Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
"Now, who could have seen that coming?"
Got an email from a friend. All it was was a link, and this comment:
"It seems that drug eradication efforts serve only as price supports for dealers.
Now, who could have seen that coming?"
The story, from the UK:
Drugs swoops 'have little impact'
Police are fighting a losing battle against drugs crime, with seizures having little impact on reducing supply or demand, research has suggested.
* * *
The independent think-tank said dealers were able to adapt quickly to interruptions in supply, for instance by reducing purity, enabling them to maintain their profit margins.
The report estimated that between 60% and 80% of drugs would need to be seized to put major traffickers out of business - yet operations on such a scale have never been achieved in the UK. [Police interdiction in the UK usually runs about 10%. - JD]
It went so far as to warn that police operations could have a negative effect on the problem.
They could threaten public safety and health by "altering the drug users' behaviour and potentially… setting up violent drug gang conflicts as police move dealers from one area to another", said our correspondent.
Surprise, surprise. And the UK is an island nation.
Jim Downey
(Thanks, Steve!)
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Rational drug policy
I think, would begin by legalizing marijuana, and treating other currently illegal drug use as a health problem to be treated, like alcoholism, rather than as a crime issue. Because what we're doing now isn't working.
Post new comment