chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Cameron commissioned an extensive report but when the results didn't line up to something 'voter friendly' it was completely ignored. So as you say should the evidence just be ignored?
Cameron commissioned an extensive report but when the results didn't line up to something 'voter friendly' it was completely ignored. So as you say should the evidence just be ignored?But who decides which drugs are legalised?
There is a lot of evidence to suggest cannabis and cocaine can cause serious mental problems, so do we just ignore that? Or is it ok as long as it generates jobs and tax?
I've not even mentioned alcohol!So you would ban alcohol?
What makes you think the people running the businesses/services want them working for them? Have to pay them but they'd do fuck all anyway. Good way to ruin team morale is to have a complaining, workshy twat on your workforce. Others end up having to do more to cover for these bone-idle people.
Who exactly are you gong to force to take them on? Who's going to pay the extra for the people that have to keep an almost constant watch on them such that it'd be cheaper to just get those supervisors to do the work themselves. Public sector? Want to pay more taxes for that do you?
I've not even mentioned alcohol!
But adding to the massive problems caused by alcohol by legalising something just as bad or potentially worse, is hardly the actions of a responsible society.
Remove their benefits that might motivate them to get a job
Would you support us bringing back workhouses?
No one is suggesting that are they?Would you support us bringing back workhouses?
But once you regulate the so called softer drugs, the "gangsters" just move on to selling the harder stuff, you dont get rid of the problem, you just raise the bar in terms of what the next problem is. Your local gangster stops selling coke and cannabis, and now sells heroin and spice.If you think cannabis is potentially worse than alcohol you're mad.
And it's not just about raising taxes it's about regulating and controlling substances which are currently on the hands of gangsters.
But once you regulate the so called softer drugs, the "gangsters" just move on to selling the harder stuff, you dont get rid of the problem, you just raise the bar in terms of what the next problem is. Your local gangster stops selling coke and cannabis, and now sells heroin and spice.
I dont get your obsession with alcohol.Have you got any evidence to back up the statements you're making?
Current policy is a total non coherent mish mash.
You should try listening to some of the members of LEAP who are ex police in favour of drug reform. They make a lot of sense.
Of course legalisation won't totally solve all our issues but again, is alcohol in the US less of a problem now than it was during prohibition- of course it is.
There is even a sub group within the Tory party calling for drug law reform. Current policy clearly isn't working.
I dont get your obsession with alcohol.
Let me just explain to you, why, in political terms, its an irrelevant issue.
No politician wants to be the one who legalises any drug, and then has to justify that decision to grieving mums who've just had to bury their children due to contamination, overdoses allergic reactions etc, etc, etc.
Alcohol however, is already deeply ingrained in our society (for good or bad) and is therefore not a big political issue, as in no one has to account for its availability, or take any blame when someone dies, or kills, or ruins lives due to its missuse.
In short, we can debate the topic of drug reform for years, but major reform will NEVER happen, as implementing it will be instant political suicide for any individual or party trying it, and the first death caused by a newly legalised drug would end up in a massive legal claim.
No for long term unemployed I would pay the benefits in food vouchers. If people refused after a set time to get work I’d remove luxury items and hold them in storage until they get work.
I’d force them to do voluntary work for charities while not in work and if they don’t turn up or perform badly after warnings remove the vouchers
What would you do - keep paying them for doing nothing?
No one is suggesting that are they?
But why do I get stopped by beggars at midday in the city centre, when employers are struggling to fill manual jobs?
Why do we need an army of foreign workers to fill unskilled jobs (eg fruitpickers to name but one)
When there are thousands of people out of work?
See the city centre is getting a cash boost and other help
That was the fund that was set up a while ago. I’d be amazed if it had any impact beyond the absolutely nothing the Mary Portas thing under Cameron did.
All this “save the high street” is nonsense. People don’t want old fashioned retail centres no matter how many task forces you set up.
Tobacco companies have so far paid out over $100million in fines and compensation, which somewhat undermines your argument.Drug policy isn't working.
I mention alcohol because it is one of the most dangerous drugs synthesised yet it is legal so it's highly relevant to the argument.
There are many campaign groups from parents bereaved due to drugs who are calling for reform. Your argument doesn't make sense regarding grieving parents any way, if it's regulated there won't be contamination if you buy from an authorised outlet. That's the same now as with alcohol, just because it's legal you can't go round brewing hooch in your shed and flogging it on a street corner.
It makes sense, buy an ecstasy pill off of a dealer you don't know how much MDMA is in it or if it does contain MDMA.
Regulate it and you set the dose, the purity and age restrictions of the purchaser.
Major reform is happening, slowly, worldwide, it will happen here eventually and society will benefit.
And if a death from a legal drug would end up in a claim how come alcohol companies and tobacco companies aren't paying out every week?
Actually as a large percentage of purchases are still made in these centres they do - whet the issue is is the crippling business rates
That's an interesting proposition.I was posing a genuine question. G's assumption seems to be that everyone who isn't in work does so because they can't be arsed. I would rather look at single jobs that attract hundreds or thousands of applications, especially in places that got their primary industries removed but not replaced. So surely if we were to provide accommodation and food in exchange for manual labour we're solving the problem?
There was a big piece on this on 5live the other day.
There was a bigwig from HMV on.
He was saying the same thing. They've got shops turning over 12 mil a year which are losing money and others turning over 3 which are in profit due to rent and rates.
Think Shmmeee is right in this case though. This scheme isn't really going to make a lot of difference
Tobacco companies have so far paid out over $100million in fines and compensation, which somewhat undermines your argument.
And the reason we dont see backstreet breweries selling bootleg alcohol is because the price of booze is now so cheap. Go to any supermarket and you can get pissed for a tenner. That's why bootlegging dosnt happen.
If you legalise drugs, you drive the price down and more will get used. If you make it only available to over 18's then under 18's will still use dealers who will still cut it to make profits.
As for so called experts, for every expert there is an equal and opposite expert. Listen to the farther of Leah Betts, that guys family went through hell.
80% of our purchases are still made in retailers. There is one flagship store of M and S that pays more business rates than the whole of Amazon uk. People will be in for a very nasty shock when the competition is removed.
I dont get your obsession with alcohol.
Let me just explain to you, why, in political terms, its an irrelevant issue.
No politician wants to be the one who legalises any drug, and then has to justify that decision to grieving mums who've just had to bury their children due to contamination, overdoses allergic reactions etc, etc, etc.
Alcohol however, is already deeply ingrained in our society (for good or bad) and is therefore not a big political issue, as in no one has to account for its availability, or take any blame when someone dies, or kills, or ruins lives due to its missuse.
In short, we can debate the topic of drug reform for years, but major reform will NEVER happen, as implementing it will be instant political suicide for any individual or party trying it, and the first death caused by a newly legalised drug would end up in a massive legal claim.
Remove their benefits that might motivate them to get a job
No for long term unemployed I would pay the benefits in food vouchers. If people refused after a set time to get work I’d remove luxury items and hold them in storage until they get work.
I’d force them to do voluntary work for charities while not in work and if they don’t turn up or perform badly after warnings remove the vouchers
What would you do - keep paying them for doing nothing?
Hungary has a public employment scheme for the longer term unemployed.Remove their benefits that might motivate them to get a job
How do you force someone to do voluntary work - by definition it's no longer voluntary?
What if they perform badly at this job they're being forced to do because it doesn't suit their skills? Surely this will just ingrain their hatred of work even more and make them even more workshy, or even worse affect them to such an extent psychologically that it makes them suicidal. A lot of those in these situations have undiagnosed mental illnesses or depression and this will massively excacerbate the problems.Just like kids at school that have a lifetime of hating anything educational because school forced them to concentrate on subjects they didn't enjoy or were no good at.
Have you considered how many more people you'd be seeing on the streets sleeping rough or begging due to your plans? How you'd be putting people into the hands of criminal enterprises and exploitation? Young men starting out selling drugs and ending up hardened criminals, young women selling themselves on every street corner. And the extra costs of dealing with those in comparison to current benefits?
I'm not necessarily against providing benefits in terms of housing benefits and vouchers towards gas/electric/food rather than money (as many of us I think would prefer to provide food or drink to a person on the streets than by giving them money). But if you remove this support you're endangering a persons life and would leave the govt open to serious legal proceedings and political ill will.
There are times when I do wonder if you are actually a time traveller from the Victorian era (and even from that time not a particularly enlightened one)
Tobacco companies have so far paid out over $100million in fines and compensation, which somewhat undermines your argument.
And the reason we dont see backstreet breweries selling bootleg alcohol is because the price of booze is now so cheap. Go to any supermarket and you can get pissed for a tenner. That's why bootlegging dosnt happen.
If you legalise drugs, you drive the price down and more will get used. If you make it only available to over 18's then under 18's will still use dealers who will still cut it to make profits.
As for so called experts, for every expert there is an equal and opposite expert. Listen to the farther of Leah Betts, that guys family went through hell.
How do you force someone to do voluntary work - by definition it's no longer voluntary?
What if they perform badly at this job they're being forced to do because it doesn't suit their skills? Surely this will just ingrain their hatred of work even more and make them even more workshy, or even worse affect them to such an extent psychologically that it makes them suicidal. A lot of those in these situations have undiagnosed mental illnesses or depression and this will massively excacerbate the problems.Just like kids at school that have a lifetime of hating anything educational because school forced them to concentrate on subjects they didn't enjoy or were no good at.
Have you considered how many more people you'd be seeing on the streets sleeping rough or begging due to your plans? How you'd be putting people into the hands of criminal enterprises and exploitation? Young men starting out selling drugs and ending up hardened criminals, young women selling themselves on every street corner. And the extra costs of dealing with those in comparison to current benefits?
I'm not necessarily against providing benefits in terms of housing benefits and vouchers towards gas/electric/food rather than money (as many of us I think would prefer to provide food or drink to a person on the streets than by giving them money). But if you remove this support you're endangering a persons life and would leave the govt open to serious legal proceedings and political ill will.
There are times when I do wonder if you are actually a time traveller from the Victorian era (and even from that time not a particularly enlightened one)
Talk to the Americans about food vouchers.
Benefit fraud is tiny here, unemployment is at record lows, still you’ve got people wanking over the thought of Derek from the estate mowing their lawn despite how much it’d cost and how ineffective it’d be.
The cheapest method would be to buy some self help courses for all these people that desperately need to know others are having a shit time so they can enjoy their life.
That's an interesting proposition.
Although the workhouse accusation would be difficult to argue against.
But some people just need a leg up, so a safe place to live with decent food and a semi permanent address from which to apply for jobs would obviously be a start.
Unemployment at record lows - that’s a Tory government for you.
Well you may have something. (I didnt see your previous comment)This is what I was proposing some pages back.
Are you completely unaware of the tobacco master settlement agreement (to name but one law case)Delusional nonsense.
Leah Betts died of drinking too much water which caused Hyponatremia. She drank 7 litres in 90 minutes.Tobacco companies have so far paid out over $100million in fines and compensation, which somewhat undermines your argument.
And the reason we dont see backstreet breweries selling bootleg alcohol is because the price of booze is now so cheap. Go to any supermarket and you can get pissed for a tenner. That's why bootlegging dosnt happen.
If you legalise drugs, you drive the price down and more will get used. If you make it only available to over 18's then under 18's will still use dealers who will still cut it to make profits.
As for so called experts, for every expert there is an equal and opposite expert. Listen to the farther of Leah Betts, that guys family went through hell.
If she hadn't taken the ecstasy she wouldn't have died either. May not have been the direct cause but was a key factor.Leah Betts died of drinking too much water which caused Hyponatremia. She drank 7 litres in 90 minutes.
Ecstasy did not kill her.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
Have to agree with SBD and Clint on this. The current drug laws here and in a majority of the western world aren’t working. Reading an interesting book about addiction at the moment called Chasing the scream by Johann Hari. Worth a read for those interested in the subject and in particular the causes of addiction (not the substance but the mental state) and how criminalising drugs has just made the problem worse.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?