Tony Blair today promised that Labour would cut crime by 15% if it was elected for a third term.
Not to be outdone by this bold commitment, the other main parties hastened to make what they believe are equally appealing promises to the electorate.
The Liberal Democrats have pledged to increase intelligence if they are elected. A press release issued by their head office (which nobody can actually find) claimed that “average IQs have slipped dramatically under this government”. They promise that the Liberal Democrats are determined to close the “mental wealth gap” by extracting neurons from the brains of very clever people and injecting them into the brains of stupid ones.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives have promised to make people taller. Speaking outside Central Office, some chinless mediocrity said that their proposals would help everyone under 5′ 10″ and would result in an average height gain of 3 inches.
The Greens have poured scorn on the Conservative proposals claiming that the reason that some people are shorter than others is because tall people are hogging more than their fair share of growth hormones. A Green spokesman..er woman…er thingy, said that the Greens are committed to a programme of genetic redistribution.
So the race for election of May 5th is hotting up and if you don’t vote you could well miss out on all these good things.
Welcome back, Mr. Carr.
Very welcome back.
Well I shall be voting with my feet – while they are still large enough to bear my weight through an airport.
You can cut crime by 15% just by jiggering with the data collection methodology.
Oh wait… I forgot, that’s been done already.
If you want to get serious about cutting crime, institute two simple laws:
1. “Truth in sentencing” — whereby if you’re sentenced to 25 years in prison, you serve 25 years, no parole, no time off for good behavior, nothing.
2. The much-maligned “three strikes” law which, despite the wails of the do-gooders about the Pore Underprivlidjed being jailed for stealing a Mars bar, has actually been proven to work. Yup: three convictions, go to jail for 25 years without yadda yadda yadda (see 1. above).
I will bet a hundred euros (seeing as that will be your currency when/if these were ever to become law) that these two simple measures will cut crime by over 50%.
Yeah, you’ll need a bigger prison. Three words: Isle of Man.
Just a thought.
I could probably cut crime in half (or more).
In one day.
By repealing all the victimless crime laws.
Whooooo- hooo! David Carr’s back! God, I’ve been missing my gin and sardonic!
To the formidable Kim du Toit, agree with every word, except the poor old IoM is somehow (in a way I don’t understand) not actually part of England, so not a fair choice for Labour louts. For example, it has offshore banking. Also, appealing to your spirit, Kim, it has no speed limits.
So let us choose a more Tonyesque venue for extra prisons – and the more the merrier. Sedgefield (Blair’s constituency) springs to mind. They voted him in; they should take responsibility for his “stewardship” of law ‘n’ order. Birmingham postal voting buroughs, where Muslim immigrants have corrupted the British voting system might be instructive.
Metropolitan police supremo Ian Blair hails from somewhere. How about some new-build prisons in his neighbourhood? Or outside the grace-and-favour residence of no-longer-entitled ordinary MP David Blunkett, who took the Metropolitan Police away from protecting the public to investigate some little boys playing knock knock ginger with his (then) mistress’s doorbell? And who ceased to be entitled to a grace and favour residence when he ceased to be Home Secretary several months ago?
Welcome back, David Carr!
Excellent post. Although, you really shouldn’t be giving them any ideas, good sir.
Well I shall be voting with my feet – while they are still large enough to bear my weight through an airport.
You know what they say about men with big feet, though….
Haha! Brilliant!
Hilarious!!
Haha! Brilliant!
Hilarious!!
Yeah, you’ll need a bigger prison. Three words: Isle of Man.
Whatever else we do, let’s not invade a small country with a fairly benign tax regime in order to turn it into a prison.
I’ve often found it curious how Samizdata readers have unbounded confidence in the efficacy and good faith of the state when it comes to violence and punishment. You (rightly) won’t trust it to teach a child to read, but are perfectly happy for it to sanction assault and imprisonment, just as long as they are severe and arbitrary enough.
Especially if the assaultees and prisoners are foreigners.
EG
We already have one island prison system, namely the Isle of Wight, so we sure as hell don’t need another one.
As regards our Tone’s law and order initiative people may recall his wife’s recent outburst at a Bethnal Green and Bow dinner (£25 a head, no cards please, cheques made payable to Ms C Booth and not Mrs C Blair) where she invited voters to, “give George Galloway a bloody nose”. Now, given that a few days later Hizb-Ut-Tahrir supporters try to physically attack Galloway, could we please see Ian Blair take action to arrest Cherie for incitement to violence?
Oh wait, if he arrested Cherie the violent crime figures would be marginally increased ..
Julian
Thanks for the link. I missed all that about the Wicked Witch. I missed have been laughing too much at Galloway receiving death threats from a bunch of Islamofascists. Talk about failing to salute his indefatigability!
So the Wicked Witch turns up to the opening of a Bangla restaurant to canvass on behalf of a Labour MP. In a sari no doubt. Is this acceptable behaviour for a Judge? I wasn’t aware that it was acceptable for Judges to electioneer on behalf of candidates. She must have been canvassing in her professional capacity because she’s Cherie Booth in her professional capacity.
I can feel another complaint coming on.
Compare Cherie Blair with Cruella DeVil from Disney’s original “101 Dalmatians”…
Also this…
Cruella deBlair!
The Real Power of Nightmares. Imagine spotting this as you tuck into your biryani.
Way to go RCD. Sense in amongst rabid nonsense.
Guy herbert and Euan Gray,
Most of us don’t. In fact I, personally believe all (if not all, then almost all) “punishment” should be done in a civil judiciary before a jury. I really don’t believe in the criminal judiciary or criminal punishment, and I can’t think of one victimless action that I think should be a crime (including seat belt wearing, drugs, suicide, gay marriage, you name it).
Oh, God, Pete_London – I was having my first coffee of the day when I foolishly clicked on your link! I didn’t know such repellent things lurked on the internet.
Guy – speaking only for myself, I don’t particularly trust the state regarding punishment. What I trust is my own observation: if someone is banged up in prison for a long time, he will not be in people’s houses wrecking their lives. I am not interested in punishing him. I am interested in him not being available for further assaults on society.
Given that almost all burglaries and muggings and drive by shootings are committed by young males under 35, it makes sense to tackle the problem within those discrete parameters.
Here is my modest proposal. First, this programme would be well publicised. They would all be aware of it.
First offence: Arbitrary sentence of seven months behind bars in a real – not juvenile offenders – prison. (Six months sounds like too short and derisory a package.) Long enough for them to take on board how grim being young and locked up is, and to become familiar with the hopeless grind of prison life – but not long enough to become institutionalised.
Second offence: Silly boy, because this time you are going down for two years. Arbitrary and no parole. Good behaviour, bad behaviour, society doesn’t care. You are out of the way for two years.
If, after that, they still don’t get it and commit another offence on release, another arbitrary spell as a guest of HM, their release date this third time being their 35th birthday. On their release, their old mates will have long since disappeared or even had the sense to get married and settle down. Burglary is a young man’s game. You have to be quick, strong and reckless. Our 35 year old erstwhile prisoner can either apply himself to the trade he learned inside, or sign up for unemployment.
New prisons will need to be built to accommodate this bulky rabbit going through the snake, but showing the will to deal with violence against society will have a salutary effect and those prisons should be built with a view to being converted to private exclusive condominiums as they empty. Thus the state would recover a large part of its investment.
Isle of Man? Have you taken leave of your senses?
I’ve always advocated Mull for the everyday baddies and North Rhona for the evil bastards. And they have to swim from the first to the second!
They have been in charge for 10 years now, why didn’t they decrease the crime by 15% in 1996?
What HAS it done since 1996?
This promise is profoundly stupid, directed toward those who are. It should insult the hearer.
Possibly interesting developments tomorrow morning as The Society for Action Against Crime issue their Election Crime report. Their voting advice has predicted the past 4 elections and I suspect a nasty shock for Blair
Staghounds – You don’t seem to understand the rules. Tone has issued a TARGET! Labour will reduce crime by 15%! The TARGET is the be-all and end-all. All flash carny talk. Results are for the little people.
Perhaps you recall the discussion a few months ago about the Belmarsh detainees and Guantanamo Bay? It was striking to note the number of supposed libertarians or libertarian-leaning conservatives that seemed to have no problem whatsoever with locking up without trial or even charge suspected terrorists. Yet these are the same people who bitch and moan incessantly about the excesses of the state when it comes to intrusions in their lives. It seems the state is good when it spends taxpayers money locking up Moslems or invading Arab countries, but bad if it tries to enforce the law at home.
Whilst I don’t for a moment think all libertarians are like this, I think the Belmarsh/Guantanamo thing showed a few for what they really are – people who don’t want rules to apply to themselves, but have no problem incarcerating foreigners without trial. That’s hypocrisy.
EG
Most of us don’t. I’m grateful to know that.
For anyone who’s feeling insulted (who shouldn’t be), I intended the word “some” to be understood.
The only part I would dream of voting for is the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. They have a Manifesto Commitment to abolish Income tax. Of course they have a lot of silly policies, but so do the rest of them.
1. Repeal victimless crime laws, including, but not limited to, drug possession, drug trafficking, gambling, and prostitution.
2. Repeal all welfare payments to the poor.
3. Institute Vermont Carry as UK law (everyone but violent felons has the right to carry a weapon on their person).
15% is cheap. They could go for 65% easily.
– Josh
Eaun, I can’t find the comment you’re referring to. I do find hypocritical libertarianism (any hypocrisy, for that matter) particularly distasteful, and I’ll disagree with it just as quick as I’ll disagree with a statism.
Guy, I figured you did, and, by the way, you’ll have a tough time getting me to feel insulted –being insulted is much easier.
Fair enough were they actually victimless. However, they aren’t. Drug possession & use, and the necessary trafficking, is inextricably linked to higher rates of crime & disorder. This is little to do with the illicit nature of the drugs, but more with the fact that the users are often unable to hold down a job and thus resort to crime to get the money to pay for the drugs they need. Legalising drugs will do little to stop this. There is a great deal of difference between the occasional use of marijuana or cocaine in middle class circles and the use of crack, heroin and so on in the addicted underclass. This point seems to miss libertarian netizens on a regular basis – I suggest you acquaint yourself with the real nature of hard-core drug abuse before calling for legalisation.
Prostitution has links to hard drug abuse and to organised crime. Legalising it may remove much (but not all) of the organised crime part, but probably little of the drug link.
Gambling is already legal in Britain.
This will not happen, simply due to the fact that very few people consider it acceptable. Had you said reduce welfare payments and make them time-limited on a more rational insurance basis, you might get somewhere.
The good old libertarian standby for all social problems – guns. For one thing, gun ownership was never widespread in the UK. For another, there is no credible evidence that widespread gun ownership reduces crime. For yet another, proper enforcement of existing law without undue bureaucracy and coupled with a speedy and equitable system of justice is FAR more effective at cutting crime.
Try reading through the comments on this thread.
EG
Euan, thanks for the link.
It is dangerous ground to be on when you find yourself suggesting guilt by association. Vehicles are inextricably linked to vehicular manslaughter. Ought we to ban them. I recognize this is a partial strawman, but you get my point. The individual right to conduct one’s life as they see fit should not be undermined or infringed upon because some (or even most) people abuse it.
Rony is a wimp, a piker, a short round. 15%? That’s a joke. Why not 100%? Just repael ALL laws. When nothing is illegal, there will be no criminals. ‘Of course, then there will be no need for agovernment, prisons or Lawyers. Not to mention Taxes, speed limits and the stray National ID Card.
I’d agree with this if that was as far as it went. If you abuse the rights you have and as a consequence give yourself problems, then those are your problems. On the other hand, if by abusing those rights you give ME problems…
It’s not guilt by association. It’s not that people who abuse drugs are more likely to commit crime because of their moral laxity, it’s that people who abuse drugs commit more crime because they need the money to pay for their habit and in many cases their habit makes it impossible to hold down a job which would provide this money. There is a vast difference between the odd snort of cocaine in middle-class drawing rooms (presumably the kind of drug use libertarians think should be permitted because they want to do it) and hard-core drug abuse by the addicts of the underclass (probably the sort of drug abuse the average libertarian has not a clue about). It is this difference, I submit, that the libertarian often completely misses and which utterly undermines the argument for legalisation.
EG
Euan, first, I have a very close relative who has been recently arrested for attempting to pawn stolen merchandise to satisfy a cocaine addiction. Second, I don’t use drugs, and except for the very brief experimental period with marijuana, I never have. Therefore, I am defiant of your generalization.
So should the responsible person who desires an occassional high be denied the right by the collective because some people can’t manage it? I don’t think so.
By the way, my wife is a social worker, working with all kinds of people with all kinds of disorders. This is one libertarian who has heard some nasty stories about how far people will go to satisfy a drug addiction -stories like straight men giving other men oral sex for money or sisters (two at once) sleeping with their brother for money. But the point remains, just because something can be and is abused, doesn’t give the collective the right or the authority to ban it.
Some years ago, I knew a woman who was both a prostitute and a heroin addict. I helped her wean herself off heroin after she asked me to, and it wasn’t a pleasant experience. She made it, though. I know many people who take marijuana on a regular basis, and a few who take other things & live in fairly squalid circumstances – unemployed, unemployable, criminal and in poverty. I don’t know about the inner cities of the US, but certain areas of Edinburgh (Wester Hailes, Sighthill, Granton, Muirhouse, etc) are full of this stuff.
Neither do I. However, and this is the point I am trying to get across, what about the highly irresponisible addicts who make the lives of others a misery through their crime, violence and disorder? Should that be permitted to continue because some responsible people can manage the occasional use of drugs?
Where lies summum bonum? In permitting unnecessary crime and disorder so that a few can have some fun? Or in preventing a few from having some fun in the interests of general order and reduce crime?
EG
When a victimless action becomes a victimed action (i.e. stealing to satisfy drug addiction), especially via the initiation of force, it should become a crime.
Well, well. Who would have believed it? We not only have lies, damned lies and Tony Blair, but Michael Howard has publicly called Blair a habitual liar. I like that.
Blair said something typically vapid like, “Well, if he wants to sink to that level …” (like there was a lower level than Tony Blair). But he does not dare defend himself.
Given that a great deal of drug (ab)use does in fact become a “victimed action,” it appears reasonable that the inconvenience of a few drawing room wannabe rebels is a smallish price to pay for reducing crime in wider society. Since one cannot have one rule for the addict underclass and another for the smart people, it seems to me quite in order to prohibit drugs and to properly and rigorously enforce the law.
EG
I totally disagree with you. The inhibition of any peaceful freedom for the so-called greater good is the ultimate price to pay. This is the reason why I’m a libertarian and you’re a conservative.
Euan – I see what you’re driving at with the “drug use isn’t a victimless crime”, but you’re wrong. Drug use *is* a victimless crime. Those that abuse drugs are harming no one but themselves when they take the drugs. This should be legal. The things they may do (theft, assault, murder etc) in the course of supporting their habit, however, shouldn’t be legal. But taking the drugs and committing crime to support a habit are two different things.
If someone goes on a holiday to Monte Carlo, sees how the rich and famous live and decides they want a piece of that, goes home, becomes greedy and starts stealing from an employer, should we criminalise holidays to Monte Carlo or any other salubrious destination? Or criminalise greed? Or how about just criminalising theft and let people take responsibility for themselves? This is precisely what happens with alcohol – it’s not illegal to drink and get drunk, but there are things that some people are prone to do when under the influence that are illegal. They must take responsibility for their actions; “being drunk” is not an acceptable excuse. A libertarian outcome that works in theory and practice! There’s no reason why it shouldn’t be extended to narcotics – I fail to see a distinction between them and alcohol, bar the legality issues.
So a high level of crime is a perfectly acceptable price to pay to allow a few people to legally snort chemicals up their nostrils? And people wonder why libertarianism makes no electoral headway.
In your circles, it may be a peaceful freedom. For the majority of drug users, and for the innocent bystanders forced to suffer the destructive consequences of their habit, it is most definitely not.
It has been estimated that over half of all crime against property in the UK is a result of drug abuse, mainly theft in order to raise cash to pay for the habit that makes the thieves unemployable. It is instructive to note that you seem to consider that the liberty of a few to chemically rot their septums is more important than the right of thousands to peaceably enjoy their lawful property.
EG
No, ISFMA, it doesn’t work in practice.
The practical results of drug abuse are, inter alia:
the avoidable spread of disease, notably hepatitis and HIV, which wastes economic resources in unnecessary medical care and poses a needless risk to others;
increased theft and other crime against property resulting from the need of unemployable addicts to secure cash to feed their habit;
a more violent and less secure society (witness the Dutch finally figuring out that tolerance of drug use really does have heavy negative externalities).
If you think these are worthwhile prices to pay, then I cannot possibly agree with you. I think it is most illuminating that even the ultra-tolerant Dutch are getting tired of the crime, violence and squalor that toleration results in. It simply doesn’t work in practice, and there is sufficient empirical data to show this.
It is disingenuous to compare a desire for a wealthy lifestyle with a drug habit. People may steal in order to enjoy a high style of life, but this is not an addiction. Addicts steal because they are hooked on the rubbish they consume and that consumption often makes it impossible for them to earn money legitimately. Legalising drugs might reduce their price, but it won’t eliminate the crime and disease which surrounds the habit.
EG
Another thought, if drug use was decriminalised prices of drugs would fall dramatically as normal market conditions like competition force suppliers to cut costs. It’s considerably cheaper to be an addict if what you’re addicted to is legal. Thus supporting a habit would become much more affordable. You don’t see that many people committing crimes to support their alcoholism – addicts can drink themselves to death quite cheaply. In Australia you can buy a 4 litre cask of (awful) wine for $8-10. Alcohol level of 10.5%. I can’t see why the same thing wouldn’t happen for smack, crack, speed, coke etc. if they were legalised.
Euan – I can’t see how you can possibly make a distinction between alcohol and narcotics. Surely you must be in support of the criminalisation of consumable alcohol. If not, why not? I smell a double standard…
I should have said “I can’t see how you can possibly make a distinction between alcohol and narcotics if utilising your argument.”
Since far greater social problems are caused by alcohol abuse, surely you’d be in favour of improving society by banning the consumption of alcohol, in the same way you say the Dutch have/will with other drugs?
And criminalizing drug use in England has done what to stave off the real crime where victims are actually involved? News flash: theft is illegal. What makes you think that someone who is willing to steal, though it’s illegal, is not willing to use drugs just because a law says they can’t. Legislation in these issues (just like gun control) generally only infringes on the rights of those who would exercise them appropriately anyway.
It’s not easy to become addicted to alcohol, and the number of alcoholics in relation to the number of people who drink is very small. However, it is very easy to become addicted to many drugs – in some cases, once or twice is enough – and the proportion of addicts among the number of people who use drugs is extremely high. That is the difference, and that is why the same thing does NOT happen with smack, crack, speed, etc., as the Dutch experience shows.
If it was as addictive as many drugs, then yes, I would be. But it isn’t – which is why the two are NOT comparable – so I’m not.
There is no doubt that alcohol abuse causes problems, as does drug abuse. I doubt very much if the cost of alcohol-related problems is remotely comparable to the problems caused by drugs, though.
Drugs have been illegal in Britain for decades. The drug problem has, however, become significant only in relatively recent times. It’s reasonable to conclude from these simple facts that the problems caused by drugs are not the result of their illegality, and therefore that there is no logical reason to suppose that legalisation would solve the problem.
Alcohol has been legal in Britain for centuries – in fact, I can’t think of a period when it was not. Alcohol abuse was a major problem in some parts of society in the 19th century, gradually became less of a problem in the earlier 20th (not to say everything was perfect, of course, but it was LESS of a problem), and is once more becoming a bigger problem.
It seems there are deeper reasons that illegality or availability. I think these need to be understood and dealt with, but I see no merit in the idea that legalising drugs will in any way help.
EG
Fair enough were they actually victimless. However, they aren’t. Drug possession & use, and the necessary trafficking, is inextricably linked to higher rates of crime & disorder.
Just like alcohol during Prohibition.
– Josh
That’s not the point. The point is that illegalizing it does nothing to prevent degenerate people from being degenerate.
I think I’m with Stag on this one. If the crime rate in the UK is serious enough to warrant a politician’s promise to cut it by 15% if re-elected to a third term, then why didnt the same set of politicoes do something about cutting crime in their first two terms?
And legalising it won’t do anything to solve the problems that drug abuse causes – and that IS the point. Real world problems are more important than socio-political theory.
EG
As we have discussed before, the collective bears the burden of proof when it comes to infringement upon rights. Because there is no demonstrable or statistical evidence suggesting that illegalizing drugs does anything to prevent victimed crimes, real crimes, there is no reason for the collective to outlaw it. This isn’t socio-political theory, it’s disgust with tyranny of the collective.
I don’t know what makes you think you, the collective, or anyone else has the responsibility and especially the authority to solve other people’s “real world problems.”
My apologies for suggesting the Isle of Man for a prison island — I must have been drinking too much, or thinking too much, perhaps. I MEANT to say the Isle of Wight.
Anyway, seeing as Australia seems to have grown out of being a penal colony, perhaps the Falklands or some similar desolate isle still owned by Britain? The only criteria should be that the place is a.) remote and b.) bloody inhospitable. Tent cities etc. come to mind.
Oh, and Mr. Gray, I’m not a libertarian, not by any stretch of the imagination, so I have no problem with the State dealing with malfeasance. It bloody well should, considering that most of modern crime has come about through State action (or rather, inaction).
Euan – a lot of it comes down to accepting reality. From where I see it, you’re on a hiding to nothing with your argument. If the social costs of drugs are far higher than that of alcoholism (which I doubt they are), then clearly the criminalising of drug use has shown itself to be an utter failure. The effort to protect the few by denying access to the whole of society – even the responsible majority – hasn’t worked. Time for a change of tactic.
If drugs weren’t rampant in our communities, you would have plenty of merit for arguing for prohibition. But from where I’m standing, you’re flogging a dead horse that never galloped anyway.
We shall soon be able to identify genes which conduce to dependency on drugs and other addictions. Soon afterwards, we will have eliminated potential addicts by pre-natal screening and abortion or in-utero genetic modification. In the process, a great deal of violent crime will be forestalled. Besides, the rapid drop in the birth rate means that far fewer youths aged 15-30, the chief committers of such crime, will be entering the world soon. A golden age of freedom from the annoyance of anti-social behaviour is beckoning.
HG Wells, your comment would terrify the crap out of most libertarians. It sounds awfully collectivist/socialist/statist/nanny-statist. I hope that you were being sarcastic.
Indeed, such as accepting the reality that tolerance/decriminalisation simply doesn’t work and only makes the problems worse, as the Dutch have found.
Not so. Drugs were illegal for a long time before the problems arose. The problems are not caused by criminalising the things, nor does legalising them again solve the problems.
If you think criminalising doesn’t work (although it used to), and if legalising doesn’t work (even if it does in theory, the practice is utterly different), then what is the answer?
EG
Euan – there’s a lot you’re saying that is plain wrong.
This isn’t right at all. Drug laws are nearly always reactive. For example, ecstacy was being used for years before governments all over the world got around to banning it in the late 80s.
Wrong wrong wrong! From the information I’ve found, your Dutch example doesn’t stack up. There is a clear differentiation between “soft” (pot, ecstacy) and “hard” (coke, smack, crack, speed) drugs. I’m not going to go on about the nuances of Dutch drug policy – read the link to find out more. When you do, you will see that what I’m calling for and what’s going on in the Netherlands are two VERY different scenarios. Your use of the Dutch experience to rebut my arguments does not stack up.
AHA! Here we get to the good stuff. The point is, Euan, that the problems are not SOLVED by criminalising. Not even slightly. Criminalising drugs only introduces a whole lot of new problems. Including in places like the Netherlands, which outlaws the manufacture and distribution of the relevant substances. Hence why the Netherlands isn’t a good example for our purposes.
It’s never been thoroughly tried, so how do you know? I’m talking about complete decriminalisation, which is what I was getting at from the start. Meaning companies can legally manufacture currently illicit drugs and sell them on the open market. This has never happened in the Netherlands, nor anywhere else. You have no case study with which to refute what I’m saying. Forget the Netherlands.
Aren’t you shooting yourself in the foot here? So what you’re saying is that drugs were always illegal (even though many weren’t, but for argument’s sake let’s move on) but IN SPITE of the presence of laws making drug use illegal, drug usage went from not being a problem to being a big problem? Oh dear…
So when neither criminalizing nor legalizing something “works” you would prefer to default on the side of less freedom? Come on Euan, it sounds like you’re defaulting because of some unjustifiable, maybe even emotional predisposition, and I know you’re smarter than that.
I am afraid that you Brits are not experienced enough in the use of the English language to understand political double-speak. We Yanks have it down pretty well thanks to extensive tutoring from former president Clinton. When Tony Blair promised that “Labour would cut crime by 15% if it was elected for a third term” he meant that they would cut THEIR crime by 15%! A pretty bold promise when you think about it.
Heartless – Very good point, but I just don’t trust him. Cut his government’s crime and iron-fisted, Stalinesque propaganda against the taxpayers by 15%? Yes, too bold a task. But your point is well made.
ISFMA I agree with you on this.
Tobacco. If it wasn’t available at the corner shop and people had to buy it off criminal elements then that is a lot of junkies needing a fix and they would do anything to get it, much like their heroin/cocaine addicted cohorts.
Tobacco is legal, is taxed and is proven to be highly addictive and bad for human health.
I’m not anti tobacco, its just a good example as it IS very addictive .
Treat them all the same, legalise everything.
Less people in the Netherlands smoke cannabis than in the UK. It is not legal in the Netherlands just decriminalised. Upon legalisation here in the UK there may be a quick surge of interest which will die off and interest will stabilise.
“…and if legalising doesn’t work…
It’s never been thoroughly tried, so how do you know? I’m talking about complete decriminalisation”
Err… weren’t most of these things (well, heroin, or at least opium, & various cocaine derivatives) perfectly legal in the Victorian era? As far as I understand, they didn’t cause huge social problems; Gin was blamed for far more ills than laudanam.
I completely agree with those who suggest that all these substances should be freely & legally available, and indeed pointing to the Dutch experience with hard drugs is in no way relevant as the Dutch have never legalized any hard drugs, or indeed cannabis when you come down to it. One consequence of this (and of the various US-sponsored UN treaties which enforce drug prohibition worldwide) is that the prices of these drugs remain obscenely high; there’s a huge, huge markup between the coca farmers in Columbia and the dealers on the streets of Amsterdam and London. Cut that markup, & addicts wouldn’t be mugging people for their mobile phones. Also, with a ready supply of decent product, it *is* actually possible to hold a job down etc. whilst maintaining a fairly serious hard drug habit. Many addicts in the UK used to do this prior to the repeal of the ‘british approach’ where doctors prescribed heroin.
Really? A century ago, the possession and carrying of firearms was perfectly normal here. Firearms were sold without licence in gunshops and ironmongers in virtually every town in the country, and grand department stores such as Selfridge’s even offered customers an in-house range. The market was not just for sporting guns: there was a thriving domestic industry producing pocket pistols and revolvers, and an extensive import trade in the cheap handguns that today would be called “Saturday Night Specials”. Conan Doyle’s Dr Watson, dropping a revolver in his pocket before going out about town, illustrates a real commonplace of that time. Beatrix Potter’s journal records a discussion at a small country hotel in Yorkshire, where it turned out that only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver.
For a long time it has been possible to draw a map of the United States showing the inverse relationship between liberal gun laws and violent crime. At one end of the scale are the “murder capitals” of Washington, Chicago and New York, with their gun bans (New York City has had a theoretical general prohibition of handguns since 1911); at the other extreme, the state of Vermont, without gun laws, and with the lowest rate of violent crime in the Union (a 13th that of Britain). From the late Eighties, however, the relative proportions on the map have changed radically. Prior to that time it was illegal in much of the United States to bear arms away from the home or workplace, but Florida set a new legislative trend in 1987, with the introduction of “right-to-carry” permits for concealed firearms.
Issue of the new permits to law-abiding citizens was non-discretionary, and of course aroused a furore among gun control advocates, who predicted that blood would flow in the streets. The prediction proved false; Florida’s homicide rate dropped, and firearms abuse by permit holders was virtually non-existent. State after state followed Florida’s suit, and mandatory right-to-carry policies are now in place in 35 of the United States.
In a nationwide survey of the impact of the legislation, John Lott and David Mustard of the University of Chicago found that by 1992, right-to-carry states had already seen an 8 per cent reduction in murders, 7 per cent reduction in aggravated assaults, and 5 per cent reduction in rapes. Extrapolating from the 10 states that had then implemented the policy, Lott and Mustard calculated that had right-to-carry legislation been nationwide, an annual average of some 1,400 murders, 4,200 rapes and more than 60,000 aggravated assaults might have been averted. The survey has lent further support to the research of Professor Kleck, of Florida State University, who found that firearms in America serve to deter crime at least three times as often as they appear in its commission.
Over the last 25 years the number of firearms in private hands in the United States has more than doubled. At the same time the violent crime rate has dropped dramatically, with the significant downswing following the spread of right-to-carry legislation. The US Bureau of Justice observes that “firearms-related crime has plummeted since 1993”, and it has declined also as a proportion of overall violent offences. Violent crime in total has declined so much since 1994 that it has now reached, the bureau states, “the lowest level ever recorded”. While American “gun culture” is still regularly the sensational subject of media demonisation in Britain, the grim fact is that in this country we now suffer three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States.
Lott’s “analysis” is so deeply flawed and has been thoroughly trashed so often I am amazed that anyone keeps bring it up. He’s been called the “Bellesiles of the right” many times, and is basically just plain wrong.
There is NO credible evidence that widespread ownership of arms reduces crime. None. Zip.
EG
This was dealt with on another thread some time ago. The US has a per capita homicide rate four times that of the UK – how is this explained by the “guns cut crime” theory?
EG
James Hellyer writes:
“A century ago, the possession and carrying of firearms was perfectly normal here.”
Sadly, you’ll never convince those who prefer to ignore facts.
Still, let’s just bang another nail in the flimsy coffin of Mr. Gray’s claim. The quote is lifted from the Guardian but I’m afraid I can’t provide a hotlink to it.
96 years ago, two Latvian anarchists, who had failed to assassinate the President of France, crossed the Channel, where they attempted an armed robbery in Tottenham. When the attempt failed (the victims fought back) the anarchists shot their way out and (in a display of perfect stupidity) hijacked a tram.
“A dramatic pursuit ensued involving horses and carts, bicycles, cars and a hijacked tram. The fleeing anarchists fired some 400 shots, leaving a policeman and a child dead, and some two dozen other casualties, before they were ultimately brought to bay. They had been chased by an extraordinary posse of policemen and local people, armed and unarmed. Along the way, the police (whose gun cupboard had been locked, and the key mislaid) had borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by in the street, while other armed citizens joined the chase in person.”
Armed citizens, eh? So much for Mr. Gray’s: “…gun ownership was never widespread in the UK”!
Euan, you keep mentioning this “trashing” of Lott’s work without substantiating it. The best substantiation of it you gave me last time was a link to a guy who basically said Lott was deceptive because he used too much data. Quite the trashing I suppose.
GCooper writes:
” The quote is lifted from the Guardian…”
I did, in fact, intend to type The Daily Telegraph. A strange mistake to have made.
Then again, having read Matthew D’Ancona’s dripping wet column on Sunday, and the appalling Rachel Sylvester’s Portillista whimpering in Monday’s edition, perhaps the error might be excused?
Also, I am wondering if Euan is planning to stay silent on the drugs issue as discussed earlier. I would be interested to hear his response.
there is no credible evidence that widespread gun ownership reduces crime.
However, there *is* plenty of evidence that widespread gun owndership reduces the number of criminals (usually one at a time). That’s good enough for me.
Rich
Kim,
Amazingly enough it was Lord Wedgewood (aka Tony Benn) who once suggested that East Falklands could be made into a UK Devil’s Island only without the jungles, sharks, French and guillotine but with lots of penguins and sheep to watch.
On second thoughts I can see lots of Tories asking for transportation to East Falklands … all those virgin sheep.