Busted with Class A
Discussion
La Liga said:
The question is whether we want this industry to be run by criminals or by regulated businesses.
Many would argue that there is very little difference between the two!On balance, I would rather that all drugs were legalised & regulated - spend the cash saved on policing & the additional tax generated on education. It seems to work with tobacco....
Mr Tidy said:
simoid said:
Source please.
(I’ve had a quick scout and it seems that total cost to society of alcohol and prohibited drugs are of broadly similar magnitude eg £10bn-££20bn).
Maybe, but alcohol gives the Treasury Millions in tax revenue - prohibited drugs just drain the NHS. (I’ve had a quick scout and it seems that total cost to society of alcohol and prohibited drugs are of broadly similar magnitude eg £10bn-££20bn).
NGee said:
BertBert said:
Drumroll said:
BertBert said:
NGee said:
That 'little' bit' has cost ALL of us money, yes even you C70R.
Why do you think car/house insurance is so high? Because druggies will nick anything for their next fix.
Why do think local/national taxes are so high? Because it costs a lot of money to educate, punish and care for druggies.
Why do you think the roads are full of potholes? Because the money is being spent by the NHS.
Why do you think the NHS is falling to pieces? Because far too many resourses are being spent on looking after druggies.
I do realise that this is a fairly simplistic view...
Awesome nonsense.Why do you think car/house insurance is so high? Because druggies will nick anything for their next fix.
Why do think local/national taxes are so high? Because it costs a lot of money to educate, punish and care for druggies.
Why do you think the roads are full of potholes? Because the money is being spent by the NHS.
Why do you think the NHS is falling to pieces? Because far too many resourses are being spent on looking after druggies.
I do realise that this is a fairly simplistic view...
Whether it costs as more than the misuse of alcohol could be debated, But it does cost us money
Bert
Yes, it is only a small percentage on your car insurance, but all the other small percentages of tax add up, and it is costing YOU £250.
Now you might think that's a ridulous argument and a miniscule amount, you are entitled to your view.
However I think it is disgusting that it costs our family of four £1000 a year just to look after the local druggies. Not what I would call a miniscule amount.
However if something costs the country X then we all lose out as if we never had that money. But the cost is not spread evenly. Companies and the 1 percenters pick up the lions share so you can't just divide it by N.
Graveworm said:
It's more likely a flawed argument than a ridiculous one. I know drug use costs at least that. I think assuming legalisation will reduce that or its other negative effects is simplistic.
However if something costs the country X then we all lose out as if we never had that money. But the cost is not spread evenly. Companies and the 1 percenters pick up the lions share so you can't just divide it by N.
I have never assumed or stated that legalising certain drugs will make things better (or worse). In an earlier post I said that was a discussion for another day. However if something costs the country X then we all lose out as if we never had that money. But the cost is not spread evenly. Companies and the 1 percenters pick up the lions share so you can't just divide it by N.
BertBert asked how much it was costing him, I tried to come up with an answer the best I could.
I am fully aware that the costs are not spread evenly however by putting it in those simplistic terms I am pointing out to people that think 'only having a little bit' is a victimless crime are being extremly nieve.
NGee said:
OK, as you say, let's try and work out how much druggies cost us. Using "Simoids" earlier figures (10-20 Billion pounds), let's say £15,000,000,000 and with a UK population of just over 60 million. That means an average cost to every single man, woman and child of approx £250 by direct or indirect taxation. So an 'average' family of 4 is paying approx £1000 every year to 'support' the illegal drug trade.
Yes, it is only a small percentage on your car insurance, but all the other small percentages of tax add up, and it is costing YOU £250.
Now you might think that's a ridulous argument and a miniscule amount, you are entitled to your view.
However I think it is disgusting that it costs our family of four £1000 a year just to look after the local druggies. Not what I would call a miniscule amount.
Those figures are wrong, according to the NCA the cost to the UK is £10.7 billion a year but the illegal drugs market is worth £5.3billion a yearYes, it is only a small percentage on your car insurance, but all the other small percentages of tax add up, and it is costing YOU £250.
Now you might think that's a ridulous argument and a miniscule amount, you are entitled to your view.
However I think it is disgusting that it costs our family of four £1000 a year just to look after the local druggies. Not what I would call a miniscule amount.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43657647
Mr Tidy said:
simoid said:
Source please.
(I’ve had a quick scout and it seems that total cost to society of alcohol and prohibited drugs are of broadly similar magnitude eg £10bn-££20bn).
Maybe, but alcohol gives the Treasury Millions in tax revenue - prohibited drugs just drain the NHS. (I’ve had a quick scout and it seems that total cost to society of alcohol and prohibited drugs are of broadly similar magnitude eg £10bn-££20bn).
NGee said:
Graveworm said:
It's more likely a flawed argument than a ridiculous one. I know drug use costs at least that. I think assuming legalisation will reduce that or its other negative effects is simplistic.
However if something costs the country X then we all lose out as if we never had that money. But the cost is not spread evenly. Companies and the 1 percenters pick up the lions share so you can't just divide it by N.
I have never assumed or stated that legalising certain drugs will make things better (or worse). In an earlier post I said that was a discussion for another day. However if something costs the country X then we all lose out as if we never had that money. But the cost is not spread evenly. Companies and the 1 percenters pick up the lions share so you can't just divide it by N.
BertBert asked how much it was costing him, I tried to come up with an answer the best I could.
I am fully aware that the costs are not spread evenly however by putting it in those simplistic terms I am pointing out to people that think 'only having a little bit' is a victimless crime are being extremly nieve.
"Illegal drug use has cost Britain £110billion over the past decade while just £3billion has been spent trying to tackle addiction, new figures show."
https://metro.co.uk/2008/02/24/110billion-cost-of-...
(yes, the link is a little bit dated, but I doubt very much whether the ratios have changed a great deal)
Leicester Loyal said:
That's a very small amount of have split up into 3 lots. It could be seen that you were potentially selling them due to the way they were split. I guess it depends how they see it as to how this will get dealt with.
Maybe it was a "Buy Two get one Free" deal that was too good for the OP to pass up?NGee said:
markjmd said:
you will presumably then be petitioning your MP incessantly ......
Not quite sure how you work out that presumption?Now I've pointed out how much druggies cost the nation, maybe YOU should petition your MP!
Biker 1 said:
On balance, I would rather that all drugs were legalised & regulated - spend the cash saved on policing & the additional tax generated on education. It seems to work with tobacco....
Legalised but regulated. Legal but with rules. Rules someone is going to have to enforce? Who?It works with tobacco. Does it? I don't know anyone who buys their lose tobacco
with import duty, it's all boot leg, because it's cheaper.
Why would legal taxed drugs be any different?
it would be different because the government would make more money in tax.
If it was legal, many more people would try it, legally - and thus making money for government.
If it was cheaper to do it illegally, the same people that do it illegally now would keep doing it, but at least there would be some tax revenue to deal with them in the NHS and with policing etc?
It would also help that presumably the legal stuff would be safer and less full of rat poison or whatever the illegal types put in it
If it was legal, many more people would try it, legally - and thus making money for government.
If it was cheaper to do it illegally, the same people that do it illegally now would keep doing it, but at least there would be some tax revenue to deal with them in the NHS and with policing etc?
It would also help that presumably the legal stuff would be safer and less full of rat poison or whatever the illegal types put in it
Whilst some states in America have legalised cannabis, there is currently insufficient data to say what affect it has had. Certainly there is still "illegal" cannabis around. There is also some evidence (again not enough actual evidence) that making it legal has encouraged more people to take it up.
Another problem with legalising some drugs is what "strength" would they be?(Too strong and there is a greater risk of death. Not strong enough and people would go to the illegal stuff. or take more of it.) With the "claim culture" we seem to have, how long before your local pharmacist is sued because somebody had a "bad trip" or worse.
Very easy to say, legalise drug taking, but there are many things that would have to be looked at. I do not believe that many have really thought about.
Another problem with legalising some drugs is what "strength" would they be?(Too strong and there is a greater risk of death. Not strong enough and people would go to the illegal stuff. or take more of it.) With the "claim culture" we seem to have, how long before your local pharmacist is sued because somebody had a "bad trip" or worse.
Very easy to say, legalise drug taking, but there are many things that would have to be looked at. I do not believe that many have really thought about.
the tribester said:
Legalised but regulated. Legal but with rules. Rules someone is going to have to enforce? Who?
It works with tobacco. Does it? I don't know anyone who buys their lose tobacco
with import duty, it's all boot leg, because it's cheaper.
Why would legal taxed drugs be any different?
Economies of scale, most illegal growers aren't going to be able to compete with commercial setups. Also, why would you buy weed of questionable quality if you could be guaranteed great weed every time from a variety of different strains? A lot of people would be prepared to pay more for that alone. Not having to deal with unreliable drug dealers also has it's appeal.It works with tobacco. Does it? I don't know anyone who buys their lose tobacco
with import duty, it's all boot leg, because it's cheaper.
Why would legal taxed drugs be any different?
(I'm starting with baby steps, how we deal with harder drugs would need more consideration).
markjmd said:
NGee said:
markjmd said:
you will presumably then be petitioning your MP incessantly ......
Not quite sure how you work out that presumption?Now I've pointed out how much druggies cost the nation, maybe YOU should petition your MP!
I'm sure you have plenty of opinions on many different subjects - do you petition your MP on every one of your opinions?
At least I have managed to explain my opinion and get my point across without having to resort to personal insults.
NGee said:
OK, as you say, let's try and work out how much druggies cost us. Using "Simoids" earlier figures (10-20 Billion pounds), let's say £15,000,000,000 and with a UK population of just over 60 million. That means an average cost to every single man, woman and child of approx £250 by direct or indirect taxation. So an 'average' family of 4 is paying approx £1000 every year to 'support' the illegal drug trade.
Yes, it is only a small percentage on your car insurance, but all the other small percentages of tax add up, and it is costing YOU £250.
Now you might think that's a ridulous argument and a miniscule amount, you are entitled to your view.
However I think it is disgusting that it costs our family of four £1000 a year just to look after the local druggies. Not what I would call a miniscule amount.
So why didn't you make a sensible argument as you have just done rather than a stupid one?Yes, it is only a small percentage on your car insurance, but all the other small percentages of tax add up, and it is costing YOU £250.
Now you might think that's a ridulous argument and a miniscule amount, you are entitled to your view.
However I think it is disgusting that it costs our family of four £1000 a year just to look after the local druggies. Not what I would call a miniscule amount.
Bert
Drumroll said:
Whilst some states in America have legalised cannabis, there is currently insufficient data to say what affect it has had. Certainly there is still "illegal" cannabis around. There is also some evidence (again not enough actual evidence) that making it legal has encouraged more people to take it up.
Another problem with legalising some drugs is what "strength" would they be?(Too strong and there is a greater risk of death. Not strong enough and people would go to the illegal stuff. or take more of it.) With the "claim culture" we seem to have, how long before your local pharmacist is sued because somebody had a "bad trip" or worse.
Very easy to say, legalise drug taking, but there are many things that would have to be looked at. I do not believe that many have really thought about.
We have much more data than the US around cannabis. Another problem with legalising some drugs is what "strength" would they be?(Too strong and there is a greater risk of death. Not strong enough and people would go to the illegal stuff. or take more of it.) With the "claim culture" we seem to have, how long before your local pharmacist is sued because somebody had a "bad trip" or worse.
Very easy to say, legalise drug taking, but there are many things that would have to be looked at. I do not believe that many have really thought about.
Holland (decriminalised rather than legal IIRC) and Uruguay. We also have Canada joining them: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-4580625...
We, unfortunately, went the wrong way. We decided to change it back from a class C to a B...
La Liga said:
Drumroll said:
Whilst some states in America have legalised cannabis, there is currently insufficient data to say what affect it has had. Certainly there is still "illegal" cannabis around. There is also some evidence (again not enough actual evidence) that making it legal has encouraged more people to take it up.
Another problem with legalising some drugs is what "strength" would they be?(Too strong and there is a greater risk of death. Not strong enough and people would go to the illegal stuff. or take more of it.) With the "claim culture" we seem to have, how long before your local pharmacist is sued because somebody had a "bad trip" or worse.
Very easy to say, legalise drug taking, but there are many things that would have to be looked at. I do not believe that many have really thought about.
We have much more data than the US around cannabis. Another problem with legalising some drugs is what "strength" would they be?(Too strong and there is a greater risk of death. Not strong enough and people would go to the illegal stuff. or take more of it.) With the "claim culture" we seem to have, how long before your local pharmacist is sued because somebody had a "bad trip" or worse.
Very easy to say, legalise drug taking, but there are many things that would have to be looked at. I do not believe that many have really thought about.
Holland (decriminalised rather than legal IIRC) and Uruguay. We also have Canada joining them: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-4580625...
We, unfortunately, went the wrong way. We decided to change it back from a class C to a B...
The other thing that gets muddled up regarding cannabis (more then any other herbal medicine) is that it's use is more "recreational" than medicinal.
One of the big questions that even the Canadians haven't sorted out is drugs impaired driving/operating machinery etc. how alcohol metabolises in the body is by comparison to cannabis easier to understand (note earlier comment about clinical data) So whilst I am comfortable with not driving until at least the morning after if I have had a drink. When would I be OK to drive after having cannabis.
I couple of years ago I had to sack a member of staff who failed a random drugs test at work. The debate and appeal was over what level is acceptable. That would not change if cannabis was legal.
Our attempt was typically half-arsed. Whenever the Dutch of the Germans are doing something similar, then we would do well to watch closely and learn.
Cannabis was reclassified, but that was it. The largest seen change for a casual observer was that dirty estate-rats walked around town centres smoking cannabis with a smug demeanor, leaving a sickly smell wherever they went.
I realise that the intended outcome wasnt to mimic the Dutch model, but it was unbelievably naive to think that use patterns would not change, and to fail to realise that further rules needed to be implemented.
I suspect that as well as fickle political will, it was this failure to plan/prepare that saw cannabis reclassified again, back to it current Class B controlled status. I wonder what the Dutch thought of our half-arsed and naively poorly planned temporary liberation?
Cannabis was reclassified, but that was it. The largest seen change for a casual observer was that dirty estate-rats walked around town centres smoking cannabis with a smug demeanor, leaving a sickly smell wherever they went.
I realise that the intended outcome wasnt to mimic the Dutch model, but it was unbelievably naive to think that use patterns would not change, and to fail to realise that further rules needed to be implemented.
I suspect that as well as fickle political will, it was this failure to plan/prepare that saw cannabis reclassified again, back to it current Class B controlled status. I wonder what the Dutch thought of our half-arsed and naively poorly planned temporary liberation?
Edited by GC8 on Wednesday 17th October 13:06
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff