Chav World 4 U!

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

1) Drugs are here to stay (/because/ of the enormous international trade and demand the black market has created). To deny that is plain cowardice, ignorance - and highly dangerous - or politically driven propaganda.

2) Prohibitionist and ‘zero-tolerance’ drug policies on a whole are highly politically motivated. In fact they are so politically ambitious that /any/ sacrifice is deemed ‘acceptable’ along the way. Even that of the truth – which was the first casualties to drug prohibition when it was first introduced in America in the 1920s. And we still hold that lie upright some 80 odd years on.

3) While hard-line prohibitionists are falling over themselves with self-defensive excuses and sheer embarrassment over their failure, trying (in vain) to disguise the fact that they’ve actually made things worse, those who are in favour of radical policy changes and/or legalization/decriminalisation can provide clear evidence that clean, regulated supply of opiates to addicts helps to improve their physical health and life-style, cuts crime and drains the black market.

They have /by far/ the better founded and better evidenced arguments. So I had to give in. I’m not unreasonable....

1. Yes drugs are here to stay. Nobody is disputing that. What I am disputing is that the problem is not IMPOSSIBLE to keep under control.

Many things in this world are 'here to stay'. Rape and murder to name but two.

That does not mean we should just accept them and legalise them, does it?

Now do you SEE what I am saying? Can you grasp that? Or do I have to say it all again and again until it sinks in?

2. I do not CARE if the aim of cleaning up our streets from the filth of drugs is political or social or whatever. The point is that it should be done as we have a RESPONSIBILITY to our children and our children's children to do so.

People who suggest acceptance of a problem are not only defeatist they are dangerous and cowardly as well.

Prohibition is an entirely different argument, which is always thrown in to muddy the waters. I have never argued for banning alcohol or cigarettes, have I?

That is completely different to legalising harmful substances that are already banned. But I am not surprised you just threw it in anyway.

3. This is just a party political broadcast on behalf of the Defeatist Party.

Hey guys we have not managed to stop people killing each other so why not just make that all legal as well?

In the last forty years the drugs problem has got steadily worse in this country. And it was certainly not by zero tolerance but by acceptance and a lack of enforcement of the law by successive incompetent governments, and you want this to continue.

The way to cure a problem is not to encourage it but to discourage it effectively. And you won't do that by sending a green light to schoolchildren that these drugs are safe and acceptable and readily available at a cheap price.

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

Sands

///But as I am not a patronising pillock I will not suggest it.///

You might be surprised how patronising you come across when you try and suggest I should disregard the clear evidence and instead rely on what /you/ ‘believe’ on the grounds of the /facts/ you choose to ignore.

For example:

1. You’ve come up with /opinions/ yes - yet not with /one/ solid argument supporting your assertion that a hard-line, ‘zero-tolerance’ approach would be successful in the UK (or /is/ successful elsewhere). Please feel free to do so. Use the US model as an example if you like. What a ‘success story’ /that/ is....

So because America (or rather some states of America) have failed to control the drugs problem we should just give in? The same American states have also failed to stop lots of other crimes. So should we just accept their data to legalise the same crimes that they have failed to stop over there?

That would follow the same logic. But I doubt you would suggest that, or would you?

The thing is zero tolerance policing DID work in America. In all the hours ands hours of research I am surprised you completely missed that. Maybe you were dozing at the time or maybe your prejudices would not allow them to enter your brain.

It worked in New York and several other states.

www.reform.co.uk/website/reformaroundtheworld/newyork.aspx

No doubt this site will dismissed with your usual contempt but hey facts are facts.

<<< The crime figures responded extremely well to this zero-tolerance approach.

* Overall crime fell by 54 per cent between 1992 and 2000 (Source: Civitas)

* Between 1993 and 2000, New York underwent a 67 per cent decrease in the total amount of robberies.

* The manslaughter and murder rate also decreased by 72 per cent in the same period. >>>

Needless to say I thoroughly expect you to come up with some alternative reason for this reduction in crime.

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

Sands


2. You have /consistently/ ignored the issues of what /actually/ makes most drug use so dangerous. When /you/ talk about heroin addiction and the terrible consequences, you are talking about /street heroin/ (‘brown’) – which is a dangerously adulterated product of the black market. There is /no/ evidence to suggest that clean, pharmaceutical heroin (diamorphine) has /any/ such health impacts. In fact, since it’s ‘transformed’ into morphine as soon as it enters the body, it is used as a begin drug in medicine – even on infants. It’s addictive at some point of use yes and not a good idea to get hooked on (or to start on at all). But at the time when /pure/ opiates where given out quite freely, and when this was ‘socially acceptable’ (because it was the upper/middle classes who used it), there were /none/ of the health and social problems we face with addiction under prohibition today – nor the adulterated versions the black market produces.

Instead you are using a /direct/ result of the black market (and prohibition) to err ‘support’ /your/ argument that drugs are deadly and dangerous and should not be decriminalized/legalised. Would you like me to run you through the definition of ‘fallacy’ again…?

You can continue to ignore the issue of adulterants as much as you like, but the /fact/ remains that it /is/ a /major/ problem of the black market. /All/ drugs on the black market (including cannabis) are adulterated to extend their selling potential – some with relatively harmless stuff but some adulterants are highly dangerous and toxic. Cocaine is often processed with vast amounts of bleach (…so much for nose-bleeds when snorting coke) and cannabis (amongst other dangerous stuff) has been found to be adulterated with Largactil – an anti-psychotic drug. Sudden withdrawal can actually trigger psychotic episodes – even if someone had no mental health issues beforehand.

‘Official sources’ (e.g. the police) give out ‘confidential memos’ to drug support agencies when they become aware of ‘rogue’ drugs in an area or the sudden emergence of ‘brown’ of a higher purity. But this is all ‘unofficial’ stuff – to be passed on to drug users by ‘word of mouth’’. It’s never widely ‘publicised’. It’s too political, because that would undermine the official line that it’s the drugs /themselves/ that are so dangerous. And that again would undermine the current drugs policy.

With very few exceptions (like e.g. ‘grid weed’) the public is being fed Home Office spin of /this/ variety (from the ‘Reducing drug related death’ report, 2000): “Street drugs tend to be diluted (cut) with inert substances intended to modify the taste, appearance or effect of the drug. Death can ensue from the inclusion of a toxic substance by accident, or from an error in manufacture. Such fatalities are not however common and the role of contaminants in drug-related death has sometimes been exaggerated. Much more usually it is the drug itself which kills.”

‘Error of manufacture’ – I just /love/ that! Well yeah an ‘accidental’ ‘error of manufacture' would /indeed/ account for ‘fillers’ such as glass splitters, brick dust, anti-psychotic drugs, bleach, drain cleaner, engine oil etc etc etc. Of course it’s got nothing to do with the fact that the unregulated ‘production’ of illicit drugs is left to the hands of CRIMINALS who will prologue the drug's selling potential /by all means/.

Sorry if you think I am ignoring ANY aspect of drugs so I am pleased to remedy any frightful omission on my part.

The first part of which is that addiction is BAD for everybody whether it is alcohol, tobacco, heroin or anything similar.

I know that first hand because I got addicted to tranquilisers prescribed by my GP.

And believe me if you have ever been an addict you KNOW that it is not a straightforward health problem.

Doctors have for years stopped prescribing such addictive drugs but you now want everybody (including children) to have easy access to them. This is what I can not accept. I would not wish anybody to go through the hell of what I went through and that was with CLEAN supplies. So don't give me all this balderdash that drugs are only a problem because they are are adulterated.

IT IS A LIE.

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

Sands

/// Can anybody give me ONE positive fact about child drug use?///

The first and greatest mistake one can make in trying to prevent drug use (and getting addicts to quit) is to /not/ have an understanding of the (perceived and actual) positives and advantages – /for the user/.

For a light and entertaining intro, I really /do/ recommend the Lifeline mags, especially those written by Peter McDermott. Great read. Fantastic graphs...

www.lifeline.org.uk/

So no you can't.

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

Daz

///..erm still waiting for the advantages of nocotine.///

So am I....

Apparently there /is/ some evidence suggesting that Alzheimers and other forms of dementia are less common amongst smokers. Quite markedly (apparently) its supposed to reduce the chances of developing Parkinsons. And…smoking is supposed to have shown to improve performance in tests of memory function.

Apparently this is all due to influence of nicotine on brain function.
But until I have followed up the research I will continue to assume that it’s due to the fact that many smokers tend to not make it to the age where they are most likely to develop dementia…

Ah well – what the hell. Got to die of /something/. Who wants to die of ‘old age’? Sounds like a rather nasty disease…

////Actually one point Piccione missed was the fact that smoking a few joints is even worse than cigarettes as a causal factor of Cancer.////

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526083353.htm

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196678,00.html

I would guess that older people who smoke are less likely to get Alzehimers for one good reason.

Many of them are dead from cancer before they have a chance to get Alzheimers.

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

Daz

And over 80 years after this it’s still a self-perpetuating phenonemon. The main ‘problem user group’ has shifted. It’s the ‘underclass’ now – and it’s the influential middle class electorate who do the condemning. And 'we' continue to please them, /whatever/ their wishes are. /Anything/ to get their votes. What are a few casualties in the light of political ambition.

And ain’t it all just too convenient for that 'detached' middle class electorate....

What about the votes of the growing number of self-abusers? Surely any disreputable political group would go for that vote.

But hey Picicone why would any government seek to appeal to the majority It's never bothered them with matters like immigration, crime and the EU.

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

///But should we keep feeding them?///

Don’t worry Sands. I wouldn’t /dream/ of depriving you off your last maple syrup.

Enjoy while you can. You know that maple trees are threatened by climate change don’t you?

Uhhhhhhhh – I can see Sands now, sporting a hoodie look, roaming the gutters of the black market in desperate search for a dose of maple syrup....

Beats bread crumbs in Trafalgar Square, Piccy.

[Daz Madrigal]

piccione said:

Daz

///..erm still waiting for the advantages of nocotine.///

So am I....

Apparently there /is/ some evidence suggesting that Alzheimers and other forms of dementia are less common amongst smokers. Quite markedly (apparently) its supposed to reduce the chances of developing Parkinsons. And…smoking is supposed to have shown to improve performance in tests of memory function.

Apparently this is all due to influence of nicotine on brain function.
But until I have followed up the research I will continue to assume that it’s due to the fact that many smokers tend to not make it to the age where they are most likely to develop dementia…

Ah well – what the hell. Got to die of /something/. Who wants to die of ‘old age’? Sounds like a rather nasty disease…

////Actually one point Piccione missed was the fact that smoking a few joints is even worse than cigarettes as a causal factor of Cancer.////

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526083353.htm

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196678,00.html

Hopefully the above is all true - I wish!

The study that nicotine was helpful in the prevention of Alzheimers and other forms of dementia almost had Sandy taking up the weed.

Sadly it was immediately refuted by a much larger study which suggested the precise opposite. Err..thats fairly normal when it comes to science as I have found out to my cost by wasting several weeks discussing various contrasting studies re. Global Warming.

I suppose you could say that there would be a conspiracy between scientists to make sure that a result negative to smokers would quickly shatter any illusions that smokers merely puff away to sharpen a few brain cells.

In short its highly dubious data - and thats from someone who wishes it were true. If only!

That would leave me to believe that some of the other data about white collar heroin use and cannabis smoking not effecting cancer rates was possibly biased one way. To be fair we'd have to say the jury is still out.

More interesting to me is Prof Hans Eysenck's theory that smoking a limited amount - maybe 5/6 cigs a day instead of 20 - is better for the smoker than giving up because the added stress put on someone who is say..under pressure at work or worried would be greater if the person were not to smoke. Smoking gives an automatic distraction and has a soothing quality that aids concentration. That kind of makes more sense to me. Eysenck was a bit of hero..well he was a lifelong Man Utd fan and he also believed there was a definite truth at the heart of Astrology. Plus he was also a very wise man as anyone who recalls the CH4 'After Dark' series will know (prior to thee dumbing down of TV). This was a programme that started about 11pm and went on with several people drinking -and smoking - whilst sitting on leather sofa and debating various subjects. It finished when the participants had run out of things to say or were simply too pissed to carry on. Usually it ended around 3.30 am.

Eysenck was by far the most impressive intellect and he wasn't remotely bothered about being controversial.

[Daz Madrigal]

sandywinder said:

piccione said:

Daz

And over 80 years after this it’s still a self-perpetuating phenonemon. The main ‘problem user group’ has shifted. It’s the ‘underclass’ now – and it’s the influential middle class electorate who do the condemning. And 'we' continue to please them, /whatever/ their wishes are. /Anything/ to get their votes. What are a few casualties in the light of political ambition.

And ain’t it all just too convenient for that 'detached' middle class electorate....

What about the votes of the growing number of self-abusers? Surely any disreputable political group would go for that vote.

But hey Picicone why would any government seek to appeal to the majority It's never bothered them with matters like immigration, crime and the EU.

I suppose the answer to that is that there is little - if any - chance of the poorer drug user and the lower echelons voting for anyone other than Labour (unless its the BNP of course!).

One of the major reasons we should despise the Liberal Party is due to the fact that it takes away far more Tory support than it does Labour..and in fact a great number of Tory voters turned to Blair in a all too familiar moment of madness.

[piccione]

Sands

///What do you mean by a 'couple' […] So instead of a 'couple' think THOUSANDS. THINK BIG. ///

Lock 2 up for 40 years and it will have no impact, lock 200 up for 40 and prices will go up in that region (and produce more crime), lock 2000 up and the prices will sky-rocket (and produce a hell of a lot of crime - more /serious/ crime). But it will /not/ decrease demand and supply.

It’s not about being (or /wanting/ to be) ‘soft’ on dealers/suppliers. It’s about the /fact/ that it won’t work as a strategy to decrease demand and supply. You can only decrease supply by targeting the /top/ of the food chain – the ‘manufacturers’ and traffickers. And that is /impossible/ – as I have explained in my earlier post (well...tried to anyway). The black market has made damn sure of that. And even /then/ you won’t decrease demand.

The lesson we learn from history is that we choose to learn nothing Sands. That’s because we don’t want to give up the old lies.

Patterns of drug use are and always have been extremely flexible. Users switch to other drugs, natural or synthetic, or to other markets/sources if ‘traditional’ supplies are (temporarily) short. It’s always been that way. /Historically/ whenever a popular drug was short in supply, the use of another drug/market grew.

In your clever thinking you’ve forgotten another ‘minor’ aspect:

1. Organized crime/illegal drug trade has a monopoly on drug supply, because there are no /legal/ supply sources - right?
2. Every other, /legal/ market has at least /some/ transparency – i.e. the public has access to info about that market from various sources – right?
3. Not so with illegal markets. They are solely dealt with by law enforcement agencies. So law enforcement agencies, and the information they choose to publicise, is the /only/ source of info the public gets about the illegal drug trade – right?

Conclusion: We have a corollary of /two/ /monopolies/. Right…?

I don’t know whether I need to explain to you what that means. On second thought – I think I do....

Remember what I said about the corruptive potential of illegal high profit markets? No /independent/ body, never mind an ordinary citizen, has an insight into them. Remember also what I said about the high, ready and flexible cash that such markets have – which –again- no-one can trace back?

Now what you should do next is google drugs and corruption. And see what ‘google’ comes up with.....

Law enforcement (police), intelligence services, governmental bodies etc etc etc – take your pick. And that’s only for starters. Even google won’t tell you everything.....

On top of that: If you commit murder, you go down (if you get caught). But you won’t lose your assets. If you are a drug supplier you /do/. Nice little earner for the govs of this world who have ‘zero tolerance’ for drug crime, especially since suppliers tend to be err ‘pretty’ rich - /because/ of the black market.

There are ‘some’ ‘cynics’ who say Nixon won his presidential office on the ‘tough on drugs’ campaign. There are /even/ some ‘cynics’ who say he completely exaggerated the drug problem in the US to win his office - and introduced the DEA (which was based on the Federal Bureau of Investigation – /infamous/ for its corruptibility) – in order to ‘deliver’ /something/ in response to his campaign. And furthermore - there are even greater ‘cynics’ who say that consecutive governments didn’t expose the lie because it worked pretty well for them too - in various ways.....

But hey Sands – you’re not a cynic. I don’t want to shatter your perfect, simplistic world-view. So just forget about it all.....

////Yes drugs have been allowed (by the soft, liberal, namby-pamby legal system we have)…////

Ah - you mean like the ‘soft, liberal, namby-pamby’ Californian approach.....

CA has always been famous (or should I say ‘infamous’) for its exceedingly harsh drug law enforcement. And it was a /disaster/! Not only was skunk developed in California (under that harsh law), not only was it the drug 'capital' of the 60s - it also has a reputation for its exceedingly high drug use and violent crime that came with it.

Look it up Sands. You’ll find a /flood/ of sources on the ‘successful’ CA drug law enforcement. Even those who have been promoting and supporting it all along are giving up. In 2001 CA introduced ‘Proposition 36’ – to finally spend some otherwise wasted money on treatment rather than /just/ on pointless enforcement.

Here is an article that gives you an overview of the history of CA drug enforcement:

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/04/ING44OD4AU1.DTL

The US have a track record for large-scale, ‘successful’ drug raids in /many/ major cities. And all these ‘success’ stories have one outcome in common: The demand did not decrease, nor did the supply (if so, then only temporarily until /other/ markets opened – and by that time users had found alternative supplies anyway), but the (violent) crime rates soared. Not only does it lead to users becoming increasingly desperate for money, it also leads to increased gang violence over turf.

////Then think what effect that would have on people scared of being locked up for 40 years, if that is possible. Compare THAT risk against the risk of being given 'community sentencing' or tagging, both of which would not frighten a butterfly. And that is when the police actually get out of their warm, cosy offices and go into the streets to do the job we are paying them to do. Then try to imagine what effect 40 years in prison would have on would-be dealers. Would they be so keen to do it? Of course not.////

Crikey Sands – I must admit I envy you....

It must be /fantastic/ being able to ‘make sense’ of life and reality by the means of such simplistic conceptual thinking. Instant gratification. Almost like that of compulsive drug users after the next fix....

////Try to imagine that Piccione. Just try.///

I couldn’t possibly. My imagination doesn't stretch /that/ far.....
Unlike you I have the great misfortune of living in the /real/ world.

Answers to ‘rest’ of the posts to follow.....

I’m knackered now. I don’t normally /have/ that much patience.....

[sandywinder]

madrigalman said:

sandywinder said:

What about the votes of the growing number of self-abusers? Surely any disreputable political group would go for that vote.

But hey Picicone why would any government seek to appeal to the majority It's never bothered them with matters like immigration, crime and the EU.

I suppose the answer to that is that there is little - if any - chance of the poorer drug user and the lower echelons voting for anyone other than Labour (unless its the BNP of course!).

One of the major reasons we should despise the Liberal Party is due to the fact that it takes away far more Tory support than it does Labour..and in fact a great number of Tory voters turned to Blair in a all too familiar moment of madness.

In that case why don't Labour, who are in power, make all drugs legal and every idiot in the land will vote for them? Plus, by doing what Piccy wants, they can allow all our children easy access to them and then Labour will have all the youth vote of tomorrow.

Maybe Labour are slightly more responsible than you think.

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

Sands

///What do you mean by a 'couple' […] So instead of a 'couple' think THOUSANDS. THINK BIG. ///

Lock 2 up for 40 years and it will have no impact, lock 200 up for 40 and prices will go up in that region (and produce more crime), lock 2000 up and the prices will sky-rocket (and produce a hell of a lot of crime - more /serious/ crime). But it will /not/ decrease demand and supply.

...Err no that is nonsesne.

For one thing that you (being such a straightforward and honest debater) have omitted is that if there is no supply there will be no demand from NEW drug takers. And if the penalty for doing so is harsh, they will look for their pleasure in other areas, hopefully more positive, creative ones.

And even those who are not ADDICTED to a specific drug will not simply turn to crime as you so naively think. People are not all as stupid or desperate for drugs as you think.

The addict however may well indeed turn to crime to fund his addiction. But another thing you have omitted to say is that they ALREADY do this. But as there will be less addicts over the long term , by denying new users the 'pleasure' of this kind of self-abuse, the problem will be kept under control, which it is clearly not now and which will become even worse if these drugs are legalised.

Agreed?

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

Sands


It’s not about being (or /wanting/ to be) ‘soft’ on dealers/suppliers. It’s about the /fact/ that it won’t work as a strategy to decrease demand and supply. You can only decrease supply by targeting the /top/ of the food chain – the ‘manufacturers’ and traffickers. And that is /impossible/ – as I have explained in my earlier post (well...tried to anyway). The black market has made darn/it sure of that. And even /then/ you won’t decrease demand.

The lesson we learn from history is that we choose to learn nothing Sands. That’s because we don’t want to give up the old lies.

But locking away all traffickers and sellers for a long period WOULD work if it was meant as a serious policy and done properly. Many sellers would shop the people higher up the chain if they got a much more lenient sentence.

People, despite your argument, do not WANT to be locked up for 40 years.

But they do not mind being tagged, especially when they can remove them when they like. What kind of a deterrent is that? And what kind of deterrent is 6 months in prison when they can get hold of drugs even inside prison.

And our incompetent state is currently clearly unable to tackle the problem. I'll give you that. But that is not unexpected as they can not be trusted to run ANY department properly. Whether it is DEFRA, the NHS, education, the Home Office or any other area.

The only answer is to privatise the drug/crime system. So then it is left to private companies with their vast resources to deal with drugs. They can patrol the borders and even bust locally-made drugs factories. And when they do bust anybody they get a bonus for doing so. Thus they have an incentive for doing their job, which currently they do not.

Privatisation works despite the nonsense mentioned by hard core socialists.

And the prison system should be privatised so that if any released prisoner is drug/crime free after 2 years, the private company gets another big bonus. The prison would have to actually spend time with the drug taker and deal with his problem, whether it is illiteracy, addiction, family or whatever.


The real lessons we should have learnt by now is that:

1. by relaxing drug laws and sentencing, it has made the problem far worse.

2. The state alone is not the means to deal with the drugs problem.

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

Sands


Patterns of drug use are and always have been extremely flexible. Users switch to other drugs, natural or synthetic, or to other markets/sources if ‘traditional’ supplies are (temporarily) short. It’s always been that way. /Historically/ whenever a popular drug was short in supply, the use of another drug/market grew.

In your clever thinking you’ve forgotten another ‘minor’ aspect:

1. Organized crime/illegal drug trade has a monopoly on drug supply, because there are no /legal/ supply sources - right?

2. Every other, /legal/ market has at least /some/ transparency – i.e. the public has access to info about that market from various sources – right?
3. Not so with illegal markets. They are solely dealt with by law enforcement agencies. So law enforcement agencies, and the information they choose to publicise, is the /only/ source of info the public gets about the illegal drug trade – right?

Conclusion: We have a corollary of /two/ /monopolies/. Right…?
.

'Clever' thinking? Well I really don't know what to say. I always thought you regarded me as some kind of cretin.

Yes indeed you are right that drug X is not always the fashionable recreation. Users do experiment and will always do so, especially if there is no risk in doing so, apart from to their own health of course.

But so what? The point is for the authorities to keep on top of the problem not wait until the problem has escalated and then think 'oh we'd better do something about this now'.

1. Actually wrong. Each separate supplier is a competitor. That's why we have all the gang fights and gun crimes. There is not ONE sole supplier of drugs. That is what a monopoly means.

2/3. Wrong again. There are several ways for the drug taker to get access to information about drugs.

One of these is via the internet. I am sure it would not take you long to find loads of info about drugs on the web.

There is also word of mouth from friends and (not so friends) and pushers. And most of it is far LESS reliable than government sources.

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

On top of that: If you commit murder, you go down (if you get caught). But you won’t lose your assets. If you are a drug supplier you /do/. Nice little earner for the govs of this world who have ‘zero tolerance’ for drug crime, especially since suppliers tend to be err ‘pretty’ rich - /because/ of the black market.

here are ‘some’ ‘cynics’ who say Nixon won his presidential office on the ‘tough on drugs’ campaign. There are /even/ some ‘cynics’ who say he completely exaggerated the drug problem in the US to win his office - and introduced the DEA (which was based on the Federal Bureau of Investigation – /infamous/ for its corruptibility) – in order to ‘deliver’ /something/ in response to his campaign. And furthermore - there are even greater ‘cynics’ who say that consecutive governments didn’t expose the lie because it worked pretty well for them too - in various ways.....

But hey Sands – you’re not a cynic. I don’t want to shatter your perfect, simplistic world-view. So just forget about it all.....

You are contradicting yourself now. First you say that the only people who get caught are the small fry. Now you are saying that the rich ones (the the big time) have had their money confiscated. Do you always like to hold both viewpoints at the same time?

If you have been a drug supplier you have made a fortune out of the misery of other people. A murderer does not always kill for monetary gain.

Unless you are suggesting that the drugs people are plying their trade for the good of humanity? I hope you are not.

And if the government can get a 'nice little earner' from these fiends then would you prefer that the poor paid extra taxes instead?

I say good for the state if they penalise the drugs people where it really hurts, in their pockets.

As for America why do you suggest that because some people are corrupt in this world we should just fly the white flag?

Britain despite all its faults, is one of the LEAST corrupt countries in the world. That does not mean that we should accept the corruption that exists. It should be rooted out. But when you have everything run by the state you can't do this. We need to get the private companies involved but we also need to make sure that these companies are monitored properly by the state.

This is already working in recently privatised industry, where private companies are fined, are forced to keep prices down or have their franchises removed.

It is true that I am a cynic but I am also an optimist. I am not a defeatist.