|
Post by Naselus on Dec 18, 2004 17:14:50 GMT
After reading through the invasion thread again (for amusement. I mean, MILLET'S ?), I started thinking about my position on the availablity of various items. I realised that I take it for granted that I can go and procure almost anything, regardless of it's legal status, simply by asking a few people around Manchester or Bolton, and that's kind of worrying.
Is it time we re-evaluated the system? Regardless of how illegal you make something, it will always be available, since crime will find a way. Criminals, as I mentioned elsewhere, don't care if somethings illegal, practically by definition. This means that the drugs, guns and other illegal equipment (police scanners, etc) are still easily obtained, it's just that organised crime is getting the money from it.
Surely this means that the laws we have controlling these various items and substances are useless? We're just making criminals out of regular civilians and, in the case of those eslling the items, up-and-coming businessmen. Surely it'd be better to legalise the items and then collect the tax from these sales?
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Dec 18, 2004 17:23:11 GMT
I'm not exactly opposed to this idea, but the thing people miss when they say, "We should legalise x cos at the moment it just makes criminals rich" is that criminalisation does act as a deterrent to some degree. No we don't want rich crimelords, but legalising arms sales to the general public will lead to a lot more people getting guns who shouldn't than what's happening now. (And if you don't believe that, look at America...)
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Dec 18, 2004 17:31:39 GMT
It's not just that it's making the crooks rich, though. They're still carrying the guns anyway, as well, and believe me it's all too easy to get them in various bits of town. On the other hand, if crimelord A isn't actually breaking the law by selling smack, he won't shoot crimelord B for stealing from him, he'll just call the police. And Crimelord B, while he is now a thief, isn't going to get into trouble for possession of fifteen kilos of high-quality heroin, so is less likely to try and shoot his way out of trouble.
Also, the quality of items would rise, and the number of people sharing needles and suchlike will fall. This means that the NHS will be under less strain from poisoned drug abusers, and will also recieve a massive whack of extra funding from the taxation.
The police force could also receive, for example, £10 for each weapon sold in their area, plus money from licences. This means better equiped police hunting for murderers, rather than bothering stoners and smackheads who aren't really causing any harm.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Dec 18, 2004 19:16:46 GMT
Making weapons available to the public on the scale they are in the States is, no other word for it, stupidity. The states have the highest rate of gun crime on the planet. Do we want to follow suit?
And relatively, the police won't be better equipped hunting for murderers – the murderers would have weapons too. We already have armed police if we need them.
The legalisation of some materials is a good idea from the tax point of view, but, by legalising, things become readily available. Legalising hard drugs is an idea that should find its way into the worst 100 pieces of legislation. How many drug-induced crimes are there annually? Expect to see that rocket if heroin was legalised, as shop owners could sell it.
So yes, while crime will always find a way, at least materials like drugs and guns can be kept more under control by legislating against them.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Dec 18, 2004 19:36:07 GMT
A higher proportion of Canadians own weapons compared to the US, and yet guncrime there is nearly non-existant. It's just that the US seems to encourage gun crimes somehow. Perhaps because of their absurd culture of fear, which they've carefully nurtured since the fifties.
Guns aren't the equipment I meant. There's a wide variety of useful things that the police need more of. Policemen, for example. Also helicopters, cars, vans.... You yourself have complained about the ill-equiped nature of our coppers in 'The Police Farce'. That money could help them out.
"The legalisation of some materials is a good idea from the tax point of view, but, by legalising, things become readily available. Legalising hard drugs is an idea that should find its way into the worst 100 pieces of legislation. How many drug-induced crimes are there annually? Expect to see that rocket if heroin was legalised, as shop owners could sell it."
Utter bull. Heroin is already absurdly easy to get on the streets of every major city in this country. It's impure, dangerous and generally very bad shit. Pure heroin is less addictive than you'd believe, certainly far less than morphine, which we give out at the chemist on persciption. The drugs would be more affordable and better quality, so crime would actually fall since you don't need to nick a car radio every day to get your next wrap.
Also, smackheads wouldn't have the same sort of social stigma that they currently suffer from. If they can get and maintain a job then they won't commit crimes to fund their habits. Some already do.
And frankly drugs aren't under control in the slightest. They're madeningly out of control, and the government well knows it. That's why they bought all of the Opium crop from Afghanistan in the last two years; to stop it going onto the streets of Britain.
The US showed that prohibition doesn't work during the twenties, and we're going through the same thing now with everything. It just makes criminals very very rich and powerful, turning nobodies who just want to smoke a bit of pot into international drug barons quite accidently. Nearly half of all adults in the UK have smoked cannabis at one point in their lives. Thirty percent have tried harder drugs. That's a third of the population, and that suggests to me that maybe drugs aren't under control at all. Perhaps we're going about the whole thing wrong.
Looking at the Netherlands, they've got very little drug crime, becuase they turn a blind eye to street dealing. That means dealers can turn to the police to protect them from each other, and so they don't go around shooting each other. I for one think that's quite a good thing. Canada, as mentioned, has extremely lax gun laws, but has less gun crimes than here. Interesting, really.
|
|