Zak64

Even the Daily Torygraph is now calling for an end to the ridiculous and failed 'War on Drugs'.

Why Europe holds the answer to illegal drugs - Telegraph

The comments thread is interesting as most seem to support Sam Leith's arguments, which is not perhaps what you might expect from Torygraph readers.

Quote from the back cover of 'Cocaine' by David Streatfield

"Worldwide cocaine sales generate $92 Billion per year. More than McDonald's, Microsoft and Kellog's combined. There is no sign that the trade is diminishing".

It's an excellent book, BTW.

__________________
If anyone complains about unlimited mass immigration we call them a racist - it's our culture!

Westcountryman

Does the journalist, and for that matter, the Chief Constable take drugs? We should be told.

__________________
Anyone who supports 42 days pre-charge detention should read this:

42-day detention: the threat to our liberty | John Major - Times Online

and this:

Why David Davis is right to make a stand | Mail Online

Smidgey

Of course I am not fan of these things. However, I would rather have these things than have my civil liberties infringed in order to prevent them. Guiliani (yes, he is the transvestite), in his role as mayor of New York, has destroyed the first and second amendments of the U.S. constitution. Crime can be conquered and it could have been conquered in New York without the destruction of one of the greatest political documents that has ever been written.

P.S. I'm wondering why you have a Milton Friedman quote as your signature, considering he was also against the drug war.

Westcountryman

Since when I do have to support everything someone else does in order to quote them, or agree with them on other matters?

__________________
Anyone who supports 42 days pre-charge detention should read this:

42-day detention: the threat to our liberty | John Major - Times Online

and this:

Why David Davis is right to make a stand | Mail Online

Smidgey

It was merely a point of interest. But nice dodge on the rest of the post.

Westcountryman

I'm not really a fan of codified constitutions, personally. I also have no idea how Guiliani 'destroyed' amendments to it, nor, frankly, do I care. The issue is zero-tolerance policing - Guiliani being a transvestite (something else I couldn't care less about) has nothing to do with this.

My point is, zero-tolerance policing of low-level crime is welcome in my book. I despise both littering and graffiti, and would be more than happy to see people prosecuted for both. I don't see how enforcement of these laws is an infringement of your civil liberties.

__________________
Anyone who supports 42 days pre-charge detention should read this:

42-day detention: the threat to our liberty | John Major - Times Online

and this:

Why David Davis is right to make a stand | Mail Online

Smidgey

Because of the methods he used in order to do it... You mentioned New York and in order to clean up the city he destroyed the first and second amendments. He is extremely authoritarian and dictatorial. There is no reason why the good people of New York should have their rights removed just so a few louts can be arrested and brought to trial or fined. There have been numerous stories of New Yorkers being arrested for just owning a firearm or even for chaining their bikes on a lampost in the street. 'Crimes' which harm nobody else.

When you give the police such authority, it will - and has been - used to an extreme degree.

It is also interesting to note that other cities have managed to cut back on crime without threating the rights of the people living within its boundaries.

Westcountryman

Are you saying that graffiti and littering don't affect others, and thus shouldn't be tackled? Again, fail to see who enforcement of these laws affects your civil liberties.

__________________
Anyone who supports 42 days pre-charge detention should read this:

42-day detention: the threat to our liberty | John Major - Times Online

and this:

Why David Davis is right to make a stand | Mail Online

Smidgey

It doesn't necessarily. You mentioned New York and I argued that the methods used by Guiliani were very poor methods. To which you asked me, rhetorically, if I thought these offences were good.

The important question is not whether these things violate the rights of others - because they clearly do. But whether we can come down hard on them without violating the rights of those we are trying to protect.