When are we going to get tough on drugs? Drug education in schools is a waste of time; it always starts by saying that nicotine and alcohol are drugs and so ducks the issue. Selling people drugs is like selling people poison and those involved in it should be treated as murderers. And why not, therefore, bring back the death penalty for drug dealing? Of course, the do-gooders (who are better called "ignore evilers") will talk about the rights of the poor criminals: but what of the rights of those at whom drugs are pushed?

The real 'war' against drugs is just token, and is hopeless. The resources should be directed against the crimes people will commit to buy drugs. Sadly, you can't legislate against stupidity.

theres a family of 3 adults who live opposite me who use and sell drugs from their rented house. i've told the police and local coucillor about it but is any thing done? NO. They've lived there for about 2 years now and just seem to go about their business without a care in the world.

Voter: "Drug education in schools is a waste of time; it always starts by saying that nicotine and alcohol are drugs and so ducks the issue."

But they are and their effects are worse than a lot of drugs which are currently illegal. Trying to ignore the fact that alcohol and tobacco are dangerous drugs purely because they are legal would be ducking the issue.

"but what of the rights of those at whom drugs are pushed?"

So long as they are in a position to say no and are aware of what they are taking, it is their choice and they are accpeting the risk that goes along with it.

The most important right of the person who is being sold drugs is the right to know what they are taking, which is one of the reasons why the only sensible approach is to legalise and regulate the sale of those drugs which are currently illegal.

David; If you are getting no joy out of the Police (which sounds strange), then why not pass the details to the MEN and let them investigate or tell the Police?

Sometimes, if the profile is raised on a story, it gets dealt with.

Sadly, it is not only the inability of the police which prevents drugs reaching our streets, it is also the governments obsession on targets which means that the successful dealing with minor offfences count for the same as major crime reduction.

Whilst is is true that the latter can have a beneficial effect. The resources avialable to chief constables who are anxious for promotion means that the focus is on numbers.

The other aspect is the lack of enforcement preventing drugs entering the country. Siezures currently amount to around 12 percent of the total volumne imported, thus our enforcement strategies appear to be as effective as our immigration strategies for illegal immigrants.

Since such appalling performance could not occur without connivance from the highest authorities in the land, it becomes apparent where the real problems begin and why the users who suffer death and disease, not to mention the victims of crime that arises as the result of users seeking funds to feed their habit, are at the bootom of political considerations.

The pro drug lobby would have you believe that legalising drugs would resolve all of our problems. Nothing could be further from the truth. One only has to look at hisory to establish that when cocaine, morphine and other mind altering substances were legal, crime, especially violent crime was rampant, the principle difference now is that punishments are less severe.

Nobody forced the drugs up his nose.

Voter I think though your thoughts are taken on board the murderers line is just not valid.

He opted to take drugs that night. Though I agree any suppliers deserve to be put away for a long time a murder charge isn't correct.

Peter O'Loughlin: "The pro drug lobby would have you believe that legalising drugs would resolve all of our problems."

The vast majority of people that I know support legalisation, but none of them would describe themselves as "pro drug." I dislike drugs, but I would rather see them supplied legally than continue with the dangerous and counter-productive system of prohibition we currently have. I'm also unaware of anybody claiming that legalisation would resolve all the problems associated with drugs, just that it would be better than the current situation.

"Nothing could be further from the truth. One only has to look at hisory to establish that when cocaine, morphine and other mind altering substances were legal, crime, especially violent crime was rampant"

And apparently the same is true now. I don't believe that prohibition has ever had an significant impact on user driven crime one way or the other. What it does do is create an opportunity for criminal gangs to profit from the supply chain. Get the supply above ground and that disappears.

Here's a question for you Peter; given that there is currently violent crime being fuelled by alcohol, would you wish to see that made illegal too?

St George's Island is to be known as in Castlefield for the yuppies that live there,Doctors and Solicitors, Etc, the minute something is Involving drugs, it's Hulme all of a sudden,come on, give us a break, stop knocking Hulme, its took years to get Hulme the way it is now, peaceful and Quite, and now people want knock it once again, can the Manchester Evening News and The Council make there minds up on this area.
Drew Peacock HULME.

Where does the coroner buy his chips - the chip shop at the Ritz Hotel in London? He says Ecstasy tablets are £5 and are as cheap as chips. Even today you can get a bag of chips for much less than that. For £5 you can get fish, chips, peas, a can of pop and a buttered barm at the chip shops near me.

Ebble: And enough for bus fare home?

ebble, I think this regime will have your fish, chips, peas, pop and barmcake banned before anything changes with the drug problems. Why, the salt cellars have now got to be regulation-design in some areas.

Interfering, busy-body, nannyist do-gooders.

voter,
you are right cigarettes are poisons, but still we allow them to be sold.
if you are in favour of the death penalty (for shop keepers selling tobaco?) would you be the person to visit the mothers of the innocent, wrongly hanged and explain why their children have been murdered by the state? (such as Barry George this week)

So long as people are prepared to buy drugs others will sell them, and find a way to get them into the country.
Keeping them illegal merely increases the potential profits for criminals, meaning they can afford to kill or bribe people who might want to stop their activites.
Education (accurate education, not silly scare tatcics every child knows to be untrue) along with regulated supply to ensure consitent quality of product can at least help to reduce the harm casued.

peter
heroin was made illegal only relativly recently, and its use and the violence associated with it supply has rocketed since then
which peroid of history are you refering to?

Too much money is the problem. Keep people very poor and they tend to have fewer addictions. History proves that to be true.

Emancipation was the curse of the working class. Bring back Victorian values and the streets would be rid of most of today's problems.

Hopefully these deadly drugs will help to kill off more of these useless and brainless people. They are a waste of space anyway.

Alvinlwh fully agree with your comments.
The problem is that even if caught with class A drugs it is usually on a caution.
To start effecting the drugs trade you don't need to legalise it but start putting the users in special prisons for a year to start with no matter what amount they have on them. I would include canabis in this as well. It is simple supply and demand.
Also anyone caught supplying drugs go to prison, starting at 10 years again no matter how much they supply.
The reason it is so easy to get and use drugs is not the police but the totally soft ludicrous sentences handed out.
For all those who say legalise drugs must be living in cuckoo land if they think it will cut down on the use because they will have CLEAN drugs.
I say good to everyone who kills themselves taking drugs it is one less. I would even go so far as to stop the supply of needles and methadone.

Alvin. Where do you get off on saying things like that. Id bet he was a lot more intelligent than you would ever be. Do you drink? Maybe even smoke? Well then you deserve the same fate as they are MORE dangerous that amphetamines.

SAPPER: "For all those who say legalise drugs must be living in cuckoo land if they think it will cut down on the use because they will have CLEAN drugs."

Nobody has said it will reduce use, just that it will make the product safer and it will take the criminal gangs out of the supply chain.

Would you apply your hard line approach to people who supply or consume alcohol?

I think that if you read this article closely, anyone would realise that this has deeply affected these peoples jobs and lives on top of losing a friend which in itself must be devastating. No one expects such a tragic thing to happen, all I hope is that other young people will read this article and think twice before taking any kind of substance in the future knowing what the consequence may be.

For Black Flag
"And apparently the same is true now. I don't believe that prohibition has ever had an significant impact on user driven crime one way or the other. What it does do is create an opportunity for criminal gangs to profit from the supply chain. Get the supply above ground and that disappears"

That is what the pro drug lobby would have us believe, but it's simply not true.

First if drugs were legalised, that in itself is not sufficient for organised crime to relinquish their franchises on either production or distribution.
A more likely scenario is they would set up 'respectable' front organisations to supply pharmaceutical companies with their supplies. However that would still leave a 'secondary' market, similar to that which operates for prescription drugs, many of which, including the highly addictive vallium oxycontin, vicodan, etc are already cirulating on the streets. Where do you think they're coming from?

In the 1960s heroin prescribing in London was fashionable among certain private doctors. One could see those who were registered with them collecting supplies at Boot's in Piccadily circus. Further observation revealed that the majority of them would then immediatly dispose of their supply to street dealers who were waiting outside. Those who needed it then went and bought 'China white' 1 or 2 heroin of less purity from another dealer whilst pocketing the cash difference. who do you think was organising this?

Pharmaceutical companies have a rich history of what is politely called 'unauthorised distribution'. The most recent example of which is reported in the British Medical Journal where Roche has been found guilty, not by the courts, but by a professional body for the unathorised distribution of a slimming drug to a private group of slimming 'clinics'. Not only that they provide the owners with a hundred grand to open another one.

There is also the not inconsiderable matter of what is also politely referred to as 'community diversion' wherein prescription drugs, including methadone are sold on the streets.

Insofar as pricing is concerned, since no one has figured out how to make organised crime relinquish their franchises, or the Taliban, their control on heroin, and who work closely with them, legalising would probably increase the price, since the former would be supplying pharmacetical companies who love to make a profit. They also need to increase those in order that they can continue their generous donations to poltical parties and those 'educational grants' to pro drug lobby, some of whom are masquerading as 'drug advisory' agencies.

As Menkel said ' For every complex problem, there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong'

Alcohol causes much more than violent crime, and here again organised crime plays it's part in 'imports' which find their way into pubs and clubs. It is such an addictive substance that it should be classified as A. Sadly with the revenue the government gets from it together with it's popularity, that is not going to happen. However since smoking has been all but prohibited and cigarette advertising banned, the government, if it had the cojones and the will, could apply similar measures to alcohol.

Kingmonkey, he is smarter than me? Well I wasn't the one killing myself by snorting substances of questionable origins up my nose through a £5 note.

Councillor Allheart;

ever heard of gin lane; poorer people just take cheaper, lower quailty drugs

sapper, maybe it would reduce use, maybe it wouldnt, who cares? what leagalisation and some form of regulation would do is remove the gangsters from the supply chain and allow more normal business to take over; ones who advertise and promote to increase market share rather than murder rivals, or people who hapen to live near by and object to their activites

prohibition of alcohol; yes worked well in america didnt it?
everyone obeyed the law and stopped drinking? or no, maybe they carried on and just bought their drinks from gangsters rather than tax paying business as before

so the current situation of buying drink from licsensed, regulated suppliers, with measures in place to ensure quality of product, and that it is of known strength is worse than a ban, with people handing over vast amounts of money to organised criminals to purchase a product of unkown quality with the asscoiated health risk? so much better that the US government abandoned the idea completly.

so maybe the idea could be rolled out to other substances people want, and continue to buy, but governement and society refuse to let them purchase legally?

maybe its better to carry on as we are, giving money to criminals to buy guns and bring death to the streets, to corupt or intimidate anyone who stands in the way of the supply lines, ultimalty handing so much money to the gangs that governments can teven afford to confront them anymore has happens in south america, west africa and parts of asia?

Peter O'Loughlin: "That is what the pro drug lobby would have us believe, but it's simply not true."

The very term "pro drug lobby" is laughable. Where is this lobbying group telling us that drugs are great and we should be taking more?

"First if drugs were legalised, that in itself is not sufficient for organised crime to relinquish their franchises on either production or distribution."

They would have no choice. In the long run, the illegal market won't be able to compete with a legal market.

"However that would still leave a 'secondary' market, similar to that which operates for prescription drugs, many of which, including the highly addictive vallium oxycontin, vicodan, etc are already cirulating on the streets. Where do you think they're coming from?"

Oh dear. Why do you think there is a secondary market? For the simple reason that those drugs are not legal to buy over the counter! All your other examples of people getting prescriptions are similarly pointless, like:

"There is also the not inconsiderable matter of what is also politely referred to as 'community diversion' wherein prescription drugs, including methadone are sold on the streets."

The whole point, which you have somehow completely missed is that, when drugs are available over the counter, there is no reason for a secondary trade. People don't go around buying cans of lager from back street dealers, because they can cut out the middleman and go into a pub or off-licence.

"legalising would probably increase the price, since the former would be supplying pharmacetical companies who love to make a profit."

Higly unlikely. The premium in drug prices is the danger money. The reward has to be high, because of the risk of either being imprisoned or killed. That premium would disappear in a legal trade.

"For every complex problem, there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong"

I think that applies perfectly to prohibition, which appeals to the simple minded, but has always proven to be an abject failure.

Interesting Black Flag,, now that you chose not to comment on the fact that illegal dealing in legal drugs is a thriving business,

Now would you like to explain how both the Taliban and organised crime are going to be persuaded to give up their interests and how you arrive at your conclusion that they will have no choice?

'The whole point, which you have somehow completely missed is that, when drugs are available over the counter, there is no reason for a secondary trade. People don't go around buying cans of lager from back street dealers, because they can cut out the middleman and go into a pub or off-licence'

No is is you who is wilfully disregarding the fact that it is already happening. The Over the counter is a 'red herring' we both know that is not going to happen

'Higly unlikely. The premium in drug prices is the danger money. The reward has to be high, because of the risk of either being imprisoned or killed. That premium would disappear in a legal trade.'

Here again you have chosen to ignore the facts. Both heroin and cocain have never been cheaper, prices are tumbling.

If you are genuinly interested to learn how a country can become relatively crime and drug free, check out Singapore. Upuntil the late 1960s they had a serious drug and crime problem. Today with a mult racial population of 4 million people, about 8 time greater than the population of Manchester they have about 12 times less crime, and drugs use is insignificant.

By the way Sarcasm is not only the lowest form of wit,it indicates a weakness.