We need a single class of illegal drug, with a crackdown on the possession of drugs, including a mandatory sentence of three months for a second offence, six months for a third offence, one year for a fourth offence, and so on. Within a context in which each offence carries a minimum sentence of one third of its maximum sentence, or of 15 years for life.
I note that while you go into a great deal of lipsmacking detail about recommended punishments, you don't lay out your criteria for declaring a drug to be illegal in the first place - which seems to me to be a far more important question.
ReplyDeleteNot least because a rigorous application of the same principles across the board would run the risk of criminalising tobacco (just about conceivable in the current climate, though your mate Neil Clark would have a conniption) or alcohol (almost certainly politically impossible) - so how would you ensure that this doesn't happen without attracting accusations of inconsistency or hypocrisy?
"you don't lay out your criteria for declaring a drug to be illegal in the first place"
ReplyDeleteBecause Parliament say so.
Come, Come, David. We can't have that. These things must be left to the "experts", don'cha know? Ministers and MPs are only there to do as they are told by those unquestionable sages.
ReplyDeleteMerry Christmas.
And to you.
ReplyDeleteMerry Christmas David
ReplyDeleteThe issue of drugs is a very complicated one. On one hand we have the traditional drugs that require import or otherwise long time to produce but there are also things that get people high which are much more available or their production from available materials is very quick.
The ban on classified drugs would only make junkies go for new stuff and that can be anything. Drug abuse needs motivation and I think we need to deal with the incentives just as much as with the supply.
Because Parliament say so.
ReplyDeleteBut surely Parliament would also define the degrees of punishment? And yet you're happy to fantasise about those in some detail.
Also, I have to express some disappointment that the prospective independent candidate for North West Durham seems so content to go along with whatever Parliament says. Surely the whole point of an independent voice is that it expresses its own unvarnished opinion? Otherwise, what's the point of electing one?
So I repeat my question: what criteria would you personally use to determine the illegality of a drug?
Because I say so.
ReplyDeleteYou can't get your ahead around the idea of anyone who doesn't simply do whatever the highly politicised "experts" instruct on drugs, among other things. Still less of any MP who proposed legislation or asked questions not written in advance by those "experts".
Initially, an MP like that would be the only one. But he would light the flame.
You can't get your ahead around the idea of anyone who doesn't simply do whatever the highly politicised "experts" instruct on drugs, among other things.
ReplyDeleteIf I was incapable of getting my head around this notion, why would I have bothered to ask you for your personal views on the subject?
But your refusal to give a thoughtful and sensible answer (beyond a schoolboy-level "because I said so") is quite revealing enough.
Ah, the drugs lobby, so completely and utterly accustomed to your own way. That has damaged you almost as much as the drugs themselves.
ReplyDeleteYou could not be more Independent than being proper against drugs.
ReplyDelete