man D politely refuses to do the job and runs away.  Man E perhaps considers it, but only because he's desperate.  The leadership are desperate too, so let Man E do it.  Effectiveness is massively decreased, and then Man E is arrested.  There is no Man F.

So the solution is to have a bunch of drones overhead, firing missiles at people involved in the drugs trade, and a horde of special forces soldiers doing midnight raids to arrest them (i.e. harsher penalties).  If it can made radical Islamists think twice, then I doubt it'll struggle to deter dealers and distributors.

Bomb developing countries to solve rich nation drug problems? This is an issue that doesn't have clear solutions as it involves people's rights to do what they want with their own bodies and how far that right goes. It's not a problem that can be bombed away.

Also, deaths from fake alcohol is a negligible problem in the developed world, I would imagine.