The Occam’s Razor- reason has to be that then they can employ more police.
People do not learn that hard cases make bad law: moreover, that if one proscribes or prohibits the dealing in and possession of something, one will increase its street price by something like 20x to 100x.
About 90% of moderate-to-serious crime in the UK is related to the compulsion to acquire cash for currently-illegal drugs. Now, if trade in or possession of these was decriminalised, then almost all of this crime would disappear straight away: the Police could “spend time doing more useful things” like…..er…..chasing motorists….. (no I don’t think we’ll go there right now…) and the £100-a-day habit would become the £5-a-day habit.
Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Ciba-Geigy and Schering-Plough and others could compete legally to supply the purest and safest drugs at the lowest prices, assuming the market was large enough for major players which I doubt.
Perhaps we could even move towards governments “promising (owing to efficiency savings) to put fewer police on the beat”….
Probably Gordon Brown could not organise an Acid House Party even if he tried.
Brian “gets” the importance of what Guido has done, more than probably any other blogger at this time – to say nothing of the MSM. He also helps us understand that Guido is not “nihilist” or “right wing” – certainly not that latter calumny for sure! The Enemy Class just can’t yet understand what it means to be “anti-politics” – which is to say, “against the destruction of proper discursive politics conducted in a Classical liberal tradition.
There would never probably have been an “anti-politics” front in “politics”, if politicians had not set out on the gramsco-FabiaNazi road they have latterly, in the last 120-odd-years, taken.
Look at this. Really, it’s all very nice and cosy and innately harmless. One is still – despite all that has occurred since, er,well, the beginning of times when one man thought he could enslave and corrupt the will of another – inclined to believe that even these G20-buggers, like the huggers below, are human beings after all.
Minimal-statist type libertarians are not in principle against nations deciding to have some sort of titular “Head of State”, if that is what they want, provided that everyone agrees what the limits of authority of such an outfit under Common Law are beforehand, and _provided that_ everyone stays awake sufficiently for those limits to _be observed_ , and _be observed permanently_ . It is dangerous to allow a “State” to deirect, or even have the slightest hand in influencing, things such as “education” or “broadcasting”, if these conditions are to be met. Look at what has happened to ordinary and necessary qualifications for teenagers, for example under modern socialism in the UK, or to the propagandising output of the British State television braodcaster.
The present lot of outfits have clearly got out of hand, are rampaging drunk with power, and ought to be brought to heel. The malign influence of pre-capitalist barbaric anti-guides to survival, such as socialism, cannot be forgotten here.
In a Classical Liberal market civilisation, i suppose it would be perfectly all right for people to dress up as “Heads of State”, jet off to somewhere or other expensive, and pretend to have a “summit”. They could exchange ritual gifts of no value to anyone but each other, such as personalised I-Pods or silver framed photos of their dogs.
Moreover, being all bloggers by necessity, they could even issue “Joint Communiqués”. These would most probably give details of the joints they smoked while together as they will all undoubtedly be superannuated GreeNazis, ageing hippies, GramscoFabiaNazis, sad socialist,s and other varieties of worthless CO2-exhaling scumbag (although rich. Libertarians have “nothing against people getting filthy rich”….aka Tony Blair etc.) Or they might refer to statements of intent to regulate things such as “banks”….The great joy of such an arrangement is that nothing bad would come about as a result of their junketings.
We stand aghast, at the possibility of “military intervention by the USA” against – of all places – Mexico. We know that, since “drugs” are grown in Latin America, and since Mexico is in the way of their transfer to “Film Stars” and wannabes in British North America, where these things are officially illegal to have or trade, that therefore mexico will be on the road of transfer.
This is all very well and ought not to matter. Cars and lorries carrying cocaine and other stuff whose names I can’t remember ought to be able to cross Mexico as though it was anywhere. The problem arises because – and only because – it is locally illegal to have, sell or use these substances, in the points of destination.
This has several effects:-
(1) It makes the substances themselves more desirable in the eyes of certain people. They will want it more because “The State” says they shouldn’t have any at all at all at all, for their own good at all at all at all . Nsty useless Hollywood delinquents film stars will leak details of their use of it, and because they are pretty and shaggable (and that’s just the men) you will want to do it too, as you are sheeple because the liberals Stalinists have told you to become so.
(2) It makes it risky and unprofitable and demoralising, for legitimate businesses to supply the stuff. If you wozz an off-licence, would YOU want to supply cocaine to any willing buyer, if you got raided every week by the rozzers for doing it, and had your shop smashed up by them (rozzers) and were put in jug?
(3) It makes the risks of supplying it worthwhile, for shysters and hoods, who don’t mind having to shoulder the boring business of killing people including police and soldiers, in the course of securing their hold on the distribution of of their stuff, to you. The £5-a-day habit, if the stuff was legally sold through chemists even including the impost of State Taxation, becomes the £100-a-day habit if you have to buy it through hoods who have to insure themselves – at your cost – for their own risk against both the State and against other hoods who want to compete, for what is really a rather small niche sector.
(4) it makes jobs for Police rozzers. Rozzers are inherently tormented people, who ought not to have got like that; they need psychiatric help, and quickly. Just as you ought not to want to be a criminal, also you ought not to want to be a policeman in the 21st century: what does that desire say about you, and your morals, and world-view, as a person?
So the way forward is quite clear. ALL drugs have to be legalised, in all jurisdictions, preferably by yesterday. This will have a number of good effects:-
(1A) The “Police”, currently a pantomime collection of gamma-minus droids unfortunately increasingly supplied with real guns as opposed to things that shoot out a flag which says “bang”, and who are “employed” by their “states” not in chasing real muggers, robbers, burglars and killers but in harrassing “drug dealers”, “motorists”, “paedophiles”, “racists”, “terrorists”, “non-payers of council tax”, “TV-license-evaders” and “climate-change-deniers”, will find that their workload is decreased alarmingly. We will “need” fewer of them. Good.
The main solution to civilisation’s ills is
and more and better people.
There may even be “calls for” “FEWER POLICE ON THE STREETS”. I think that in a civilised society, the police ought to be invisible: see poll below.
(2A) The use of “drugs”, which is to say substances currently classified as drugs”, by all people, will fall dramatically. or it may not: I do not know. But I think it will fall.
(3A) The legalisation of “drugs” will mean that Galxo-Smith-Klein, Schering-Plough, Ciba-Geigy, and all the others, will be abot to compete legally for whatever market they think they can get. Adverttisisng will be allowed. Advertising is the best way to garotte bad stuff fast. The purity and quality of products will thus rise, and the price will fall to the point where the “State” will come in.
(4A) The “State” will take a take. Where GSK wants to sell you your Ecstasy for 50p a go, via the chemist down the road in Shaky-street (PR8 . . . ) , the State will take £4 or so, making it about the price of 20 fags. What’s the point of going and doing crime, if it’s only that much? You can get it from your dosh you that get “on the sick”.
OK so the “State” wins, win-win in the short run. But it’s got to justify how it needs to spend so much less on policing, since there’s so much much less less petty crime going on down.