Baldoni wrote:
> Please ignore my ignorance on the subject but I seek information.  We 
> are not going to stop drug abuse are we.  Any war on drugs we may have 
> had was lost a long time ago.  Drug barons run their empires like Multi- 
> National companies.
> 
> What then is the case for legalizing drugs.  How would we go about this 
> and what would the implications be. Is it possible or is it something 
> that we would live to regret.
> 
> Is it a stupid proposal or is it a reasonable proposal.
> 
> Count Baldoni
>

On 5 Apr, 15:52, Baldoni  wrote:
> Baldoni wrote:
> > Please ignore my ignorance on the subject but I seek information.  We
> > are not going to stop drug abuse are we.  Any war on drugs we may have
> > had was lost a long time ago.  Drug barons run their empires like Multi-
> > National companies.
>
> > What then is the case for legalizing drugs.  How would we go about this
> > and what would the implications be. Is it possible or is it something
> > that we would live to regret.
>
> > Is it a stupid proposal or is it a reasonable proposal.
>
> > Count Baldoni-
>

It is a good idea but the criminal organizations who are making
£billions out of it are not going to sit down and let-it happen and
that will cause more problems(as them will use bribery, kidnapping,
and put money on the head of the people who are responsible for kill
the market)..

On 6 Apr 2007 05:27:56 -0700, "Anthony x" 
wrote:

>It is a good idea but the criminal organizations who are making
>£billions out of it are not going to sit down and let-it happen and
>that will cause more problems(as them will use bribery, kidnapping,
>and put money on the head of the people who are responsible for kill
>the market)..

I've always though that the most enthusiastic supporters of drug
prohibition are the criminal drug gangs.

Clough

Clough wrote:
> On 6 Apr 2007 05:27:56 -0700, "Anthony x" 
> wrote:
>
> >It is a good idea but the criminal organizations who are making
> >£billions out of it are not going to sit down and let-it happen and
> >that will cause more problems(as them will use bribery, kidnapping,
> >and put money on the head of the people who are responsible for kill
> >the market)..
>
> I've always though that the most enthusiastic supporters of drug
> prohibition are the criminal drug gangs.
>
> Clough

Cigarettes and Alcohol are legal, but it doesn't stop illegal traffic!
A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
always undercut - If drugs were legal then it would also be legal to
promote them - what effect do you think this would have?

On 6 Apr 2007 07:45:14 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
 wrote:

>Cigarettes and Alcohol are legal, but it doesn't stop illegal traffic!

The amount of illegal traffic in legal drugs is a function of the tax
placed upon them and is controllable through taxation. This is not
true of illegal drugs.

>A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
>always undercut - If drugs were legal then it would also be legal to
>promote them - what effect do you think this would have?

Warning labels could be put upon the packaging. Purity and strength of
content could be controlled.

Clough

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 12:35:45 GMT, Clough  wrote:

>On 6 Apr 2007 05:27:56 -0700, "Anthony x" 
>wrote:
>
>>It is a good idea but the criminal organizations who are making
>>£billions out of it are not going to sit down and let-it happen and
>>that will cause more problems(as them will use bribery, kidnapping,
>>and put money on the head of the people who are responsible for kill
>>the market)..
>
>I've always though that the most enthusiastic supporters of drug
>prohibition are the criminal drug gangs.
>
Anyone making money out of it will support it.

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On 6 Apr 2007 07:45:14 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
 wrote:

>Cigarettes and Alcohol are legal, but it doesn't stop illegal traffic!

Yes it does.  The amount of illegal traffic in those things are
minimal, and due only to different taxes in different countries.  The
traffic in smuggled alcohol & tobacco is in commercially produced
product, not adulterated home-made stuff.  There is minimal
involvement by organised gangs and not a lot of profit to be made by
the smugglers.

>A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
>always undercut

No they cannot.  Commercial production saves due to economy of scale
that outweigh both the things you mention.  Do you really believe that
street heroin is cheaper than the price hospitals pay for commercially
produced morphine?

> If drugs were legal then it would also be legal to
>promote them - what effect do you think this would have?

Why do you say that?  Tobacco advertising is prohibited.

-- 
Cynic

On 6 Apr 2007 07:45:14 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
 wrote:

>
>Clough wrote:
>> On 6 Apr 2007 05:27:56 -0700, "Anthony x" 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >It is a good idea but the criminal organizations who are making
>> >£billions out of it are not going to sit down and let-it happen and
>> >that will cause more problems(as them will use bribery, kidnapping,
>> >and put money on the head of the people who are responsible for kill
>> >the market)..
>>
>> I've always though that the most enthusiastic supporters of drug
>> prohibition are the criminal drug gangs.
>>
>> Clough
>
>Cigarettes and Alcohol are legal, but it doesn't stop illegal traffic!

There is very little illegal traffic in those commodities when
compared with drugs. There would be even less if it were not for the
punitive rates of taxation which impact on the poor but don't affect
the wealthy. 

>A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
>always undercut - 

So they can undercut builders, bootmakers and candlestick makers. So
What? The black economy is always with us

>If drugs were legal then it would also be legal to
>promote them - 

No it wouldn't. It is not legal to advertise tobacco or even alcohol
in some cases

>what effect do you think this would have?

I think you may be one of those people who get their money out of
drugs being illegal. 


-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Alang wrote:
> On 6 Apr 2007 07:45:14 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
>  wrote:
> 
>> Clough wrote:
>>> On 6 Apr 2007 05:27:56 -0700, "Anthony x" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is a good idea but the criminal organizations who are making
>>>> £billions out of it are not going to sit down and let-it happen and
>>>> that will cause more problems(as them will use bribery, kidnapping,
>>>> and put money on the head of the people who are responsible for kill
>>>> the market)..
>>> I've always though that the most enthusiastic supporters of drug
>>> prohibition are the criminal drug gangs.
>>>
>>> Clough
>> Cigarettes and Alcohol are legal, but it doesn't stop illegal traffic!
> 
> There is very little illegal traffic in those commodities when
> compared with drugs. There would be even less if it were not for the
> punitive rates of taxation which impact on the poor but don't affect
> the wealthy. 
> 
>> A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
>> always undercut - 
> 
> So they can undercut builders, bootmakers and candlestick makers. So
> What? The black economy is always with us
> 
>> If drugs were legal then it would also be legal to
>> promote them - 
> 
> No it wouldn't. It is not legal to advertise tobacco or even alcohol
> in some cases
> 
>> what effect do you think this would have?
> 
> I think you may be one of those people who get their money out of
> drugs being illegal. 
> 
> 
Prohibition of alcohol in the USA was what made the Mob and started them 
on the ladder to bigger things.  People will always want something they 
can't have and criminals will always exploit this market.

Where would we draw the line (no pun) if we allowed drug use.  On the 
other hand we can not police our streets because police resources are 
tied up trying to combat drugs.

This is like trying to plug holes in a colander.  One thing is certain 
we are not going to stop drug trafficking.  It is impossible if we 
follow the law to the letter.  Even if we bent the law we would still 
not be able to stop it.

As regards the drug barons threatening our political leaders lives, I 
would suggest our politicians are already in more danger than they have 
ever been due to our foreign policy.

It is a tough call.

Count Baldoni

"Clough"  wrote in message 
news:e0oc139vju2u5kudpv8hbvi803rgkvjb58@4ax.com...
> On 6 Apr 2007 07:45:14 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
>  wrote:
>
>>Cigarettes and Alcohol are legal, but it doesn't stop illegal traffic!
>
> The amount of illegal traffic in legal drugs is a function of the tax
> placed upon them and is controllable through taxation. This is not
> true of illegal drugs.
>
>>A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
>>always undercut - If drugs were legal then it would also be legal to
>>promote them - what effect do you think this would have?
>
> Warning labels could be put upon the packaging. Purity and strength of
> content could be controlled.

Better still... guaranteed!

-- 

www.ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/

On 6 Apr, 17:33, Cynic  wrote:
> On 6 Apr 2007 07:45:14 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
>
>  wrote:
> >Cigarettes and Alcohol are legal, but it doesn't stop illegal traffic!
>
> Yes it does.  The amount of illegal traffic in those things are
> minimal, and due only to different taxes in different countries.  The
> traffic in smuggled alcohol & tobacco is in commercially produced
> product, not adulterated home-made stuff.  There is minimal
> involvement by organised gangs and not a lot of profit to be made by
> the smugglers.

I don't think Custom & Excise take that view!

> >A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
> >always undercut
>
> No they cannot.  Commercial production saves due to economy of scale
> that outweigh both the things you mention.  Do you really believe that
> street heroin is cheaper than the price hospitals pay for commercially
> produced morphine?

Criminal activity would focus on distribution - not prduction

> > If drugs were legal then it would also be legal to
> >promote them - what effect do you think this would have?
>
> Why do you say that?  Tobacco advertising is prohibited.
>
I didn't specifically say advertise - I said promote. An invitation to
treat on the high street is a form of promotion - as is the frontage
of a pub or newsagent!

On 7 Apr 2007 06:08:08 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
 wrote:

>> Yes it does.  The amount of illegal traffic in those things are
>> minimal, and due only to different taxes in different countries.  The
>> traffic in smuggled alcohol & tobacco is in commercially produced
>> product, not adulterated home-made stuff.  There is minimal
>> involvement by organised gangs and not a lot of profit to be made by
>> the smugglers.
>
>I don't think Custom & Excise take that view!

Of course C&E go after smugglers - but there is nowhere near the
criminal involvement in alcohol and tobacco as there is in prohibited
drugs, and the criminals do not cause any significant social problems.

>> >A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
>> >always undercut

>> No they cannot.  Commercial production saves due to economy of scale
>> that outweigh both the things you mention.  Do you really believe that
>> street heroin is cheaper than the price hospitals pay for commercially
>> produced morphine?

>Criminal activity would focus on distribution - not prduction

If what you say were true to any significant extent, then *everything*
would be subject to criminals distributing tax-free products.  So tell
me where I can find this criminal ring that is distributing
cornflakes.

The *only* reason for the smuggling of alcohol and tobacco is the fact
that the UK imposes a far bigger tax on those products than nearby
countries.

>> > If drugs were legal then it would also be legal to
>> >promote them - what effect do you think this would have?

>> Why do you say that?  Tobacco advertising is prohibited.

>I didn't specifically say advertise - I said promote. An invitation to
>treat on the high street is a form of promotion - as is the frontage
>of a pub or newsagent!

Far better promotion from those sources than promotion from a criminal
street pusher.

-- 
Cynic

On 7 Apr, 21:43, Cynic  wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2007 06:08:08 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
>
>  wrote:
> >> Yes it does.  The amount of illegal traffic in those things are
> >> minimal, and due only to different taxes in different countries.  The
> >> traffic in smuggled alcohol & tobacco is in commercially produced
> >> product, not adulterated home-made stuff.  There is minimal
> >> involvement by organised gangs and not a lot of profit to be made by
> >> the smugglers.
>
> >I don't think Custom & Excise take that view!
>
> Of course C&E go after smugglers - but there is nowhere near the
> criminal involvement in alcohol and tobacco as there is in prohibiteddrugs, and the criminals do not cause any significant social problems.
>
> >> >A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
> >> >always undercut
> >> No they cannot.  Commercial production saves due to economy of scale
> >> that outweigh both the things you mention.  Do you really believe that
> >> street heroin is cheaper than the price hospitals pay for commercially
> >> produced morphine?
> >Criminal activity would focus on distribution - not prduction
>
> If what you say were true to any significant extent, then *everything*
> would be subject to criminals distributing tax-free products.  So tell
> me where I can find this criminal ring that is distributing
> cornflakes.
>
> The *only* reason for the smuggling of alcohol and tobacco is the fact
> that the UK imposes a far bigger tax on those products than nearby
> countries.

VAT is not the only distinguishing feature between a legitimate and a
criminal opereration - Social Security payments, business rates,
public liability insurance and other running costs all contribute to
the price difference between a legal and illegal product.

After that, it is demand for the product that will determine the level
of criminal activity - not simply the price difference between
suppliers - take ticket touts for example - selling a product above
its legitimate price. Leagalised drugs are highly unlikely to be on
sale at the sweet counter - and it would be perverse to make them too
cheap while upping the price on tobacco and alchohol on health
grounds!

Also the demand for cheap heroin is clearly going to be greater than
demand for a cheap fridge freezers - or packet of cornflakes even -
Crunchy Nut Cornflakes are very moreish - but not enough to inspire
criminal activity - In fact I just got a very good deal from
Sainsburys on Crunchy Nut Cornflakes and have a 750g pack going spare
- any offers?

Now think again - what would the response be if that was not Crunchy
Nut Cornflakes but an offer of heroin?

(I am glad you brought the cornflakes up)

> >> > Ifdrugswere legal then it would also be legal to
> >> >promote them - what effect do you think this would have?
> >> Why do you say that?  Tobacco advertising is prohibited.
> >I didn't specifically say advertise - I said promote. An invitation to
> >treat on the high street is a form of promotion - as is the frontage
> >of a pub or newsagent!
>
> Far better promotion from those sources than promotion from a criminal
> street pusher.

Clearly many posters here only see the problem only as a matter of
criminalised distribution - and what the effect these drugs have on
peoples lives just doesn't come into the equation does it?

On 8 Apr 2007 06:16:12 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
 wrote:

>Clearly many posters here only see the problem only as a matter of
>criminalised distribution - and what the effect these drugs have on
>peoples lives just doesn't come into the equation does it?

Prohibition makes drug problems much worse for addicts as well as for
society.

Criminalising addicts certainly doesn't help them. Quite the opposite.

But I don't suppose prohibitionists care how many lives they wreck as
long as the sin of drug taking is punished.

Clough

"Baldoni"  wrote in message 
news:46169cb8$0$9297$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
> Alang wrote:
>> On 6 Apr 2007 07:45:14 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Clough wrote:
>>>> On 6 Apr 2007 05:27:56 -0700, "Anthony x" 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is a good idea but the criminal organizations who are making
>>>>> £billions out of it are not going to sit down and let-it happen and
>>>>> that will cause more problems(as them will use bribery, kidnapping,
>>>>> and put money on the head of the people who are responsible for kill
>>>>> the market)..
>>>> I've always though that the most enthusiastic supporters of drug
>>>> prohibition are the criminal drug gangs.
>>>>
>>>> Clough
>>> Cigarettes and Alcohol are legal, but it doesn't stop illegal traffic!
>>
>> There is very little illegal traffic in those commodities when
>> compared with drugs. There would be even less if it were not for the
>> punitive rates of taxation which impact on the poor but don't affect
>> the wealthy.
>>> A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
>>> always undercut -
>>
>> So they can undercut builders, bootmakers and candlestick makers. So
>> What? The black economy is always with us
>>
>>> If drugs were legal then it would also be legal to
>>> promote them -
>>
>> No it wouldn't. It is not legal to advertise tobacco or even alcohol
>> in some cases
>>
>>> what effect do you think this would have?
>>
>> I think you may be one of those people who get their money out of
>> drugs being illegal.
> Prohibition of alcohol in the USA was what made the Mob and started them 
> on the ladder to bigger things.  People will always want something they 
> can't have and criminals will always exploit this market.
>
> Where would we draw the line (no pun) if we allowed drug use.  On the 
> other hand we can not police our streets because police resources are tied 
> up trying to combat drugs.
>
> This is like trying to plug holes in a colander.  One thing is certain we 
> are not going to stop drug trafficking.  It is impossible if we follow the 
> law to the letter.  Even if we bent the law we would still not be able to 
> stop it.
>
The illicit drug market feeds most of the "bogeymen" the western governments 
are supposedly fighting against, at obscene expense to the citizens of those 
countries. Not only are "we" fighting against these bogeymen we're also 
actively creating the climate that allows them to flourish and finance their 
operations. That's the prohibition conundrum and it's the absolute most 
idiotic thing imaginable once you actually see past the ridiculous childlike 
propaganda that the fear factory churns out. Prohibition is the direct cause 
of so many problems it's incredibly difficult to fully comprehend the scale 
of them all.

"JohnR"  wrote in message 
news:461abf52$0$6495$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> "Baldoni"  wrote in message 
> news:46169cb8$0$9297$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
>> Alang wrote:
>>> On 6 Apr 2007 07:45:14 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Clough wrote:
>>>>> On 6 Apr 2007 05:27:56 -0700, "Anthony x" 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a good idea but the criminal organizations who are making
>>>>>> £billions out of it are not going to sit down and let-it happen and
>>>>>> that will cause more problems(as them will use bribery, kidnapping,
>>>>>> and put money on the head of the people who are responsible for kill
>>>>>> the market)..
>>>>> I've always though that the most enthusiastic supporters of drug
>>>>> prohibition are the criminal drug gangs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clough
>>>> Cigarettes and Alcohol are legal, but it doesn't stop illegal traffic!
>>>
>>> There is very little illegal traffic in those commodities when
>>> compared with drugs. There would be even less if it were not for the
>>> punitive rates of taxation which impact on the poor but don't affect
>>> the wealthy.
>>>> A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
>>>> always undercut -
>>>
>>> So they can undercut builders, bootmakers and candlestick makers. So
>>> What? The black economy is always with us
>>>
>>>> If drugs were legal then it would also be legal to
>>>> promote them -
>>>
>>> No it wouldn't. It is not legal to advertise tobacco or even alcohol
>>> in some cases
>>>
>>>> what effect do you think this would have?
>>>
>>> I think you may be one of those people who get their money out of
>>> drugs being illegal.
>> Prohibition of alcohol in the USA was what made the Mob and started them 
>> on the ladder to bigger things.  People will always want something they 
>> can't have and criminals will always exploit this market.
>>
>> Where would we draw the line (no pun) if we allowed drug use.  On the 
>> other hand we can not police our streets because police resources are 
>> tied up trying to combat drugs.
>>
>> This is like trying to plug holes in a colander.  One thing is certain we 
>> are not going to stop drug trafficking.  It is impossible if we follow 
>> the law to the letter.  Even if we bent the law we would still not be 
>> able to stop it.
>>
> The illicit drug market feeds most of the "bogeymen" the western 
> governments are supposedly fighting against, at obscene expense to the 
> citizens of those countries. Not only are "we" fighting against these 
> bogeymen we're also actively creating the climate that allows them to 
> flourish and finance their operations. That's the prohibition conundrum 
> and it's the absolute most idiotic thing imaginable once you actually see 
> past the ridiculous childlike propaganda that the fear factory churns out. 
> Prohibition is the direct cause of so many problems it's incredibly 
> difficult to fully comprehend the scale of them all.
>

THE BLUNKETT SOLUTION
By Oonagh Blackman

IF ever there was an argument for a different war on drugs it is to be found 
in Plymouth.


The local drug treatment service has clocked up stunning successes in 
weaning addicts off heroin and crack and slashing crime.


David Blunkett visited one of its day services earlier this month and told 
workers he was "very impressed". The Home Secretary and Home Office Minister 
Caroline Flint visited the Hamoaze House centre where new tactics are 
working.


One worker explained: "It was set up two years ago and it focuses on the 
person rather than the problem. It is not about being soft but about what 
gets results.


"There are really intensive efforts to help users build up basic life skills 
and teach them how to get back into society.


"There is no point in spending money on treatment for an addiction and then 
waving someone goodbye and leaving them to get on with it because they will 
just fall back into the same old ways.


"Here they are helped with sorting out housing, job prospects and with any 
area of their life which is chaotic like relationships.


"We're basically teaching them to be good citizens."


The clients are some of the most troublesome heroin and crack users in the 
city but they have responded to the softly-softly approach. Many of them 
have spent years stealing and mugging to pay for their fix.


The project took time to get going but the results are now coming in thick 
and fast.


In the last quarter alone crime has fallen by 17 per cent more than the 
previous year and police are giving the drug project credit for most of the 
fall.


One of the Drug Action Team co-ordinators said: "Acquisitive crime like 
mugging and burglary have dropped more than in any other parts of Devon and 
Cornwall.


"Most of these people are desperate for treatment and if they know they can 
come here and get help they are willing.


"Crucially, help has to be available at the point it is needed through more 
investment in community based services not purely at the point of arrest.


"But I admit there will always be a small minority, a tiny group, who will 
have to be forced into treatment but it is a much smaller group than the 
Government is planning to target."


Mr Blunkett also visited a residential centre where mums addicted to heroin 
and crack can live with their kids while they try to kick the habit.


The Home Secretary was warned plans to lock up more addicts would simply 
create more chaos and harm their children.


The Plymouth project also runs heroin prescribing which takes the drug 
market out of the hands of criminal gangs.


The control of supply by approved doctors linked to the treatment agency 
with the knowledge of the police and local authority also removes the need 
for addicts to steal to fund their habit. During the visit Mr Blunkett told 
workers he wanted more alternatives to the criminal justice system.


But the Government says it has found it difficult to get more doctors to 
prescribe heroin and cocaine.

On 8 Apr 2007 06:16:12 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
 wrote:

>Clearly many posters here only see the problem only as a matter of
>criminalised distribution - and what the effect these drugs have on
>peoples lives just doesn't come into the equation does it?

The effect of the drugs on the lives of the drug takers is minimal due
to the effect of the drug itself in the case of the majority of
illegal drugs.  The devastating effects on drug takers' lives is
almost all as a result of prohibition.

But in general, yes, I am more concerned with the effect of drugs on
people who do *not* take them than the effect on people who have
chosen to take them.  And the adverse effect that they have on
non-drug takers is almost entirely due to prohibition rather than the
drugs themselves.

-- 
Cynic

On 5 Apr, 15:52, Baldoni  wrote:
> Baldoni wrote:
> > Please ignore my ignorance on the subject but I seek information.  We
> > are not going to stop drug abuse are we.  Any war on drugs we may have
> > had was lost a long time ago.  Drug barons run their empires like Multi-
> > National companies.
>
> > What then is the case for legalizing drugs.  How would we go about this
> > and what would the implications be. Is it possible or is it something
> > that we would live to regret.
>
> > Is it a stupid proposal or is it a reasonable proposal.
>
> > Count Baldoni-
>

It is a good idea but the criminal organizations who are making
£billions out of it are not going to sit down and let-it happen and
that will cause more problems(as them will use bribery, kidnapping,
and put money on the head of the people who are responsible for kill
the market)..

On 6 Apr 2007 05:27:56 -0700, "Anthony x" 
wrote:

>It is a good idea but the criminal organizations who are making
>£billions out of it are not going to sit down and let-it happen and
>that will cause more problems(as them will use bribery, kidnapping,
>and put money on the head of the people who are responsible for kill
>the market)..

I've always though that the most enthusiastic supporters of drug
prohibition are the criminal drug gangs.

Clough

Clough wrote:
> On 6 Apr 2007 05:27:56 -0700, "Anthony x" 
> wrote:
>
> >It is a good idea but the criminal organizations who are making
> >£billions out of it are not going to sit down and let-it happen and
> >that will cause more problems(as them will use bribery, kidnapping,
> >and put money on the head of the people who are responsible for kill
> >the market)..
>
> I've always though that the most enthusiastic supporters of drug
> prohibition are the criminal drug gangs.
>
> Clough

Cigarettes and Alcohol are legal, but it doesn't stop illegal traffic!
A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
always undercut - If drugs were legal then it would also be legal to
promote them - what effect do you think this would have?

On 6 Apr 2007 07:45:14 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
 wrote:

>Cigarettes and Alcohol are legal, but it doesn't stop illegal traffic!

The amount of illegal traffic in legal drugs is a function of the tax
placed upon them and is controllable through taxation. This is not
true of illegal drugs.

>A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
>always undercut - If drugs were legal then it would also be legal to
>promote them - what effect do you think this would have?

Warning labels could be put upon the packaging. Purity and strength of
content could be controlled.

Clough

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 12:35:45 GMT, Clough  wrote:

>On 6 Apr 2007 05:27:56 -0700, "Anthony x" 
>wrote:
>
>>It is a good idea but the criminal organizations who are making
>>£billions out of it are not going to sit down and let-it happen and
>>that will cause more problems(as them will use bribery, kidnapping,
>>and put money on the head of the people who are responsible for kill
>>the market)..
>
>I've always though that the most enthusiastic supporters of drug
>prohibition are the criminal drug gangs.
>
Anyone making money out of it will support it.

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On 6 Apr 2007 07:45:14 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
 wrote:

>Cigarettes and Alcohol are legal, but it doesn't stop illegal traffic!

Yes it does.  The amount of illegal traffic in those things are
minimal, and due only to different taxes in different countries.  The
traffic in smuggled alcohol & tobacco is in commercially produced
product, not adulterated home-made stuff.  There is minimal
involvement by organised gangs and not a lot of profit to be made by
the smugglers.

>A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
>always undercut

No they cannot.  Commercial production saves due to economy of scale
that outweigh both the things you mention.  Do you really believe that
street heroin is cheaper than the price hospitals pay for commercially
produced morphine?

> If drugs were legal then it would also be legal to
>promote them - what effect do you think this would have?

Why do you say that?  Tobacco advertising is prohibited.

-- 
Cynic

On 6 Apr 2007 07:45:14 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
 wrote:

>
>Clough wrote:
>> On 6 Apr 2007 05:27:56 -0700, "Anthony x" 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >It is a good idea but the criminal organizations who are making
>> >£billions out of it are not going to sit down and let-it happen and
>> >that will cause more problems(as them will use bribery, kidnapping,
>> >and put money on the head of the people who are responsible for kill
>> >the market)..
>>
>> I've always though that the most enthusiastic supporters of drug
>> prohibition are the criminal drug gangs.
>>
>> Clough
>
>Cigarettes and Alcohol are legal, but it doesn't stop illegal traffic!

There is very little illegal traffic in those commodities when
compared with drugs. There would be even less if it were not for the
punitive rates of taxation which impact on the poor but don't affect
the wealthy. 

>A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
>always undercut - 

So they can undercut builders, bootmakers and candlestick makers. So
What? The black economy is always with us

>If drugs were legal then it would also be legal to
>promote them - 

No it wouldn't. It is not legal to advertise tobacco or even alcohol
in some cases

>what effect do you think this would have?

I think you may be one of those people who get their money out of
drugs being illegal. 


-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Alang wrote:
> On 6 Apr 2007 07:45:14 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
>  wrote:
> 
>> Clough wrote:
>>> On 6 Apr 2007 05:27:56 -0700, "Anthony x" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is a good idea but the criminal organizations who are making
>>>> £billions out of it are not going to sit down and let-it happen and
>>>> that will cause more problems(as them will use bribery, kidnapping,
>>>> and put money on the head of the people who are responsible for kill
>>>> the market)..
>>> I've always though that the most enthusiastic supporters of drug
>>> prohibition are the criminal drug gangs.
>>>
>>> Clough
>> Cigarettes and Alcohol are legal, but it doesn't stop illegal traffic!
> 
> There is very little illegal traffic in those commodities when
> compared with drugs. There would be even less if it were not for the
> punitive rates of taxation which impact on the poor but don't affect
> the wealthy. 
> 
>> A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
>> always undercut - 
> 
> So they can undercut builders, bootmakers and candlestick makers. So
> What? The black economy is always with us
> 
>> If drugs were legal then it would also be legal to
>> promote them - 
> 
> No it wouldn't. It is not legal to advertise tobacco or even alcohol
> in some cases
> 
>> what effect do you think this would have?
> 
> I think you may be one of those people who get their money out of
> drugs being illegal. 
> 
> 
Prohibition of alcohol in the USA was what made the Mob and started them 
on the ladder to bigger things.  People will always want something they 
can't have and criminals will always exploit this market.

Where would we draw the line (no pun) if we allowed drug use.  On the 
other hand we can not police our streets because police resources are 
tied up trying to combat drugs.

This is like trying to plug holes in a colander.  One thing is certain 
we are not going to stop drug trafficking.  It is impossible if we 
follow the law to the letter.  Even if we bent the law we would still 
not be able to stop it.

As regards the drug barons threatening our political leaders lives, I 
would suggest our politicians are already in more danger than they have 
ever been due to our foreign policy.

It is a tough call.

Count Baldoni

"Clough"  wrote in message 
news:e0oc139vju2u5kudpv8hbvi803rgkvjb58@4ax.com...
> On 6 Apr 2007 07:45:14 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
>  wrote:
>
>>Cigarettes and Alcohol are legal, but it doesn't stop illegal traffic!
>
> The amount of illegal traffic in legal drugs is a function of the tax
> placed upon them and is controllable through taxation. This is not
> true of illegal drugs.
>
>>A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
>>always undercut - If drugs were legal then it would also be legal to
>>promote them - what effect do you think this would have?
>
> Warning labels could be put upon the packaging. Purity and strength of
> content could be controlled.

Better still... guaranteed!

-- 

www.ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/

On 6 Apr, 17:33, Cynic  wrote:
> On 6 Apr 2007 07:45:14 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
>
>  wrote:
> >Cigarettes and Alcohol are legal, but it doesn't stop illegal traffic!
>
> Yes it does.  The amount of illegal traffic in those things are
> minimal, and due only to different taxes in different countries.  The
> traffic in smuggled alcohol & tobacco is in commercially produced
> product, not adulterated home-made stuff.  There is minimal
> involvement by organised gangs and not a lot of profit to be made by
> the smugglers.

I don't think Custom & Excise take that view!

> >A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
> >always undercut
>
> No they cannot.  Commercial production saves due to economy of scale
> that outweigh both the things you mention.  Do you really believe that
> street heroin is cheaper than the price hospitals pay for commercially
> produced morphine?

Criminal activity would focus on distribution - not prduction

> > If drugs were legal then it would also be legal to
> >promote them - what effect do you think this would have?
>
> Why do you say that?  Tobacco advertising is prohibited.
>
I didn't specifically say advertise - I said promote. An invitation to
treat on the high street is a form of promotion - as is the frontage
of a pub or newsagent!

On 7 Apr 2007 06:08:08 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
 wrote:

>> Yes it does.  The amount of illegal traffic in those things are
>> minimal, and due only to different taxes in different countries.  The
>> traffic in smuggled alcohol & tobacco is in commercially produced
>> product, not adulterated home-made stuff.  There is minimal
>> involvement by organised gangs and not a lot of profit to be made by
>> the smugglers.
>
>I don't think Custom & Excise take that view!

Of course C&E go after smugglers - but there is nowhere near the
criminal involvement in alcohol and tobacco as there is in prohibited
drugs, and the criminals do not cause any significant social problems.

>> >A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
>> >always undercut

>> No they cannot.  Commercial production saves due to economy of scale
>> that outweigh both the things you mention.  Do you really believe that
>> street heroin is cheaper than the price hospitals pay for commercially
>> produced morphine?

>Criminal activity would focus on distribution - not prduction

If what you say were true to any significant extent, then *everything*
would be subject to criminals distributing tax-free products.  So tell
me where I can find this criminal ring that is distributing
cornflakes.

The *only* reason for the smuggling of alcohol and tobacco is the fact
that the UK imposes a far bigger tax on those products than nearby
countries.

>> > If drugs were legal then it would also be legal to
>> >promote them - what effect do you think this would have?

>> Why do you say that?  Tobacco advertising is prohibited.

>I didn't specifically say advertise - I said promote. An invitation to
>treat on the high street is a form of promotion - as is the frontage
>of a pub or newsagent!

Far better promotion from those sources than promotion from a criminal
street pusher.

-- 
Cynic

On 7 Apr, 21:43, Cynic  wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2007 06:08:08 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
>
>  wrote:
> >> Yes it does.  The amount of illegal traffic in those things are
> >> minimal, and due only to different taxes in different countries.  The
> >> traffic in smuggled alcohol & tobacco is in commercially produced
> >> product, not adulterated home-made stuff.  There is minimal
> >> involvement by organised gangs and not a lot of profit to be made by
> >> the smugglers.
>
> >I don't think Custom & Excise take that view!
>
> Of course C&E go after smugglers - but there is nowhere near the
> criminal involvement in alcohol and tobacco as there is in prohibiteddrugs, and the criminals do not cause any significant social problems.
>
> >> >A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
> >> >always undercut
> >> No they cannot.  Commercial production saves due to economy of scale
> >> that outweigh both the things you mention.  Do you really believe that
> >> street heroin is cheaper than the price hospitals pay for commercially
> >> produced morphine?
> >Criminal activity would focus on distribution - not prduction
>
> If what you say were true to any significant extent, then *everything*
> would be subject to criminals distributing tax-free products.  So tell
> me where I can find this criminal ring that is distributing
> cornflakes.
>
> The *only* reason for the smuggling of alcohol and tobacco is the fact
> that the UK imposes a far bigger tax on those products than nearby
> countries.

VAT is not the only distinguishing feature between a legitimate and a
criminal opereration - Social Security payments, business rates,
public liability insurance and other running costs all contribute to
the price difference between a legal and illegal product.

After that, it is demand for the product that will determine the level
of criminal activity - not simply the price difference between
suppliers - take ticket touts for example - selling a product above
its legitimate price. Leagalised drugs are highly unlikely to be on
sale at the sweet counter - and it would be perverse to make them too
cheap while upping the price on tobacco and alchohol on health
grounds!

Also the demand for cheap heroin is clearly going to be greater than
demand for a cheap fridge freezers - or packet of cornflakes even -
Crunchy Nut Cornflakes are very moreish - but not enough to inspire
criminal activity - In fact I just got a very good deal from
Sainsburys on Crunchy Nut Cornflakes and have a 750g pack going spare
- any offers?

Now think again - what would the response be if that was not Crunchy
Nut Cornflakes but an offer of heroin?

(I am glad you brought the cornflakes up)

> >> > Ifdrugswere legal then it would also be legal to
> >> >promote them - what effect do you think this would have?
> >> Why do you say that?  Tobacco advertising is prohibited.
> >I didn't specifically say advertise - I said promote. An invitation to
> >treat on the high street is a form of promotion - as is the frontage
> >of a pub or newsagent!
>
> Far better promotion from those sources than promotion from a criminal
> street pusher.

Clearly many posters here only see the problem only as a matter of
criminalised distribution - and what the effect these drugs have on
peoples lives just doesn't come into the equation does it?

On 8 Apr 2007 06:16:12 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
 wrote:

>Clearly many posters here only see the problem only as a matter of
>criminalised distribution - and what the effect these drugs have on
>peoples lives just doesn't come into the equation does it?

Prohibition makes drug problems much worse for addicts as well as for
society.

Criminalising addicts certainly doesn't help them. Quite the opposite.

But I don't suppose prohibitionists care how many lives they wreck as
long as the sin of drug taking is punished.

Clough

"Baldoni"  wrote in message 
news:46169cb8$0$9297$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
> Alang wrote:
>> On 6 Apr 2007 07:45:14 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Clough wrote:
>>>> On 6 Apr 2007 05:27:56 -0700, "Anthony x" 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is a good idea but the criminal organizations who are making
>>>>> £billions out of it are not going to sit down and let-it happen and
>>>>> that will cause more problems(as them will use bribery, kidnapping,
>>>>> and put money on the head of the people who are responsible for kill
>>>>> the market)..
>>>> I've always though that the most enthusiastic supporters of drug
>>>> prohibition are the criminal drug gangs.
>>>>
>>>> Clough
>>> Cigarettes and Alcohol are legal, but it doesn't stop illegal traffic!
>>
>> There is very little illegal traffic in those commodities when
>> compared with drugs. There would be even less if it were not for the
>> punitive rates of taxation which impact on the poor but don't affect
>> the wealthy.
>>> A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
>>> always undercut -
>>
>> So they can undercut builders, bootmakers and candlestick makers. So
>> What? The black economy is always with us
>>
>>> If drugs were legal then it would also be legal to
>>> promote them -
>>
>> No it wouldn't. It is not legal to advertise tobacco or even alcohol
>> in some cases
>>
>>> what effect do you think this would have?
>>
>> I think you may be one of those people who get their money out of
>> drugs being illegal.
> Prohibition of alcohol in the USA was what made the Mob and started them 
> on the ladder to bigger things.  People will always want something they 
> can't have and criminals will always exploit this market.
>
> Where would we draw the line (no pun) if we allowed drug use.  On the 
> other hand we can not police our streets because police resources are tied 
> up trying to combat drugs.
>
> This is like trying to plug holes in a colander.  One thing is certain we 
> are not going to stop drug trafficking.  It is impossible if we follow the 
> law to the letter.  Even if we bent the law we would still not be able to 
> stop it.
>
The illicit drug market feeds most of the "bogeymen" the western governments 
are supposedly fighting against, at obscene expense to the citizens of those 
countries. Not only are "we" fighting against these bogeymen we're also 
actively creating the climate that allows them to flourish and finance their 
operations. That's the prohibition conundrum and it's the absolute most 
idiotic thing imaginable once you actually see past the ridiculous childlike 
propaganda that the fear factory churns out. Prohibition is the direct cause 
of so many problems it's incredibly difficult to fully comprehend the scale 
of them all.

"JohnR"  wrote in message 
news:461abf52$0$6495$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> "Baldoni"  wrote in message 
> news:46169cb8$0$9297$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
>> Alang wrote:
>>> On 6 Apr 2007 07:45:14 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Clough wrote:
>>>>> On 6 Apr 2007 05:27:56 -0700, "Anthony x" 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a good idea but the criminal organizations who are making
>>>>>> £billions out of it are not going to sit down and let-it happen and
>>>>>> that will cause more problems(as them will use bribery, kidnapping,
>>>>>> and put money on the head of the people who are responsible for kill
>>>>>> the market)..
>>>>> I've always though that the most enthusiastic supporters of drug
>>>>> prohibition are the criminal drug gangs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clough
>>>> Cigarettes and Alcohol are legal, but it doesn't stop illegal traffic!
>>>
>>> There is very little illegal traffic in those commodities when
>>> compared with drugs. There would be even less if it were not for the
>>> punitive rates of taxation which impact on the poor but don't affect
>>> the wealthy.
>>>> A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
>>>> always undercut -
>>>
>>> So they can undercut builders, bootmakers and candlestick makers. So
>>> What? The black economy is always with us
>>>
>>>> If drugs were legal then it would also be legal to
>>>> promote them -
>>>
>>> No it wouldn't. It is not legal to advertise tobacco or even alcohol
>>> in some cases
>>>
>>>> what effect do you think this would have?
>>>
>>> I think you may be one of those people who get their money out of
>>> drugs being illegal.
>> Prohibition of alcohol in the USA was what made the Mob and started them 
>> on the ladder to bigger things.  People will always want something they 
>> can't have and criminals will always exploit this market.
>>
>> Where would we draw the line (no pun) if we allowed drug use.  On the 
>> other hand we can not police our streets because police resources are 
>> tied up trying to combat drugs.
>>
>> This is like trying to plug holes in a colander.  One thing is certain we 
>> are not going to stop drug trafficking.  It is impossible if we follow 
>> the law to the letter.  Even if we bent the law we would still not be 
>> able to stop it.
>>
> The illicit drug market feeds most of the "bogeymen" the western 
> governments are supposedly fighting against, at obscene expense to the 
> citizens of those countries. Not only are "we" fighting against these 
> bogeymen we're also actively creating the climate that allows them to 
> flourish and finance their operations. That's the prohibition conundrum 
> and it's the absolute most idiotic thing imaginable once you actually see 
> past the ridiculous childlike propaganda that the fear factory churns out. 
> Prohibition is the direct cause of so many problems it's incredibly 
> difficult to fully comprehend the scale of them all.
>

THE BLUNKETT SOLUTION
By Oonagh Blackman

IF ever there was an argument for a different war on drugs it is to be found 
in Plymouth.


The local drug treatment service has clocked up stunning successes in 
weaning addicts off heroin and crack and slashing crime.


David Blunkett visited one of its day services earlier this month and told 
workers he was "very impressed". The Home Secretary and Home Office Minister 
Caroline Flint visited the Hamoaze House centre where new tactics are 
working.


One worker explained: "It was set up two years ago and it focuses on the 
person rather than the problem. It is not about being soft but about what 
gets results.


"There are really intensive efforts to help users build up basic life skills 
and teach them how to get back into society.


"There is no point in spending money on treatment for an addiction and then 
waving someone goodbye and leaving them to get on with it because they will 
just fall back into the same old ways.


"Here they are helped with sorting out housing, job prospects and with any 
area of their life which is chaotic like relationships.


"We're basically teaching them to be good citizens."


The clients are some of the most troublesome heroin and crack users in the 
city but they have responded to the softly-softly approach. Many of them 
have spent years stealing and mugging to pay for their fix.


The project took time to get going but the results are now coming in thick 
and fast.


In the last quarter alone crime has fallen by 17 per cent more than the 
previous year and police are giving the drug project credit for most of the 
fall.


One of the Drug Action Team co-ordinators said: "Acquisitive crime like 
mugging and burglary have dropped more than in any other parts of Devon and 
Cornwall.


"Most of these people are desperate for treatment and if they know they can 
come here and get help they are willing.


"Crucially, help has to be available at the point it is needed through more 
investment in community based services not purely at the point of arrest.


"But I admit there will always be a small minority, a tiny group, who will 
have to be forced into treatment but it is a much smaller group than the 
Government is planning to target."


Mr Blunkett also visited a residential centre where mums addicted to heroin 
and crack can live with their kids while they try to kick the habit.


The Home Secretary was warned plans to lock up more addicts would simply 
create more chaos and harm their children.


The Plymouth project also runs heroin prescribing which takes the drug 
market out of the hands of criminal gangs.


The control of supply by approved doctors linked to the treatment agency 
with the knowledge of the police and local authority also removes the need 
for addicts to steal to fund their habit. During the visit Mr Blunkett told 
workers he wanted more alternatives to the criminal justice system.


But the Government says it has found it difficult to get more doctors to 
prescribe heroin and cocaine.

On 8 Apr 2007 06:16:12 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
 wrote:

>Clearly many posters here only see the problem only as a matter of
>criminalised distribution - and what the effect these drugs have on
>peoples lives just doesn't come into the equation does it?

The effect of the drugs on the lives of the drug takers is minimal due
to the effect of the drug itself in the case of the majority of
illegal drugs.  The devastating effects on drug takers' lives is
almost all as a result of prohibition.

But in general, yes, I am more concerned with the effect of drugs on
people who do *not* take them than the effect on people who have
chosen to take them.  And the adverse effect that they have on
non-drug takers is almost entirely due to prohibition rather than the
drugs themselves.

-- 
Cynic

On 5 Apr, 15:52, Baldoni  wrote:
> Baldoni wrote:
> > Please ignore my ignorance on the subject but I seek information.  We
> > are not going to stop drug abuse are we.  Any war on drugs we may have
> > had was lost a long time ago.  Drug barons run their empires like Multi-
> > National companies.
>
> > What then is the case for legalizing drugs.  How would we go about this
> > and what would the implications be. Is it possible or is it something
> > that we would live to regret.
>
> > Is it a stupid proposal or is it a reasonable proposal.
>
> > Count Baldoni-
>

It is a good idea but the criminal organizations who are making
£billions out of it are not going to sit down and let-it happen and
that will cause more problems(as them will use bribery, kidnapping,
and put money on the head of the people who are responsible for kill
the market)..

On 6 Apr 2007 05:27:56 -0700, "Anthony x" 
wrote:

>It is a good idea but the criminal organizations who are making
>£billions out of it are not going to sit down and let-it happen and
>that will cause more problems(as them will use bribery, kidnapping,
>and put money on the head of the people who are responsible for kill
>the market)..

I've always though that the most enthusiastic supporters of drug
prohibition are the criminal drug gangs.

Clough

Clough wrote:
> On 6 Apr 2007 05:27:56 -0700, "Anthony x" 
> wrote:
>
> >It is a good idea but the criminal organizations who are making
> >£billions out of it are not going to sit down and let-it happen and
> >that will cause more problems(as them will use bribery, kidnapping,
> >and put money on the head of the people who are responsible for kill
> >the market)..
>
> I've always though that the most enthusiastic supporters of drug
> prohibition are the criminal drug gangs.
>
> Clough

Cigarettes and Alcohol are legal, but it doesn't stop illegal traffic!
A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
always undercut - If drugs were legal then it would also be legal to
promote them - what effect do you think this would have?

On 6 Apr 2007 07:45:14 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
 wrote:

>Cigarettes and Alcohol are legal, but it doesn't stop illegal traffic!

The amount of illegal traffic in legal drugs is a function of the tax
placed upon them and is controllable through taxation. This is not
true of illegal drugs.

>A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
>always undercut - If drugs were legal then it would also be legal to
>promote them - what effect do you think this would have?

Warning labels could be put upon the packaging. Purity and strength of
content could be controlled.

Clough

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 12:35:45 GMT, Clough  wrote:

>On 6 Apr 2007 05:27:56 -0700, "Anthony x" 
>wrote:
>
>>It is a good idea but the criminal organizations who are making
>>£billions out of it are not going to sit down and let-it happen and
>>that will cause more problems(as them will use bribery, kidnapping,
>>and put money on the head of the people who are responsible for kill
>>the market)..
>
>I've always though that the most enthusiastic supporters of drug
>prohibition are the criminal drug gangs.
>
Anyone making money out of it will support it.

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On 6 Apr 2007 07:45:14 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
 wrote:

>Cigarettes and Alcohol are legal, but it doesn't stop illegal traffic!

Yes it does.  The amount of illegal traffic in those things are
minimal, and due only to different taxes in different countries.  The
traffic in smuggled alcohol & tobacco is in commercially produced
product, not adulterated home-made stuff.  There is minimal
involvement by organised gangs and not a lot of profit to be made by
the smugglers.

>A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
>always undercut

No they cannot.  Commercial production saves due to economy of scale
that outweigh both the things you mention.  Do you really believe that
street heroin is cheaper than the price hospitals pay for commercially
produced morphine?

> If drugs were legal then it would also be legal to
>promote them - what effect do you think this would have?

Why do you say that?  Tobacco advertising is prohibited.

-- 
Cynic

On 6 Apr 2007 07:45:14 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
 wrote:

>
>Clough wrote:
>> On 6 Apr 2007 05:27:56 -0700, "Anthony x" 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >It is a good idea but the criminal organizations who are making
>> >£billions out of it are not going to sit down and let-it happen and
>> >that will cause more problems(as them will use bribery, kidnapping,
>> >and put money on the head of the people who are responsible for kill
>> >the market)..
>>
>> I've always though that the most enthusiastic supporters of drug
>> prohibition are the criminal drug gangs.
>>
>> Clough
>
>Cigarettes and Alcohol are legal, but it doesn't stop illegal traffic!

There is very little illegal traffic in those commodities when
compared with drugs. There would be even less if it were not for the
punitive rates of taxation which impact on the poor but don't affect
the wealthy. 

>A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
>always undercut - 

So they can undercut builders, bootmakers and candlestick makers. So
What? The black economy is always with us

>If drugs were legal then it would also be legal to
>promote them - 

No it wouldn't. It is not legal to advertise tobacco or even alcohol
in some cases

>what effect do you think this would have?

I think you may be one of those people who get their money out of
drugs being illegal. 


-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Alang wrote:
> On 6 Apr 2007 07:45:14 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
>  wrote:
> 
>> Clough wrote:
>>> On 6 Apr 2007 05:27:56 -0700, "Anthony x" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is a good idea but the criminal organizations who are making
>>>> £billions out of it are not going to sit down and let-it happen and
>>>> that will cause more problems(as them will use bribery, kidnapping,
>>>> and put money on the head of the people who are responsible for kill
>>>> the market)..
>>> I've always though that the most enthusiastic supporters of drug
>>> prohibition are the criminal drug gangs.
>>>
>>> Clough
>> Cigarettes and Alcohol are legal, but it doesn't stop illegal traffic!
> 
> There is very little illegal traffic in those commodities when
> compared with drugs. There would be even less if it were not for the
> punitive rates of taxation which impact on the poor but don't affect
> the wealthy. 
> 
>> A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
>> always undercut - 
> 
> So they can undercut builders, bootmakers and candlestick makers. So
> What? The black economy is always with us
> 
>> If drugs were legal then it would also be legal to
>> promote them - 
> 
> No it wouldn't. It is not legal to advertise tobacco or even alcohol
> in some cases
> 
>> what effect do you think this would have?
> 
> I think you may be one of those people who get their money out of
> drugs being illegal. 
> 
> 
Prohibition of alcohol in the USA was what made the Mob and started them 
on the ladder to bigger things.  People will always want something they 
can't have and criminals will always exploit this market.

Where would we draw the line (no pun) if we allowed drug use.  On the 
other hand we can not police our streets because police resources are 
tied up trying to combat drugs.

This is like trying to plug holes in a colander.  One thing is certain 
we are not going to stop drug trafficking.  It is impossible if we 
follow the law to the letter.  Even if we bent the law we would still 
not be able to stop it.

As regards the drug barons threatening our political leaders lives, I 
would suggest our politicians are already in more danger than they have 
ever been due to our foreign policy.

It is a tough call.

Count Baldoni

"Clough"  wrote in message 
news:e0oc139vju2u5kudpv8hbvi803rgkvjb58@4ax.com...
> On 6 Apr 2007 07:45:14 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
>  wrote:
>
>>Cigarettes and Alcohol are legal, but it doesn't stop illegal traffic!
>
> The amount of illegal traffic in legal drugs is a function of the tax
> placed upon them and is controllable through taxation. This is not
> true of illegal drugs.
>
>>A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
>>always undercut - If drugs were legal then it would also be legal to
>>promote them - what effect do you think this would have?
>
> Warning labels could be put upon the packaging. Purity and strength of
> content could be controlled.

Better still... guaranteed!

-- 

www.ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/

On 6 Apr, 17:33, Cynic  wrote:
> On 6 Apr 2007 07:45:14 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
>
>  wrote:
> >Cigarettes and Alcohol are legal, but it doesn't stop illegal traffic!
>
> Yes it does.  The amount of illegal traffic in those things are
> minimal, and due only to different taxes in different countries.  The
> traffic in smuggled alcohol & tobacco is in commercially produced
> product, not adulterated home-made stuff.  There is minimal
> involvement by organised gangs and not a lot of profit to be made by
> the smugglers.

I don't think Custom & Excise take that view!

> >A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
> >always undercut
>
> No they cannot.  Commercial production saves due to economy of scale
> that outweigh both the things you mention.  Do you really believe that
> street heroin is cheaper than the price hospitals pay for commercially
> produced morphine?

Criminal activity would focus on distribution - not prduction

> > If drugs were legal then it would also be legal to
> >promote them - what effect do you think this would have?
>
> Why do you say that?  Tobacco advertising is prohibited.
>
I didn't specifically say advertise - I said promote. An invitation to
treat on the high street is a form of promotion - as is the frontage
of a pub or newsagent!

On 7 Apr 2007 06:08:08 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
 wrote:

>> Yes it does.  The amount of illegal traffic in those things are
>> minimal, and due only to different taxes in different countries.  The
>> traffic in smuggled alcohol & tobacco is in commercially produced
>> product, not adulterated home-made stuff.  There is minimal
>> involvement by organised gangs and not a lot of profit to be made by
>> the smugglers.
>
>I don't think Custom & Excise take that view!

Of course C&E go after smugglers - but there is nowhere near the
criminal involvement in alcohol and tobacco as there is in prohibited
drugs, and the criminals do not cause any significant social problems.

>> >A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
>> >always undercut

>> No they cannot.  Commercial production saves due to economy of scale
>> that outweigh both the things you mention.  Do you really believe that
>> street heroin is cheaper than the price hospitals pay for commercially
>> produced morphine?

>Criminal activity would focus on distribution - not prduction

If what you say were true to any significant extent, then *everything*
would be subject to criminals distributing tax-free products.  So tell
me where I can find this criminal ring that is distributing
cornflakes.

The *only* reason for the smuggling of alcohol and tobacco is the fact
that the UK imposes a far bigger tax on those products than nearby
countries.

>> > If drugs were legal then it would also be legal to
>> >promote them - what effect do you think this would have?

>> Why do you say that?  Tobacco advertising is prohibited.

>I didn't specifically say advertise - I said promote. An invitation to
>treat on the high street is a form of promotion - as is the frontage
>of a pub or newsagent!

Far better promotion from those sources than promotion from a criminal
street pusher.

-- 
Cynic

On 7 Apr, 21:43, Cynic  wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2007 06:08:08 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
>
>  wrote:
> >> Yes it does.  The amount of illegal traffic in those things are
> >> minimal, and due only to different taxes in different countries.  The
> >> traffic in smuggled alcohol & tobacco is in commercially produced
> >> product, not adulterated home-made stuff.  There is minimal
> >> involvement by organised gangs and not a lot of profit to be made by
> >> the smugglers.
>
> >I don't think Custom & Excise take that view!
>
> Of course C&E go after smugglers - but there is nowhere near the
> criminal involvement in alcohol and tobacco as there is in prohibiteddrugs, and the criminals do not cause any significant social problems.
>
> >> >A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
> >> >always undercut
> >> No they cannot.  Commercial production saves due to economy of scale
> >> that outweigh both the things you mention.  Do you really believe that
> >> street heroin is cheaper than the price hospitals pay for commercially
> >> produced morphine?
> >Criminal activity would focus on distribution - not prduction
>
> If what you say were true to any significant extent, then *everything*
> would be subject to criminals distributing tax-free products.  So tell
> me where I can find this criminal ring that is distributing
> cornflakes.
>
> The *only* reason for the smuggling of alcohol and tobacco is the fact
> that the UK imposes a far bigger tax on those products than nearby
> countries.

VAT is not the only distinguishing feature between a legitimate and a
criminal opereration - Social Security payments, business rates,
public liability insurance and other running costs all contribute to
the price difference between a legal and illegal product.

After that, it is demand for the product that will determine the level
of criminal activity - not simply the price difference between
suppliers - take ticket touts for example - selling a product above
its legitimate price. Leagalised drugs are highly unlikely to be on
sale at the sweet counter - and it would be perverse to make them too
cheap while upping the price on tobacco and alchohol on health
grounds!

Also the demand for cheap heroin is clearly going to be greater than
demand for a cheap fridge freezers - or packet of cornflakes even -
Crunchy Nut Cornflakes are very moreish - but not enough to inspire
criminal activity - In fact I just got a very good deal from
Sainsburys on Crunchy Nut Cornflakes and have a 750g pack going spare
- any offers?

Now think again - what would the response be if that was not Crunchy
Nut Cornflakes but an offer of heroin?

(I am glad you brought the cornflakes up)

> >> > Ifdrugswere legal then it would also be legal to
> >> >promote them - what effect do you think this would have?
> >> Why do you say that?  Tobacco advertising is prohibited.
> >I didn't specifically say advertise - I said promote. An invitation to
> >treat on the high street is a form of promotion - as is the frontage
> >of a pub or newsagent!
>
> Far better promotion from those sources than promotion from a criminal
> street pusher.

Clearly many posters here only see the problem only as a matter of
criminalised distribution - and what the effect these drugs have on
peoples lives just doesn't come into the equation does it?

On 8 Apr 2007 06:16:12 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
 wrote:

>Clearly many posters here only see the problem only as a matter of
>criminalised distribution - and what the effect these drugs have on
>peoples lives just doesn't come into the equation does it?

Prohibition makes drug problems much worse for addicts as well as for
society.

Criminalising addicts certainly doesn't help them. Quite the opposite.

But I don't suppose prohibitionists care how many lives they wreck as
long as the sin of drug taking is punished.

Clough

"Baldoni"  wrote in message 
news:46169cb8$0$9297$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
> Alang wrote:
>> On 6 Apr 2007 07:45:14 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Clough wrote:
>>>> On 6 Apr 2007 05:27:56 -0700, "Anthony x" 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is a good idea but the criminal organizations who are making
>>>>> £billions out of it are not going to sit down and let-it happen and
>>>>> that will cause more problems(as them will use bribery, kidnapping,
>>>>> and put money on the head of the people who are responsible for kill
>>>>> the market)..
>>>> I've always though that the most enthusiastic supporters of drug
>>>> prohibition are the criminal drug gangs.
>>>>
>>>> Clough
>>> Cigarettes and Alcohol are legal, but it doesn't stop illegal traffic!
>>
>> There is very little illegal traffic in those commodities when
>> compared with drugs. There would be even less if it were not for the
>> punitive rates of taxation which impact on the poor but don't affect
>> the wealthy.
>>> A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
>>> always undercut -
>>
>> So they can undercut builders, bootmakers and candlestick makers. So
>> What? The black economy is always with us
>>
>>> If drugs were legal then it would also be legal to
>>> promote them -
>>
>> No it wouldn't. It is not legal to advertise tobacco or even alcohol
>> in some cases
>>
>>> what effect do you think this would have?
>>
>> I think you may be one of those people who get their money out of
>> drugs being illegal.
> Prohibition of alcohol in the USA was what made the Mob and started them 
> on the ladder to bigger things.  People will always want something they 
> can't have and criminals will always exploit this market.
>
> Where would we draw the line (no pun) if we allowed drug use.  On the 
> other hand we can not police our streets because police resources are tied 
> up trying to combat drugs.
>
> This is like trying to plug holes in a colander.  One thing is certain we 
> are not going to stop drug trafficking.  It is impossible if we follow the 
> law to the letter.  Even if we bent the law we would still not be able to 
> stop it.
>
The illicit drug market feeds most of the "bogeymen" the western governments 
are supposedly fighting against, at obscene expense to the citizens of those 
countries. Not only are "we" fighting against these bogeymen we're also 
actively creating the climate that allows them to flourish and finance their 
operations. That's the prohibition conundrum and it's the absolute most 
idiotic thing imaginable once you actually see past the ridiculous childlike 
propaganda that the fear factory churns out. Prohibition is the direct cause 
of so many problems it's incredibly difficult to fully comprehend the scale 
of them all.

"JohnR"  wrote in message 
news:461abf52$0$6495$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> "Baldoni"  wrote in message 
> news:46169cb8$0$9297$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
>> Alang wrote:
>>> On 6 Apr 2007 07:45:14 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Clough wrote:
>>>>> On 6 Apr 2007 05:27:56 -0700, "Anthony x" 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a good idea but the criminal organizations who are making
>>>>>> £billions out of it are not going to sit down and let-it happen and
>>>>>> that will cause more problems(as them will use bribery, kidnapping,
>>>>>> and put money on the head of the people who are responsible for kill
>>>>>> the market)..
>>>>> I've always though that the most enthusiastic supporters of drug
>>>>> prohibition are the criminal drug gangs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clough
>>>> Cigarettes and Alcohol are legal, but it doesn't stop illegal traffic!
>>>
>>> There is very little illegal traffic in those commodities when
>>> compared with drugs. There would be even less if it were not for the
>>> punitive rates of taxation which impact on the poor but don't affect
>>> the wealthy.
>>>> A legitimate company has overheads and taxes to pay, criminals can
>>>> always undercut -
>>>
>>> So they can undercut builders, bootmakers and candlestick makers. So
>>> What? The black economy is always with us
>>>
>>>> If drugs were legal then it would also be legal to
>>>> promote them -
>>>
>>> No it wouldn't. It is not legal to advertise tobacco or even alcohol
>>> in some cases
>>>
>>>> what effect do you think this would have?
>>>
>>> I think you may be one of those people who get their money out of
>>> drugs being illegal.
>> Prohibition of alcohol in the USA was what made the Mob and started them 
>> on the ladder to bigger things.  People will always want something they 
>> can't have and criminals will always exploit this market.
>>
>> Where would we draw the line (no pun) if we allowed drug use.  On the 
>> other hand we can not police our streets because police resources are 
>> tied up trying to combat drugs.
>>
>> This is like trying to plug holes in a colander.  One thing is certain we 
>> are not going to stop drug trafficking.  It is impossible if we follow 
>> the law to the letter.  Even if we bent the law we would still not be 
>> able to stop it.
>>
> The illicit drug market feeds most of the "bogeymen" the western 
> governments are supposedly fighting against, at obscene expense to the 
> citizens of those countries. Not only are "we" fighting against these 
> bogeymen we're also actively creating the climate that allows them to 
> flourish and finance their operations. That's the prohibition conundrum 
> and it's the absolute most idiotic thing imaginable once you actually see 
> past the ridiculous childlike propaganda that the fear factory churns out. 
> Prohibition is the direct cause of so many problems it's incredibly 
> difficult to fully comprehend the scale of them all.
>

THE BLUNKETT SOLUTION
By Oonagh Blackman

IF ever there was an argument for a different war on drugs it is to be found 
in Plymouth.


The local drug treatment service has clocked up stunning successes in 
weaning addicts off heroin and crack and slashing crime.


David Blunkett visited one of its day services earlier this month and told 
workers he was "very impressed". The Home Secretary and Home Office Minister 
Caroline Flint visited the Hamoaze House centre where new tactics are 
working.


One worker explained: "It was set up two years ago and it focuses on the 
person rather than the problem. It is not about being soft but about what 
gets results.


"There are really intensive efforts to help users build up basic life skills 
and teach them how to get back into society.


"There is no point in spending money on treatment for an addiction and then 
waving someone goodbye and leaving them to get on with it because they will 
just fall back into the same old ways.


"Here they are helped with sorting out housing, job prospects and with any 
area of their life which is chaotic like relationships.


"We're basically teaching them to be good citizens."


The clients are some of the most troublesome heroin and crack users in the 
city but they have responded to the softly-softly approach. Many of them 
have spent years stealing and mugging to pay for their fix.


The project took time to get going but the results are now coming in thick 
and fast.


In the last quarter alone crime has fallen by 17 per cent more than the 
previous year and police are giving the drug project credit for most of the 
fall.


One of the Drug Action Team co-ordinators said: "Acquisitive crime like 
mugging and burglary have dropped more than in any other parts of Devon and 
Cornwall.


"Most of these people are desperate for treatment and if they know they can 
come here and get help they are willing.


"Crucially, help has to be available at the point it is needed through more 
investment in community based services not purely at the point of arrest.


"But I admit there will always be a small minority, a tiny group, who will 
have to be forced into treatment but it is a much smaller group than the 
Government is planning to target."


Mr Blunkett also visited a residential centre where mums addicted to heroin 
and crack can live with their kids while they try to kick the habit.


The Home Secretary was warned plans to lock up more addicts would simply 
create more chaos and harm their children.


The Plymouth project also runs heroin prescribing which takes the drug 
market out of the hands of criminal gangs.


The control of supply by approved doctors linked to the treatment agency 
with the knowledge of the police and local authority also removes the need 
for addicts to steal to fund their habit. During the visit Mr Blunkett told 
workers he wanted more alternatives to the criminal justice system.


But the Government says it has found it difficult to get more doctors to 
prescribe heroin and cocaine.

On 8 Apr 2007 06:16:12 -0700, "Jim Gemineye"
 wrote:

>Clearly many posters here only see the problem only as a matter of
>criminalised distribution - and what the effect these drugs have on
>peoples lives just doesn't come into the equation does it?

The effect of the drugs on the lives of the drug takers is minimal due
to the effect of the drug itself in the case of the majority of
illegal drugs.  The devastating effects on drug takers' lives is
almost all as a result of prohibition.

But in general, yes, I am more concerned with the effect of drugs on
people who do *not* take them than the effect on people who have
chosen to take them.  And the adverse effect that they have on
non-drug takers is almost entirely due to prohibition rather than the
drugs themselves.

-- 
Cynic

On 5 Apr, 15:52, Baldoni  wrote:
> Baldoni wrote:
> > Please ignore my ignorance on the subject but I seek information.  We
> > are not going to stop drug abuse are we.  Any war on drugs we may have
> > had was lost a long time ago.  Drug barons run their empires like Multi-
> > National companies.
>
> > What then is the case for legalizing drugs.  How would we go about this
> > and what would the implications be. Is it possible or is it something
> > that we would live to regret.
>
> > Is it a stupid proposal or is it a reasonable proposal.
>
> > Count Baldoni-
>

It is a good idea but the criminal organizations who are making
£billions out of it are not going to sit down and let-it happen and
that will cause more problems(as them will use bribery, kidnapping,
and put money on the head of the people who are responsible for kill
the market)..