From the BBC:
People dependent on drugs and alcohol who refuse treatment could have their welfare benefits withdrawn under plans being considered by the Home Office. The idea is in a consultation paper on the government's drug strategy for England, Wales and Scotland. The proposals also suggest that addicts on benefits should not be required to seek work while receiving treatment...
Seeing as these "treatment awareness programmes" (their words, not mine) are very expensive (but don't work), I can see this one going horribly wrong (or horribly right from the point of view of all the fakeprivatecompanies providing the "treatment awareness programmes") - if you're on benefits and don't want the hassle of looking for a job, or, Heaven forfend, actually finding one (which, under current rules might make you worse off), you just cheerfully admit to being a bit of an alky, sign up to some crappy pointless weekly sessionawareness, and hey ho, all your problems are solved.
By the end of the article, one particular bansturbator is on the brink of orgasm:
Minister for Crime Prevention James Brokenshire said: "The drugs market is changing and we need to adapt current laws to allow us to act more quickly. The temporary ban allows us to act straight away to stop new substances gaining a foothold in the market and help us tackle unscrupulous drug dealers trying to get round the law by peddling dangerous chemicals to young people."
Suffice to say, as half the 'blogosphere already does, replacing the entire Welfare State with a Citizen's Income/low-ish tax-withdrawal rate and the full legalisation of all drugs (subject to regulation and taxes, just like fags and booze) will sort out the bulk of all this at little or even negative cost to the taxpayer.
We don't need no stinkin' objectivity
1 hour ago
6 comments:
I am one of those in firm agreement that the prohibition and "war on drugs" is not and has never really worked.
As we all know that consumption taxes inherently reduce consumption, logic dictates that legalising, regulating and implementing sin taxes is the way forward. They are far easier to collect than VAT as they are a straight forward you sold X number of fags, the tax on 1 fag is Y, X times Y = tax, hand it over.
When all is said and done, regulating the industry would mean cleaner, safer drugs being taken which would make drug deaths (as with alcohol) a matter of irresponsible useage.
The revenues generated could be high enough to add additional funds to the kitty over and above the knock on costs. The savings in policing would mean they can chase real criminals like murderers & rapists.
claps.
This is 100% the Politics of Envy. Chasing around a few dolie addicts may save the country nothing, or indeed, even cost it millions, but it goes down well with the sort of voter who reads the Daily Mail, as well as keeping the Neo-puritans happy and that's what's important.
Well the public purse could certainly use tens of billions of pounds a year right now. Personally i've known people both die from drug overdose, my eldest brother being one of them... and those who manage to lead perfectly normal lives and just enjoy smoking a bit of weed in their free time.
I myself am very anti-drugs in the fact I wouldn't do any, except the occasional bit of alcohol but even that is very very occasional. I am not however against their legalisation, regulation & taxation because I just don't see that the "war on drugs" is having any positive effects at all and certainly there are plenty of negative effects.
This is a great idea, there's not enough street people or prostitutes at the moment.
SW, sorry to hear about your brother, and I am (personally) also anti-drug, but better that people take clean, safe legal stuff at the chemists or tobacconists, pay a bit of tax on top and have done with it.
MA... which creates jobs for pimps and drugs dealers and fences, which creates jobs for coppers and do-gooders and fakecharities and prison officers. What's not to like?
Post a Comment