@skydriller IMO you make a very good point and I have thought so for years. Some countries have done it to some extent, seemingly successfully eg Netherlands and Portugal.
And then there is the classic case of prohibition in the USA. It just didn’t work and the amendment (21st I think) had to be dropped.
If criminals can make huge amounts of money out of drugs why shouldn’t a government?
But have politicians got the bxxls?
I’ve never touched drugs (no, not even at the Progressive Karl Marx Study Institute known as the University of Sussex 
) but heroin ruins lives everywhere. It’s not something you can just sniff and (in the words of one bunny boiler I spoke to many years ago) music sounds great, sex is great, everything is intense, blah blah, and then you come out of it and go back to work. Or just sniff it every morning on the way to work
The real challenge with smuggling using GA is that you are just a part of a chain of people, most of whom will be known to the police (even stupid police tend to be less stupid than most criminals) and will be under surveillance. You will have a dealer at both ends, with your “discreet parcel delivery service” in the middle, and with both ends under surveillance. So now you are under surveillance too. Nice big letters on the side… takes about 10 secs to get your name and address. The cops will let a few deliveries get through so they can collect more data and evidence and then they bust you.
The lack of FR24 etc data just means they used Mode C and not Mode S, but that just discourages public monitoring. The Sala PA46 was Mode C too. The police get access to radar data once they are actually looking for something.
Remember also that radar data is retained for ever (in the UK the NATS radar tapes get sent to a GCHQ warehouse, according to a post by a NATS guy elsewhere) so even if you did just a few trips, they will just pick you up later.
Nowadays, the countryside is full of people with camera phones, so a drop is highly likely to be photographed.
skydriller wrote:
I really don’t understand why recreational drugs aren’t legalised, quality checked, and taxed. Those that want to take them will always want them, those that don’t want them don’t. Legalisation would wipe out a whole section of criminality and free up police resources. Quality controls would reduce deaths. Taxes put the profits to government coffers… It works for Alcohol & Cigarettes…
You have a good point, at least where the more “harmless” stuff is concerned. However, there are drugs such as the one this case is about (Heroin) as well as “pills” of all sorts which are so hugely damaging or outright lethal, that releasing it into the public won’t work. And even if some variants would be “officially” sanctioned and treated like cigarettes and alcohol, there would most likely be more potent stuff around which again calls for criminals to distribute it…
But on the other hand, the “prohibition” in the US showed more than clearly what such blanket bans can do. Instead of getting rid of the perceived problem, it made it much worse and fed countless criminals up to the point where Congress had to decide to drop the amendment and go back to legal drinking. Of course there are quite a number of “dry” countries today where prohibition works, kind of, but I hear that in some with the “right connections” you can get pretty much whatever you want anyway… It’s not that there is no smuggling of cigarettes or alcohol…. actually quite a lot too. Particularly in countries with either high taxation or prohibitions. Go figure.
You can’t really compare cigarette and alcohol smuggling with drug smuggling these days. Cigarettes and alcohol are usually smuggled into a country and sold cheaper than can be bought inside the country due to taxes. Keeping the prices down is not top of the list for drug smugglers.
Yes there are countries where alcohol is banned. Some like Pakistan get round it for people who really want to partake of alcohol by insisting you get a permit declaring you an alcoholic. In other countries someone caught with alcohol is publicly flogged.
Politicians in the west have to accept there are only 3 ways to reduce the amount of drugs like cocaine and heroine entering a country.
1/ Get together with other countries and buy up all poppy and cocaine crops, at source. After all a long as the farmers get their money, they don’t mind who they sell to. But this would not stop synthetic, home made or prescription drugs. Some will always find something to take eg glue or nitrous oxide.
2/ Make everything legal and control it through the medical and pharmaceutical industry. This method would drastically cut crime and criminal organisations in all areas. If you can get something through your doctor it also drastically reduces the cool factor.
3/ Publicly flog anyone caught with drugs whether taking, dealing or smuggling.
It would be interesting to put such a propoal to all western governments and see the reaction.😃
.
1 and 2 may well go through, No 3 might be a tad touchy (in the true sense of the word). At least you did not mention the gouilloutine, which is the answer other countries have (ok, Saudi Arabia does without it but same result)…
In general I agree. In any case, the 3 of those combined as well as each separate would have a positive impact on the current situation. There is a couple of however’s…. which would indeed cause a bit of patati-patata in the regulators and parliaments….
My reservation vs no 2 is the same as with alcohol and cigarettes. The horrendous taxes they put on both are up front claimed to intend to reduce the amount of cigarettes and alcohol consumed. Does it work? I’d say partly. But way too many people will forego other things in life but still satisfy their addictions. And that is where smugglers come in. And in both cases, particularly cigarettes, smuggle is still a huge business.
The suggestion that you can get drugs via your doc is flawed too. The “easy” example is Viagra. It is totally legal, can be gotten via any doctor. Yet, millions of people are embarrassed to ask or want them cheaper and fall for “viagra-spam” which has filled our mailboxes since ever it came into circulation. Now imagine someone telling his doc he wants heroin or extasy? Would they do it? Would the docs simply prescribe them? I have massive doubts. At the same time, in order for docs to prescribe something, it has to pass quality and safety certifications. How would you do that with potentially lethal drugs? So the “answer” would be pretty straightforward: Most consumers will still buy black and the criminal gangs who today rule the drug market might take a reduced profit but the business would continue.
To cut them at the source has been tried before, but not consequent and strongly enough. And your concern is very correct concerning synthetic drugs.
One could argue, anyone who is willing to kill themselves outright or with delayed effect should simply do so and the rest of society get on with it. Would drug addiction really diminish if you’d simply liberate the whole market and get ecstasy and all sorts of drugs off the shelf in the drugstore? Probably. For everything with the danger potential of smoking or alcohol it may well be a part-solution to the problem. For the rest… Not to speak of the massive efforts which have gone into e.g. exterminating cigarettes and smokers, I somehow have my doubts that this liberalization has much chances….
I find the idea of consumption centres interesting, but don’t know how well they work in practise. As I understand it, you give established drug users free drugs in a relatively safe setting, but keep them illegal outside of this setting. This removes the incentive for smugglers to get people addicted in the first place – all risk for no gain. Arguably a pragmatic half way house between prohibition and legalisation.
Doctors, it seems, are all too willing to prescribe morphine derivatives to people who ask for them nicely. If you search for “opioid epidemic” you’ll see what I mean.
I can appreciate libertarian approaches to drug taking but I feel they are probably not appropriate for heroin. Sure, some people overdose early on and don’t wake up – but for many there’s a long period of decline where their lives simply fall apart. They harm not just themselves, but all around them.
Apparently, drug addictions develop for reasons not generally known or obvious, and not because of the drugs addictiveness themselves. They are more a symptom of, rather than a source, of addiction. At least I had no idea until a friend recommended an interesting book on the subject.
For some, addictions are manifested from a lack of self-love and self-acceptance. Addiction is often about trying to numb from pain, which comes from insecurity, lack of self-worth and low self-esteem. Has a lot to do with childhood, too. Many adults are hurt children.
The first step is to tackle the problem at the source. By working towards a healthy society. Utopia, I know.
“The war on drugs” is a political facade and very useful for “crowd control”. It intensifies rather than solves the problem and thereby acts as a catalyst, which helps manifesting more “war on drugs” and so on…
One could argue, anyone who is willing to kill themselves outright or with delayed effect should simply do so and the rest of society get on with it.
What a sad thought. Let people kill themselves and get on with it rather than help.
Consumption centres could be a good idea.But in order for them to work properly there would have to be full committment and many centres, meaning lots of taxpayers money.
On the other hand if a way could be found to allocate money recovered through fines or whatever from the drug barons or even pushers then they could pay for themselves in the long run.
It would mean committing more customs, police and court time in the early days but in the long term crime could be reduced drastically as much of it is drug related and of course the same could be said for health services.
But does any western government think long term these days?
Snoopy wrote:
What a sad thought. Let people kill themselves and get on with it rather than help.
Indeed, but sadly this is the argument used by those who feel that “personal freedom” i.e. smoking, drugs, alcohol and other stuff is more important than allowing the all too present “nannys” to interfere in order to protect people from themselves….
Needless to say that I don’t follow this argument. It’ is a sorry excuse for doing nothing and has been the argument backed by many who profit from it. For starters, I am really happy that smoking has all but disappeared in public transport and wherever people get impacted by it. And obviously, the drug trade and the associated crimes are much worse than that.
