Could the country be saved by a policy change?

At the moment the government is running out of money. Anyone with any sense is not putting money into the economy and creating new business but waiting to see what happens, running for the hills or investing in tangibles such as land or gold.

The economy is still in dire straights, a Chinese bank has downgraded the UKs credit rating and income to the treasury is still going down while expenses go up, even more with the increase in debt. Our government are too thick to work out it cannot go on much longer with cost skyrocketing and firms closing.

The *cough* cuts are pathetic and merely the government talking a good fight while pressuring the few people they can, the poor unemployed the disabled and their carers’, many of whom have paid into the laughably named National Insurance scheme which promised to pay out if you became unemployed. 30 years of paying NI and 2 years of claiming the basic minimum and you are the scum of the earth.

It is all falling apart for us but where can they go to increase revenue? One thing where there is an untaxed market is drugs. The legalisation of drugs could provide a massive boost to the economy at little impact on the users. Prices in a competitive market would go down, the users win, tax receipts go to those thieving bastards in Whitehall and it could save the UK economy. Especially now that a very respected group of people, and liberals like Richard Branson, who is no doubt already working on VirginDrugs, have said that the War on Drugs is not working.

My only fear is that in their greed we end up with the National Drug Service. Maybe I shouldn’t put ideas in their heads.

Something to watch.

17 comments for “Could the country be saved by a policy change?

  1. June 3, 2011 at 7:42 pm

    Can’t see why the weed should not be legalized or at a a minimum, decriminalized. Can’t see it being much different to alcohol. Harder stuff’s a different story.

    • nisakiman
      June 3, 2011 at 8:08 pm

      Why should harder stuff be a different story? The biggest problem with all drugs is their illegality. Remove the “forbidden fruit” aspect, and you will see a natural decline in usage of the more damaging drugs. People can be sensibly informed sans hyperbole and make their own decisions. Isn’t that what freedom of choice is all about?

      I’ve been soap-boxing on the futility and damaging results of the “war on drugs” for the last forty years. I was considered totally bonkers back then, but people are gradually starting to admit that perhaps prohibition isn’t the best approach. Prohibition is never the best way of dealing with anything, as has been proven over and over again.

      “My only fear is that in their greed we end up with the National Drug Service. Maybe I shouldn’t put ideas in their heads.”

      Therein lies the problem. The devil is in the detail…

      • June 5, 2011 at 6:22 am

        This blogpost by a serving police officer should be read by anyone contemplating the legalisation of drugs.

  2. Sackerson
    June 3, 2011 at 8:26 pm

    “Prohibition is never the best way of dealing with anything, as has been proven over and over again.”

    That’s what I thought, too, until I looked up a few things:

    • nisakiman
      June 3, 2011 at 9:36 pm

      I note there’s no mention of the rise, nay explosion (no pun intended), of organised crime as a result of prohibition during that period. We are still living with the legacy of that more than half a century later.

      No, that link doesn’t do it for me. I still regard prohibition as the favoured resort of the moralistic, self-righteous authoritarian. I’m afraid I have no time for the self-appointed arbiters of moral rectitude.

      I have my own moral compass, and to have some puritan who is driven by his inner demons trying to impose his personal view of life on me is anathema (as I imagine is the case for most thinking people).

  3. Lord T
    June 3, 2011 at 8:47 pm

    Prohibition did have an impact. Those who wanted the stuff went and bought it no matter what. Those that were not bothered didn’t.

    That makes sense and it is the justification for every nanny state law there is. Alcohol, ban and its use is limited to the criminal class, tobacco the same, fatty food the same, salt in food…

    It never ever stops they just keep on and on and on and on, all for our own benefit.

    ‘Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.’ C S Lewis (1898 – 1963)

    So although the facts ate there are you OK with it?

    Will you still be when men have to walk around in hobbles and have a stun gun up their bottom which can be triggered by any woman who cries rape. I bet rape figures, especially the real ones, drop like a stone. What a success story that will be. That is one sacrifice some will be willing to make for that most serious crime.

    • June 3, 2011 at 9:03 pm

      I agree. If two parties wish to trade in way transparent to both without harming anyone else, then prohibition by the state is immoral. State prohibition harms both parties without compensating them for the harm done. As I see it, this is the basic moral position on state interference. Health arguments (for example) are irrelevant, accounted for by the transparency requirement.

    • Sackerson
      June 4, 2011 at 6:44 am

      Those who wanted the stuff could make it. What Prohibition was about was the involvment of commercial interests – who won when the Crash left the governmen short of tax revenue.

  4. Geo
    June 3, 2011 at 11:32 pm

    Before a legalisation and taxation of drugs I expect to see a clamp down on trivial crime, new ridiculous laws and a drive to increase on the spot fine revenue. Although the legalisation of drugs, prostitution etc would be much more beneficial.

  5. Ian F4
    June 4, 2011 at 1:33 am

    Before you consider legalising drugs, whether in private or not, think about how you’d go about prosecuting those who take drugs and then engage in actions likely to be dangerous and/or irresponsible whilst under the influence, e.g. driving.

    Years of research has come up with roadside breath tests and accurate measurement (at the police station) for alcohol. But have we the same technology for street drugs ? Take cannabis for example, if Mr Plod stops a youth with irises the size of saucers staggering his little rusty Pug down the middle of the road, a breath test comes back negative, how does he “prove” (to be admissible in court or to allow further tests down the station) that the little toerag was off his head on weed ?

    Either some mysterious unknown system exists to detect drugs other than a blood/urine test (which can’t be done roadside), or perhaps the police have some other sure fire way or nailing a suspect for further questioning.

    Or, consider we can always abandon the police strategy of preventing accidents by nabbing the drug addled before they get in a car but instead wait until they maim or kill someone in an smash, assuming they kindly stick around for the cops to arrive that is.

    • Lord T
      June 4, 2011 at 9:19 am

      Difficulty to one doesn’t mean the other is wrong.

      First of all it just means we cannot do spot checks easily. The old stop and search. if you are involved in an accident the same methods they use to detect drugs can be used there. So he uses what he uses now and being off your head on weed is not a crime inow is it?

      Commiting a crime has a sentence. Being under the influence of a legal drug makes no difference the crime is prosecuted.

      What method to we use to detect murderers, peados, rapists. We don’t we wait till they do a crime and then prosecute them. atm anyway.

      The issues with drugs are;
      People dying
      Illegal to get
      Illegal to trade

      People die mainly because of the strength of drugs and overdoses.OK there are a few young ones that die but they get great exposure by theur grieving parents.

      You have to deal with bad guys. Means I get special offers on my 14 year old slave girls, explosives, guns, DVDs, fags and booze. Oh, and the tip jar goes to Al Quada.

      There are great profits to be made and they don’t care who gets ran over on the way to them. That is only possible with illegal goods.

      • Ian F4
        June 4, 2011 at 1:44 pm

        “Difficulty to one doesn’t mean the other is wrong.”

        Agreed, I personally am not against personal drug use, but the issue still stands. If no roadside detection exists for drugs, this is going to be a huge resource drain for the police and a massive inconvenience on non-drug users if drug possession is made legal.

        “So he uses what he uses now and being off your head on weed is not a crime inow is it?”

        It is if you are driving, or controlling air traffic, in charge of children or a nuclear reactor, etc.

        “People die mainly because of the strength of drugs and overdoses.”

        People, that is the ones not involved with drink or drugs, also die, lots of them in driving, domestic and workplace accidents caused by excessive alcohol and drugs, far more than gang related drive by shootings in the drug trade.

        • Lord T
          June 4, 2011 at 2:12 pm


          That is not an issue. There is no roadside test for many things that cause people to break the law such as poverty, insanity and sheer vindictivness. I personally would be happy that plod don’t have another excuse to pull us over.

          These things you mention are already illegal.So we just continue with them. If they are not illegal than what is the problem. many firms do not allow people to smoke already. That is up to them to administer and look after. What have plod got to do with it.

          People die all the time. Some in drug raids by plod going wrong.Some by criminals trying to escape plod. Some by eating the wrong berries. Some by starving in NHS hospitals.

          The only thing I say is that there are already too many laws anything that reduces them is fine by me.

        • Dave_G
          June 4, 2011 at 8:17 pm

          The police need only to ‘suspect’ you are driving under the influence (of whatever) to detain you, remove you to the station and test you. Roadside testing is just a means of speeding up the judicial process. Besides, if they wanted to develop such ‘instant’ tests, they could and they will.

          • Ian F4
            June 5, 2011 at 12:35 am

            That’s right, you have to go down the station to be tested. With alcohol they can give a roadside test, if you are negative, you go on your way and the police are freed up. With drugs they have to go down the station, get a doctor to extract blood and bang you up until the test comes back, and you could be negative.

            There isn’t an instant test yet, that’s my point.

          • June 5, 2011 at 6:25 am

            I think they already have a system for testing, don’t they? I remember reading about the trials of a ‘swab’ type for (I think) some of the more common drugs.

            How effective it was is another matter.

          • Lord T
            June 5, 2011 at 10:26 am

            Only, yet again, at the inconvience of the innocent drivers held by plod for no reason.

            It is still a differenr problem. It should not impact the main issue here which is the hard caused by illegal drugs, and to our greedy politicians, the money they can grab.

Comments are closed.