Time for something completely different

The black economy exists in almost every country. In the UK it is now estimated to be worth about £40 billion a year and run by 27 "Mr Bigs", many of whom are actually in prison!

Imagine, that this was actually a single company, operating legitimately within Britain and making a massive profit. The calls for windfall taxes would be increasing daily. But as it's illegal all we ask is that the state try those tired and tested methods of the past – tougher law enforcement and harsher penalties. Whether re-branded or re-tweaked, so as to seem new, they remain ineffectual.

Even though they are operating outside the law, criminals still pursue a natural human ambition: profit. As Deputy Chief Constable Jon Murphy, of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), put it: "They will form loose coalitions, sharing their specialist skills in pursuit of the highest profit with the least risk."

The mainstay of all operations within this part of the economy is violence, partly because the returns are so high (due to the illegality and risk of their operations), but mostly because the rule of law has been supplanted by the rule of brute force. It is time for a new approach, one that could bring both revenue to the government and less violence to communities; there is a need to bring this world into the light.

The authoritarian drug legislation of the past 100 years has achieved little, except for criminalising many and driving others into a life of violence. We should be able to approach drugs in a mature and rational way – free from tabloid hysteria – and allow people to make their own informed choices. Unfortunately, it is far easier to pander to an historic, outdated view and perpetuate a drug war that criminalises millions and plunges thousands into a life of misery each year.

Liberalisation
written by Shah Ahmed, August 10, 2008

There are many views on how we should deal with drug use and penalties of using as well as selling illegal drugs. The most effective. As these highly profitable businesses rely on the "Supply and Demand" facility, the only way to bring this area of the "Underworld" would be to cut the demand for such drugs.

In the UK, the NHS caters for the needs of the most extreme of drug users through replacement therapies, providing patients with alternatives to their drug of choice. This helps patients stabilise they're often erratic lifestyle.There have been suggestions that to wipe out the trade completely we would require provisions to supply patients with a regulated dose of the actual drug itself.

Having looked into this area, those that use drugs have an altogether different lifestyle which cannot be replicated and to tackle drug usage we would need to look at the wider circumstances of these individuals.

There are also many grey areas of this £40bn Underground. Although we may be able to define most of the areas we certainly are not able to enforce the rule of law under such circumstances.

From prostitution to counterfeit goods, the issues surrounding these businesses have to be looked at on a macro as well asa micro scale, Law enforcement should be part of a wider array options available in tackling and solving our issues.- After all, lest we forget,- we are all human.

...
written by Arthur, August 10, 2008

You may well be right that we would be advised to decriminalise drugs, but please stop peddling the lie that it is the legislation that criminalises people. It is not. People are perfectly aware that drug taking and dealing are illegal yet make a conscious decision to do it anyway. Right or wrong, they criminalise themselves.

Would anyone seriously argue that a murderer was criminalised by the legislation rather than by his or her own actions?

There is, indeed, a logical argument for decriminalising drugs but your argument about criminality denies the existence of free will, and I would have thought that any ASI supporter would have thought free will rather significant in the functioning of society.

...
written by Dave, August 10, 2008

It is not the drugs need to be targeted but the profits. Nationalise drugs, undercut the market. This will remove all profit from the illegal supply. Remove pushers of the streets as they will have no financial rewards. Having no pushers motivated by money will over time reduce those taking up drugs.

The ASI is stuffed full of experts on how Government interference can kill a market. This is the ideal market for that interference.

...
written by Toby, August 16, 2008

Arthur wrote:
>It is not. People are perfectly aware that drug taking and dealing are illegal yet make a conscious decision to do it
>anyway. Right or wrong, they criminalise themselves.

>Would anyone seriously argue that a murderer was criminalised by the legislation rather than by his or her own
>actions?

I could be wrong, but I think you're making a mistake here. I believe the argument regard drug use is that it is wrong to have criminalised it. To be sure, people choose to take drugs, and by doing so they fall foul of the law. The point is, however, that the law is wrong to do so - it criminalises an act which is not criminal. Imagine there was a law which criminalised buying oak tables. I knowingly buy an oak table. I'm now a criminal. Except I'm not, it's just the law is crazy. In short, drug use is ethically fine, but legally not.

Your example of murder is not comparable because murder really is a crime, both ethically and in law. All contracts must be voluntary and well-informed, and being murdered is non-voluntary.

(In that way of looking at things, drug use is in and of itself harmless, so there isn't even a contract to consider; it's just a person doing what they want to do.)

...
written by Toby, August 16, 2008

Dave wrote:
> The ASI is stuffed full of experts on how Government interference can kill a market. This is the ideal market for that
> interference.

Why? who are you to say that other people should not take drugs?

...
written by Arthur, August 17, 2008

Toby,

I understand your point that it may have been wrong to criminalise drug use but your understanding of criminality is deeply worrying.

You say that the law "criminalises an act which is not criminal". This is wrong, plain wrong. An act is only criminal because a legal jurisdiction and process make it criminal. An act is not intrinsically criminal outside the law. It is the law that defines criminality. By definition, your analogy with buying oak tables is a nonsense. If there was a law to say that buying an oak table was illegal it would, therefore, be a crime to do so, no matter how ridiculous that law would be.

The problem with your argument is that it undermines the concept of a law common to all. You seem to think that you, as an individual, have the power to say what is and is not a crime. That way lies anarchy as we all chose what is a crime according to our own standards. Do you really believe that under this system the murderer will not simply say that murder is not a crime according to his rule book? The benefits of a law common to all are dependent on individuals accepting the decisions of the system even though they might disagree with them.

There are, indeed, good arguments for drugs to be decriminalised but as long as the law says that it is illegal and, therefore, a crime, then it is criminal. And as long as the individual makes their own decision as to whether they take drugs or not, they are criminalised by their own actions, not by the law itself.

Written by Steve Bettison
Sunday, 10 August 2008
The black economy exists in almost every country. In the UK it is now estimated to be worth about £40 billion a year and run by 27 "Mr Bigs", many of whom are actually in prison! Imagine, that this was actually a single company, operating legitimately within Britain and making a massive profit. The calls for windfall taxes would be increasing daily. But as it's illegal all we ask is that the state try those tired and tested methods of the past – tougher law enforcement and harsher penalties. Whether re-branded or re-tweaked, so as to seem new, they remain ineffectual. Even though they are operating outside the law, criminals still pursue a natural human ambition: profit. As Deputy Chief Constable Jon Murphy, of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), put it: "They will form loose coalitions, sharing their specialist skills in pursuit of the highest profit with the least risk." The mainstay of all operations within this part of the economy is violence, partly because the returns are so high (due to the illegality and risk of their operations), but mostly because the rule of law has been supplanted by the rule of brute force. It is time for a new approach, one that could bring both revenue to the government and less violence to communities; there is a need to bring this world into the light. The authoritarian drug legislation of the past 100 years has achieved little, except for criminalising many and driving others into a life of violence. We should be able to approach drugs in a mature and rational way – free from tabloid hysteria – and allow people to make their own informed choices. Unfortunately, it is far easier to pander to an historic, outdated view and perpetuate a drug war that criminalises millions and plunges thousands into a life of misery each year. Bookmark Comments (6) Subscribe to this comment's feed Liberalisation written by Shah Ahmed, August 10, 2008 There are many views on how we should deal with drug use and penalties of using as well as selling illegal drugs. The most effective. As these highly profitable businesses rely on the "Supply and Demand" facility, the only way to bring this area of the "Underworld" would be to cut the demand for such drugs. In the UK, the NHS caters for the needs of the most extreme of drug users through replacement therapies, providing patients with alternatives to their drug of choice. This helps patients stabilise they're often erratic lifestyle.There have been suggestions that to wipe out the trade completely we would require provisions to supply patients with a regulated dose of the actual drug itself. Having looked into this area, those that use drugs have an altogether different lifestyle which cannot be replicated and to tackle drug usage we would need to look at the wider circumstances of these individuals. There are also many grey areas of this £40bn Underground. Although we may be able to define most of the areas we certainly are not able to enforce the rule of law under such circumstances. From prostitution to counterfeit goods, the issues surrounding these businesses have to be looked at on a macro as well asa micro scale, Law enforcement should be part of a wider array options available in tackling and solving our issues.- After all, lest we forget,- we are all human. ... written by Arthur, August 10, 2008 You may well be right that we would be advised to decriminalise drugs, but please stop peddling the lie that it is the legislation that criminalises people. It is not. People are perfectly aware that drug taking and dealing are illegal yet make a conscious decision to do it anyway. Right or wrong, they criminalise themselves. Would anyone seriously argue that a murderer was criminalised by the legislation rather than by his or her own actions? There is, indeed, a logical argument for decriminalising drugs but your argument about criminality denies the existence of free will, and I would have thought that any ASI supporter would have thought free will rather significant in the functioning of society. ... written by Dave, August 10, 2008 It is not the drugs need to be targeted but the profits. Nationalise drugs, undercut the market. This will remove all profit from the illegal supply. Remove pushers of the streets as they will have no financial rewards. Having no pushers motivated by money will over time reduce those taking up drugs. The ASI is stuffed full of experts on how Government interference can kill a market. This is the ideal market for that interference. ... written by Toby, August 16, 2008 Arthur wrote: >It is not. People are perfectly aware that drug taking and dealing are illegal yet make a conscious decision to do it >anyway. Right or wrong, they criminalise themselves. >Would anyone seriously argue that a murderer was criminalised by the legislation rather than by his or her own >actions? I could be wrong, but I think you're making a mistake here. I believe the argument regard drug use is that it is wrong to have criminalised it. To be sure, people choose to take drugs, and by doing so they fall foul of the law. The point is, however, that the law is wrong to do so - it criminalises an act which is not criminal. Imagine there was a law which criminalised buying oak tables. I knowingly buy an oak table. I'm now a criminal. Except I'm not, it's just the law is crazy. In short, drug use is ethically fine, but legally not. Your example of murder is not comparable because murder really is a crime, both ethically and in law. All contracts must be voluntary and well-informed, and being murdered is non-voluntary. (In that way of looking at things, drug use is in and of itself harmless, so there isn't even a contract to consider; it's just a person doing what they want to do.) ... written by Toby, August 16, 2008 Dave wrote: > The ASI is stuffed full of experts on how Government interference can kill a market. This is the ideal market for that > interference. Why? who are you to say that other people should not take drugs? ... written by Arthur, August 17, 2008 Toby, I understand your point that it may have been wrong to criminalise drug use but your understanding of criminality is deeply worrying. You say that the law "criminalises an act which is not criminal". This is wrong, plain wrong. An act is only criminal because a legal jurisdiction and process make it criminal. An act is not intrinsically criminal outside the law. It is the law that defines criminality. By definition, your analogy with buying oak tables is a nonsense. If there was a law to say that buying an oak table was illegal it would, therefore, be a crime to do so, no matter how ridiculous that law would be. The problem with your argument is that it undermines the concept of a law common to all. You seem to think that you, as an individual, have the power to say what is and is not a crime. That way lies anarchy as we all chose what is a crime according to our own standards. Do you really believe that under this system the murderer will not simply say that murder is not a crime according to his rule book? The benefits of a law common to all are dependent on individuals accepting the decisions of the system even though they might disagree with them. There are, indeed, good arguments for drugs to be decriminalised but as long as the law says that it is illegal and, therefore, a crime, then it is criminal. And as long as the individual makes their own decision as to whether they take drugs or not, they are criminalised by their own actions, not by the law itself. Write comment This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment. Powered by Azrul's Jom Comment for Joomla!