Pubdate: Sat, 27 Sep 2003
Source: Worthing Herald (UK)
Copyright: 2003 Johnston Press New Media
Author: Mike Startup
Note: Headline by Newshawk


WHY, when we are constantly being told that the police are undermanned, can
they afford to have three officers and a riot bus standing about all day
near Worthing Station?  This, when they are being criticised for not
attending "suspect on" crimes.

Is this whole thing a PR stunt to impress certain "upright" but vociferous
members of the community?

It is certainly not cost effective.

In fact I believe that the whole area of drugs and the law needs a total

Look at the facts:

What percentage of the population are taking drugs?

What percentage of law enforcement (and customs) budget is spent on
anti-drugs activity?

When the US has alcohol prohibition it seemed that the only winner was the

Has nothing been realised about this connection?

We have alcohol sold through controlled licensed premises.

Similarly tobacco.

The government taxes these and makes a very good income out of them.

Is there not a lesson to be learned?

If drugs were de-criminalised and licensed there would be no financial
benefit for pushers.

If street crime and burglaries are, in the majority, down to addicts seeking
the cash for their next fix - would we not se a huge decline in these

Once the addicts are no longer selling on their drugs to a new generation
there will be a reduction in the number of addicts.

The personal use of drugs, in itself, is not a crime and, apart from the
damage one might do to one's own body, no one suffers (okay, family, friends
etc, but no more so than with alcohol or tobacco-related illnesses).

The one area then needing to be tidied up is who looks after the terminally

The cost is funded out of the licence fees and the money saved from less
than effective "drug enforcement".

In fact, the whole thing is so blindingly logical one can't help but wonder
at which level in the government someone is taking the drug barons'
backhanders to keep the drugs illegal!

By the way, why, if the government is so keen to reduce smoking, have they
not proposed a two-year lift in the age - from 16 to 18?  (one year at 17 so
as not to criminalise currently ill-advised 16/17 year-olds).

This would put smoking on the same age as alcohol and remove all "legal"
smoking at high schools - with all that means in terms of peer pressure.

Mike Startup,

New Road
- ---
MAP posted-by: Josh