Bali and 5 kilos of coke...

[rohrl]

TTwiggy said:

Murcielago_Boy said:

bhstewie said:

Do people really not know that they'll kill you for that st over there?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2151527/Un...

They should do the same here.

Yes, of course they should. After all, what other sentence could possibly be a fitting punishment for someone guilty of the heinous crime of moving a relativley harmless, yet for political reasons illegal, product from point A to point B.

100%. Prohibition of narcotics doesn't work. It didn't work in the US in the 1930's and it's not working now. The amount of money wasted worldwide in the "war on drugs" and in lost taxes is staggering.

Why not propose the death penalty for speeding too?

[andymadmak]

TTwiggy said:

Murcielago_Boy said:

bhstewie said:

Do people really not know that they'll kill you for that st over there?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2151527/Un...

They should do the same here.

Yes, of course they should. After all, what other sentence could possibly be a fitting punishment for someone guilty of the heinous crime of moving a relativley harmless, yet for political reasons illegal, product from point A to point B.

Cocaine.... relatively harmless? Riiiiiiiiight. Compared to what?

And the trade wouldn't exist if people didn't act as mules and dealers etc...

[Fittster]

pidsy said:

they say that she will probably avoid the death penalty.

With a bit of googling it appears that foreign nationals never get the death penalty.

[andymadmak]

rohrl said:

100%. Prohibition of narcotics doesn't work. It didn't work in the US in the 1930's and it's not working now. The amount of money wasted worldwide in the "war on drugs" and in lost taxes is staggering.

Why not propose the death penalty for speeding too?

How do you know that 100% prohibition does not work, it's never been tried.
Lost taxes? And you imagine that a fully legal, pharma backed drugs trade in the UK, with all the regulatory costs attached thereto, plus the costs of distribution and the mark up that Tescos would charge, PLUS taxes would still leave the product cheap enough to compete with the man on the corner?
And that's before the same said man on the corner brings out a version/strength product which is desirable to the market but which the government won't license for sale...
Just look at what's happened in the tobacco market if you want to see what happens when taxes and costs price the product above what the market can readily source elsewhere..
And who would want to be the official manufacturer? Can you imagine the disclaimers on the packet? Hells bells people are still suing ciggie companies for damage even though for the 50 years of my life it's been as plain as tits on a bulldog that smoking is very bad for you.
And this is before we get into the issues of drugs at work, drugs while driving, crime sprees to pay for drugs etc etc etc.

I've said before that if alchohol were not legal today, and somebody proposed that it be made legal then it's highly unlikely that it would be made so, given the damage we know it causes. Society JUST ABOUT copes with alchohol because it has well established norms, controls and procedures for it. Cocaine? I think not.

[TTwiggy]

andymadmak said:

How do you know that 100% prohibition does not work, it's never been tried.
Lost taxes? And you imagine that a fully legal, pharma backed drugs trade in the UK, with all the regulatory costs attached thereto, plus the costs of distribution and the mark up that Tescos would charge, PLUS taxes would still the product cheap enough to compete with the man on the corner?
And that's before the same said man on the corner brings out a version/strength product which is desirable to the market but which the government won't license for sale...
Just look at what's happened in the tobacco market if you want to see what happens when taxes and costs price the product above what the market can readily source elsewhere..
And who would want to be the official manufacturer? Can you imagine the disclaimers on the packet? Hells bells people are still suing ciggie companies for damage even though for the 50 years of my life it's been as plain as tits on a bulldog that smoking is very bad for you.
And this is before we get into the issues of drugs at work, drugs while driving, crime sprees to pay for drugs etc etc etc.

I've said before that if alchohol were not legal today, and somebody proposed that it be made legal then it's highly unlikely that it would be made so, given the damage we know it causes. Society JUST ABOUT copes with alchohol because it has well established norms, controls and procedures for it. Cocaine? I think not.

Some valid points - nobody is claiming it's a panacea.

But turn your arguement around - if alcohol were made illegal, what effect do you think it would have on crime and health issues?

The war on drugs is not working. It needs a sea change.

[TTwiggy]

andymadmak said:

Cocaine.... relatively harmless? Riiiiiiiiight. Compared to what?

Er yes, as compared to legal narcotics such as alcohol and tobacco. Cocaine is not a killer drug. It's not good for you, but that's the case for many things.

[rohrl]

andymadmak said:

How do you know that 100% prohibition does not work, it's never been tried.
Lost taxes? And you imagine that a fully legal, pharma backed drugs trade in the UK, with all the regulatory costs attached thereto, plus the costs of distribution and the mark up that Tescos would charge, PLUS taxes would still leave the product cheap enough to compete with the man on the corner?
And that's before the same said man on the corner brings out a version/strength product which is desirable to the market but which the government won't license for sale...
Just look at what's happened in the tobacco market if you want to see what happens when taxes and costs price the product above what the market can readily source elsewhere..
And who would want to be the official manufacturer? Can you imagine the disclaimers on the packet? Hells bells people are still suing ciggie companies for damage even though for the 50 years of my life it's been as plain as tits on a bulldog that smoking is very bad for you.
And this is before we get into the issues of drugs at work, drugs while driving, crime sprees to pay for drugs etc etc etc.

I've said before that if alchohol were not legal today, and somebody proposed that it be made legal then it's highly unlikely that it would be made so, given the damage we know it causes. Society JUST ABOUT copes with alchohol because it has well established norms, controls and procedures for it. Cocaine? I think not.

First off prohibition of alcohol has been tried, and failed, as in the USA and the fact that illegal drugs are prohibited is an obvious truism so your first point can be discarded.

Secondly, how come such a large number of people involved professionally in the so-called war on drugs support partial legalisation or at least decriminalisation of many narcotics? I'm talking about Chief Constables here, not stoned hippies by the way.

You can take an ideological stance that people shouldn't take drugs because drugs are bad but that's not ultimately addressing the fact that people do take drugs, always have taken drugs in every documented society and no doubt will continue to take drugs. What's your answer, the death penalty for anyone who chooses a drug other than alcohol or tobacco even if their drug of choice is safer and has a lower net cost to society?

[andymadmak]

rohrl said:

First off prohibition of alcohol has been tried, and failed, as in the USA and the fact that illegal drugs are prohibited is an obvious truism so your first point can be discarded.

I am afraid you are mistaken. Prohibition in the USA was of the manufacture and sale of alchohol. Drinking it was never illegal. Efforts to enforce prohibition in the USA were hampered by the fact that it was so easy for people to have access to the raw materials to make booze and the somewhat under funded federal enforcement effort. I am afriad you cannot discard my point therefore, no matter how inconvenient that is for your own position.

rohrl said:

Secondly, how come such a large number of people involved professionally in the so-called war on drugs support partial legalisation or at least decriminalisation of many narcotics? I'm talking about Chief Constables here, not stoned hippies by the way.

Good question, and not one which I will pretend I know the answer to. I could suggest that there is not one single reason, but rather that various groups might have their own agendas? For example, Chief Constables might like drugs decriminalised so that they can, at a stroke , reclassify illegal activity in their patch as now legal. The attendant "paper figures reduction in crime" might be worth a bonus to them? I don't know. You tell me?

rohrl said:

You can take an ideological stance that people shouldn't take drugs because drugs are bad but that's not ultimately addressing the fact that people do take drugs, always have taken drugs in every documented society and no doubt will continue to take drugs.

On this we agree. But, two wrongs do not make a right. I do believe that drug taking is wrong. I have seen the mess it makes of families and communities. For every happy middle class "toker" (MCT) on top of his occasional spliff and holding down a good job with little affect in his performance there's a sad miserable junkie robbing somebody's house to pay for his next fix.
Legalisation might make life easier and more relaxed for Mr MCT, but will do nothing to reduce the misery of the junkie and his victims. In fact it may even make things worse.

rohrl said:

What's your answer, the death penalty for anyone who chooses a drug other than alcohol or tobacco even if their drug of choice is safer and has a lower net cost to society?

Don't be silly. It devalues your points. And I'd like some stats please that proves that Cocaine is less harmful that beer, and would have a net lower cost to society if legalised. Assertion won't do I'm afraid.

[hairykrishna]

andymadmak said:

How do you know that 100% prohibition does not work, it's never been tried.
Lost taxes? And you imagine that a fully legal, pharma backed drugs trade in the UK, with all the regulatory costs attached thereto, plus the costs of distribution and the mark up that Tescos would charge, PLUS taxes would still leave the product cheap enough to compete with the man on the corner?

Pure cocaine's about £500-£1000 a kilo at point of origin. Retail price is somewhere between £50k and £100k a kilo here. Are you seriously telling me that legitimate companies would struggle to compete on price with those margins available?

[TTwiggy]

It's impossible to show the stats you ask for, as the 'harm quotient' of a drug includes 'cost to society'. As cocaine is illegal, its cost to society is huge, meaning that it ranks as 'more harmful' than alcohol.

Pharma grade cocaine is not a killer drug. When it was given out free to Heroin users (pre 1972), so that they could get up in the mornings and do a day's work, the coke never hurt anyone.

[andymadmak]

TTwiggy said:

andymadmak said:

How do you know that 100% prohibition does not work, it's never been tried.
Lost taxes? And you imagine that a fully legal, pharma backed drugs trade in the UK, with all the regulatory costs attached thereto, plus the costs of distribution and the mark up that Tescos would charge, PLUS taxes would still the product cheap enough to compete with the man on the corner?
And that's before the same said man on the corner brings out a version/strength product which is desirable to the market but which the government won't license for sale...
Just look at what's happened in the tobacco market if you want to see what happens when taxes and costs price the product above what the market can readily source elsewhere..
And who would want to be the official manufacturer? Can you imagine the disclaimers on the packet? Hells bells people are still suing ciggie companies for damage even though for the 50 years of my life it's been as plain as tits on a bulldog that smoking is very bad for you.
And this is before we get into the issues of drugs at work, drugs while driving, crime sprees to pay for drugs etc etc etc.

I've said before that if alchohol were not legal today, and somebody proposed that it be made legal then it's highly unlikely that it would be made so, given the damage we know it causes. Society JUST ABOUT copes with alchohol because it has well established norms, controls and procedures for it. Cocaine? I think not.

Some valid points - nobody is claiming it's a panacea.

But turn your arguement around - if alcohol were made illegal, what effect do you think it would have on crime and health issues?

The war on drugs is not working. It needs a sea change.

I don't think you could now make alchohol illegal - the genie is out of the bottle so to speak. But there is no doubt that if it were illegal, and had been enforced, crime would be lower and the public health would be better.
There is no real "war on drugs". If there were then our prisons would not be full of drugs for example! What there is is a load of headlines by politicians trying to look like they are doing something when in fact they won't do what is necessary.
We are an island. We could stop cocaine getting in here if we REALLY wanted to. The evidence from the far east suggests that draconian penalties work in reducing drug traficking and supply. Granted, it's not 100% effective, (indeed in the UK, such is the lackl of real effort or will that I doubt we are better than 20% effective) but nothing ever is. And just because it's not 100%, doesn't mean we have to give up completely.

[TTwiggy]

andymadmak said:

I don't think you could now make alchohol illegal - the genie is out of the bottle so to speak. But there is no doubt that if it were illegal, and had been enforced, crime would be lower and the public health would be better.
There is no real "war on drugs". If there were then our prisons would not be full of drugs for example! What there is is a load of headlines by politicians trying to look like they are doing something when in fact they won't do what is necessary.
We are an island. We could stop cocaine getting in here if we REALLY wanted to. The evidence from the far east suggests that draconian penalties work in reducing drug traficking and supply. Granted, it's not 100% effective, (indeed in the UK, such is the lackl of real effort or will that I doubt we are better than 20% effective) but nothing ever is. And just because it's not 100%, doesn't mean we have to give up completely.

Yours seems a very puritan stance. I assume you don't drink, smoke or take prescription drugs?

[bitchstewie]

TTwiggy said:

Yes, of course they should. After all, what other sentence could possibly be a fitting punishment for someone guilty of the heinous crime of moving a relativley harmless, yet for political reasons illegal, product from point A to point B.

Regardless of your view of drugs, do you not think it's a case of "When in Rome"?

I don't imagine people who traffic weigh up the morals too heavily - they just do it for the money.

[Pesty]

So how much did she have with her.

5kg at what £40 a gram? so £200k? or do you get discount for buyign in bulk

But if what she has is really pure it will be cut many many times before it hits the final buyer.

[wormburner]

andymadmak said:

Cocaine.... relatively harmless? Riiiiiiiiight. Compared to what?

Say, alcohol and tobacco? Horse-riding? Rugby?

It's the stuff it is cut with by amoral dealers that is the nasty stuff.

[Oakey]

andymadmak said:

Prohibition in the USA was of the manufacture and sale of alchohol. Drinking it was never illegal.

Ah, so where they went wrong was not making drinking alcohol illegal. I see.

[TTwiggy]

bhstewie said:

Regardless of your view of drugs, do you not think it's a case of "When in Rome"?

I don't imagine people who traffic weigh up the morals too heavily - they just do it for the money.

How a foreign country chooses to treat criminals is no concern of mine. I was responding to the poster who thought we should adopt the same stance. I have no wish to live in a country where drug smuggling carries a death sentence.

[just me]

Reason drugs cost so much is because they have been made illegal. Price would be a lot lower if they were legal, as the "suppliers" wouldn't have to go to such lengths/expense to bring them in.

As long as demand exists, so will the supply. If you restrict supply, price will merely go up. It's as simple as that. Thinking that drug use can be ended with a better-funded effort, or more draconian punishments, is beyond foolish.

[Oakey]

Ironically the biggest cultivator of cannabis in the UK is more than likely GW Pharma who grow some 30,000 plants a year at the governments Porton Down research facility

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/299baa7e-27df-11e1-9433-...

Edited by Oakey on Wednesday 30th May 21:10

[caziques]

Ban caffeine as well.