Sunny has posted only part of the relating news:

“The Olympic Games in London will be protected from above by snipers on board military helicopter. Sources say the military crackshots will fly above the capital in case terrorists attempt an atrocity at the event in Stratford, in the east of the city.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/olympics/article-2063920/London-2012-Olympics-Snipers-helicopters-Games.html

The official excuse for cracking down on protests is that organised protests would provide a good cover for terrorist attacks. Btw don’t blame me for any of this. I didn’t think bidding for the Olympics was a good idea anyway. Check out this news report in the Evening Standard of 31 January 2008 about the Olympics gravy train:

“The full scale of the bumper salaries being paid to London 2012 Olympic chiefs has been revealed. Senior executives at the Olympic Delivery Authority are being paid up to £110,000 each more than previously thought. Seven have salaries in excess of £200,000, more than Gordon Brown, who earns £188,848. “

The “war on terror” was the excuse wheeled out by Tone for extending the length of time suspects could be banged up without being charged.

So now it’s being wheeled out again, so where’s Big Brother Watch? Where’s Paul “I’m not right-wing, I’m a libertarian” Staines? Where’s Delingpole?

Come on lads, never mind the “fingers in ears and I can’t hear you”, where’s your principles? All those organisations with “Freedom” at their heart?

But we know the answer. Most “Libertarians” want freedom for Themselves Personally Now, and stuff anyone else, especially if they’re poor or don’t agree with them.

I would shoot Delingpole with an Surface to Ass missile! Right in the ass! With a missile! In the ass! The ass! Delingpole! In the ass!

Well aimed piece.

FWIW In answer to the question posed by the headline I suspect David Davis will surface again at the H of C climate skeptics conference ‘climate fools day’ which we can all look forward to at the end of this month

Tagging David Davis as a libertarian is like calling Tony Blair a leftie.

However, Sunny is absolutely correct to say that the current government have no more respect for the civil liberties of our citizens than had the previous one. Last weekend they banned Muslims Against Crusades whilst the Met police arrested 150 alleged EDL supporters having a drink on the grounds that they might potentially commit a breach of the peace.

Nobody seemed to notice.

We libertarians are well aware of our fair-weather friends on the left and the right. In both cases, a period in opposition tends to remind them that untrammelled state power is not a good thing, but once back in control of the levers a strange forgetfulness takes hold.

Good post Sunny. You could also mention Kenneth Clark who told us during the Blair years that we should stand up to the Americans. more Yet, he has caved in to demands from the US CIA. See, the American spooks are non to pleased in having all their shit revealed in court.

So like all right wing thugs their idea is to keep the people in the dark, by holding trials in secrecy. All these Euro sceptics who whinge on constantly about national sovereignty, seem very relaxed about doing what they are told by our American cousins. So a bill is going to be pushed through to take away more of our freedoms. And you won’t here a squeak from them or David Davies.

The Olympic games are in themselves an infringement of free speech becuase of the extremely restrictive anti-free-speech provisions of the law; for example, if one is organising an event in London next year, it is illegal to use the phrase “London 2012″ to promote the event.

Where’s a real liberal when you need one, eh?

http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2005/07/a_thought_on_th.html

Defending the right to protest, yes, even in P Square. Old though, I’ll grant you that.

As was my inclusion in a book a piece about this very point.

http://books.google.com/books?id=7JPGtm0YY54C&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&dq=worstall+brian+haw&source=bl&ots=LEylWyi_co&sig=ra8gJ3avJACjtDye6XHtjCv7jek&hl=en&ei=kFXJTr5Nge76Bte6sA0&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Or a more recent defence of the right of free speech.

http://timworstall.com/2011/11/11/oh-puhleese-do-fuck-off-you-grotty-little-fascist/

As I say, where are the real liberals when you need them?

Good. I very much doubt a lefty understands Liberty so fake indignation on a spurious niche topic really does seem irrelevant to the point of…….boredom.

From my point of view if we need to restrict the right to protest, and we need surface to air missiles and snipers in helicopters then we do not need the Olympics. Cancel them

Well I imagine the real libertarians are still banging on about abuses to civil liberties, and are still being completely overshadowed by the considerably more well known fake libertarians like Staines et al.

@ 8 Phil

“if one is organising an event in London next year, it is illegal to use the phrase “London 2012? to promote the event.”

Really? That’s stupid. Can you get away with a comma: “London, 2012″?

But there is no alternative to the policies the Conservatives are following. Any dissent will put our economy in great peril and so, sadly, must be crushed.

9
So you haven’t heard of left libertarians then?

@14: “So you haven’t heard of left libertarians then?”

How about John Stuart Mill? His essay: On Liberty, is widely regarded as one of the seminal texts of Libertarians:
http://www.pinkmonkey.com/dl/library1/jst01.pdf

From Chapter 1:

That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise.

JS Mill also famously wrote: Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.

Maybe the government could establish some protest zones, like the Chinese did for the Beijing Olympics, where protests would be allowed?

It might be worth pressing the government on this, to see if they squirm at being asked whether or not they share the Chinese government’s commitment to basic civil liberties such as free political speech and protest.

I quite like the idea of a campaign calling for the government to establish such protest zones, since it would highlight just how fragile our basic rights and freedoms actually are, while challenging the government, and Parliament, to show that the UK really is freer and more democratic than China.

Tories don’t care about civil liberties – otherwise they’d be kicking up a stink about Francis Maude’s threats to curtail the right to strike. Ultimately in a capitalist society, conservatism and authoritarianism are inseparable.

Maybe the government could establish some protest zones, like the Chinese did for the Beijing Olympics, where protests would be allowed?

How about outside St Paul’s cathedral………….

The long term occupation style protests are not a civil liberties issue.

No one has the right to permanently appropriate public land for their exclusive use- as the Occupy mob do and as Brian Haw did.

I noticed this trend a few weeks back when a Big Brother Watch director was telling the news that Occupy LSX had no right to protest.

@14 – I have, just thought it was a story.

[deleted]

@17

“Ultimately in a capitalist society, conservatism and authoritarianism are inseparable.”

Or indeed:

“Ultimately in a socialist society, conservatism and authoritarianism are inseparable.”

They’re a trick of the light, Sunny.

@14 – Of course he hasn’t, silly question.

@22 “Freedom and rights of propery trump rights of people.”

What rights of people are there that are not covered by freedom and property rights?

but once back in control of the levers a strange forgetfulness takes hold.

We constantly attacked Labour for their callous disregard for civil liberties too

The war on terror was an excuse was it?

Well when one of your moderate, picked on, traitorous British Muslims from some dark ages Islamic shit hole that was once a part of London blows themselves up during the opening or closing ceremony….we’ll see how much of an excuse it was.

You have the right to protest.

You seem to think your small group has a right to subjugate any public space for their own ends and effectively stop other people using it. You seem to think your views are more important than other peoples, and because of this it allows you to cause inconvienience to them, and disrupt their lives.

@29 – As the police have pointed out recently, no, you do not. Please stop spreading dangerous lies.

@28 – And it was Muslims who were drinking before going down to disrupt the Memorial Day Cel…oh wait, no, it was your kind.

@ Leon

Ok, let’s see how much you like it if some attention seeking mix of crusties and upper middle class well to-do students camp out in front of your do, after mistaking it for Labour party HQ. They then proceed to make lots of noise, take lots of drugs and defecate everywhere, annoying all your neighbours and preventing your friends from visiting you.

OWS don’t represent the 99% and never will. They do represent a small section of the far left who haven’t got it into their heads that the attention seeking disruption and publicity they cause and seek negatively affects other people, and the right to protest doesn’t automatically give you a right to do that, or break the law.

They also seem to have a problem understanding representative democracy, but that’s a topic for another day.

@31 Re: Defecating everywhere – one of the first actions by the police in regards to London was to remove the portacabins for occupy on the pretext of cleaning them, then never returning them, since they can arrest people for public defecation. Though they can’t arrest people who make arrangements with local businesses to use their facilities instead.

From my point of view if we need to restrict the right to protest, and we need surface to air missiles and snipers in helicopters then we do not need the Olympics. Cancel them

I did wonder how many terrorists have access to aircraft that we would need SAMs.

I have no idea of the effectiveness of snipers in helicopters vs. suicide bombers in very crowded spaces.

David Davis merely posed as a civil libertarian.

The Daily Mail had this story last year.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1326826/Cameron-told-Rip-outdated-union-laws-rival-David-Davis.html

David wanted to further curb what little power the unions have. Not much of a libertarian, is he? Scratch the a right libertarian and you’ll find an authoritarian underneath.

@29

“You seem to think your small group has a right to subjugate any public space for their own ends and effectively stop other people using it. You seem to think your views are more important than other peoples, and because of this it allows you to cause inconvienience to them, and disrupt their lives”.

What a crock. But you also play the victim here. It’s so undignified.

@20

“No one has the right to permanently appropriate public land for their exclusive use- as the Occupy mob do and as Brian Haw did”.

Have you ever heard of the Inclosures (sic) Acts? Define”public” land.

yeah I know its an american cartoon, but it still sums up what Libertarianism means to me.

http://www.leftycartoons.com/the-24-types-of-libertarian/

moving on.

Tyler. Supporting the right to protest conveniently like a true right wing libertarian.

@ brockley jack

You clearly have no idea. As a libertarian, I believe you should be free to do as youu please as long as what you do does not adversely affect others.

Clearly the occupy LSX people do no fit that criteria. They are affecting St. Pauls and the people who use it negatively to further their own agenda. Last time I checked, a cethedral wasn’t home to the LSX.

The only reason these clowns need to do such things is to gain publicity. Rarely are they taken particularly seriously by the general public, being an amalgam of loony lefties, anarchists, students and associated other crusties. If there was a broader real movement behind it, simply they wouldn’t need to seek so much attention. As it is though, attention seeking is all they’ve got, and people quickly tire of that.

@39 Tyler

You are inconveniencing me by being an arse on this blog. Where does that fit with your libertorian principles?

A challenging issue for libertarians of all shades is what to do about drug addicts, whose predictable health problems impose costs on the NHS which are paid for out of tax revenues.

@33 SAMs located in London. Not a good idea, unless you actually want buildings and people showered with debris from disintegrating aircraft.

Snipers in helicopters. However carefully flown, helicopters move about. A stable platform is essential for sniper fire, unless you want to see the bodies stack up faster than you can say collateral damage.

Keep the public afraid of being pureed by maniacs with funny accents and corporations can do more damage to the country than the Luftwaffe ever managed

Oh Leon!
Comparing disruption to threats of (already carried out) suicide bombing !
Desperate!

And actually the, nothing to do with me, EDL were going to take on those Occupy drop outs who refused to move for the ceremony!
Facts dear, facts.

I do see that the terrible injustice if a load of trustafari being moved on by Plod is all consuming. As side issue, our democracy has been systematically usurped by the EU and in the Euro zone the entire European left are supportive of puppet governments who have neatly demonstrated that if you cannot pay your debts you have no freedom at all.

Thanks for all the help resisting this relatively small potatoes power grab.Not.

I do see that a load of trustafari being moved on by Plod is all consuming. As a side issue, our democracy has been systematically usurped by the EU and in the Euro zone the entire European left are supportive of installing puppet governments ,who have neatly demonstrated that if you cannot pay your debts ,you have no freedom at all.

Thanks for all the help resisting this relatively small potatoes power grab.Not.

A challenging issue for libertarians of all shades is what to do about drug addicts, whose predictable health problems impose costs on the NHS which are paid for out of tax revenues.

Well the simple answer, of course, is not to have a health service funded by taxation.

However the health costs associated with drug addiction are mainly a result of the prohibition of the drugs themselves- every time an addict sticks a needle in his arm he is playing Russian roulette. Most addicts could live worthwhile and fulfilled lives if their drug of choice was not made illegal by the state and most would happily sign away any rights to future NHS treatment if they could access good quality drugs of predictable strength at a reasonable price.

But the health costs due to drug addiction are tiny by comparison with the costs of crime, policing etc caused by prohibition. Interestingly, I happened to be in the company several retired high ranking police officers and was astonished to find that they were all in favour of legalisation

@ 45

So… your attempts to defend democracy are noble and all important, but when people different from you try to defend democracy, that’s something to sneer at?

Ever heard of the Judean People’s Front?

What have Occupy got to do with Democracy, the are a tiny self important collection of campers who the country does not agree with anyway.

And yet, prominent civil liberties voices on the right are completely silent. They get all annoyed about ID cards but can’t even raise a murmur when basic rights such as the right to protest or assembly are threatened.

I imagine they were driven away by left wing rioters. What do you expect the consequences of a riot to be?

@ 48

“What have Occupy got to do with Democracy, the are a tiny self important collection of campers who the country does not agree with anyway.”

You’re a single individual. What have you got to do with democracy?

As for the population not agreeing, every survey I’ve seen shows they do. At least insofar as Occupy’s message is “the system is wrong and poor to middle-income people are getting screwed by the rich”.

To make this abundantly clear: Occupy are pro-democracy because they protest about the amount of political power put into the hands of a small elite. Does your interest in democracy vanish when it’s supported by someone whose face you dislike?

Re: 41. Bob B

“A challenging issue for libertarians of all shades is what to do about drug addicts, whose predictable health problems impose costs on the NHS which are paid for out of tax revenues.”

Piece of cake, for drugs such as cannabis and ecstasy. Legalise, tax and regulate.

Heroin can be prescribed to addicts and taken under clinical supervision. It’s a lot cheaper than street prices suggest, and is a very effective way of reducing heroin related crime and the costs associated with it.

50-
In 2011 give or take small oscillations 40% of the public persistently blame Labour most for the cuts, only 25% blame the Tories. While a consistent 55-59% of people have said all year that the cuts are necessary.Thats the real story.
20% supported Occupy although more,as you say, were able to support various formulations of what they might be in favour ..( The world being a better place basically) You want to take it seriously you go ahead. I promise you that Conservatives rejoiced to see Ed Milliband support the crusties.
The Party they most resemble is the Green Party which is the only one to endorse them outright .3% last time I looked, it vies with the BNP as the least small extremist Party. Should anyone wish to vote for some Party wishing to Nationalise the banks I see not a thing they could do about it .It has been suggested, (by Oswald Mosley. and Seamus Milne at least)

@ 52 Paul

“In 2011 give or take small oscillations 40% of the public persistently blame Labour most for the cuts, only 25% blame the Tories. While a consistent 55-59% of people have said all year that the cuts are necessary.Thats the real story.”

I don’t think the comparison between parties is all that vital in this instance, although obviously it’ll be important come election time. As for saying “the cuts are necessary”, what does that mean exactly? I’m generally against the cuts but I don’t oppose all cuts everywhere. Similarly, even the most ardent pro-cuts supporter presumably disagrees with a few possible cuts, unless they’re an anti-state anarchist.

Does it mean they agree with the government’s current policy? Does it mean they agree with cuts, but only those that don’t affect them personally? There’s shades and shades of meaning.

“20% supported Occupy although more,as you say, were able to support various formulations of what they might be in favour ..( The world being a better place basically)”

That’s a fair comment regarding Occupy to some extent. Again, this comes down to what you mean: do they support Occupy’s basic aims (hard to pin down, but I think my synopsis earlier was close in terms of the lowest common denominator)? Do they support everything ever uttered by someone involved with Occupy? Do they support Occupy’s methods? Do they generally agree with Occupy but find them personally annoying? Again, you get very different answers depending on the exact question.

@ 51 Simon

“Heroin can be prescribed to addicts and taken under clinical supervision. It’s a lot cheaper than street prices suggest, and is a very effective way of reducing heroin related crime and the costs associated with it.”

I’d be tempted to go further and just legalise it for adults. Making it prescription-only still allows money to go into the hands of organised criminals, and doesn’t fully remove people from the dangers of getting a bad dose, owing money to said criminals, etc. Although I also don’t blame you for being cautious.

Alcohol is very popular and potentially highly addictive. We do have a black market for booze, but it doesn’t destroy lives or (as far as I know) prop up gangster in the same way as heroin, crack etc.

51. Simon

Heroin can be prescribed to addicts and taken under clinical supervision. It’s a lot cheaper than street prices suggest, and is a very effective way of reducing heroin related crime and the costs associated with it.

Care to produce any evidence that giving heroin users reduces crime to any noticeable extent much less that it does so in an effective way?

We have tried this. We have given free heroin to mainly Scottish users. And they do rob other people a bit less, but not much less.

The only way to reduce heroin-related crime is to accept that it does not exist. Crime is crime. It is caused by criminals. Criminals who break one set of laws and hence are more likely to break another set. The solution is jail.

@ 55 SMFS

“Care to produce any evidence that giving heroin users reduces crime to any noticeable extent much less that it does so in an effective way?”

It’s far from perfect evidence, but when they banned another drug in America, crime shot up astronomically.

“We have tried this. We have given free heroin to mainly Scottish users. And they do rob other people a bit less, but not much less.”

That’s because we’ve been floating in the strange world of decriminalisation. Legalisation is a different matter entirely.

“The only way to reduce heroin-related crime is to accept that it does not exist. Crime is crime. It is caused by criminals. Criminals who break one set of laws and hence are more likely to break another set. The solution is jail.”

That’s too convenient. Criminals are defined by crime. If you change the nature of crime – such as by legalising something that does no harm to other people – then you change the number of criminals. If a product or activity that was important to you was banned, I doubt you’d be saying “the solution is jail”. You’d be demanding that the ban was lifted.

Crime isn’t an absolute, it’s a human institution. I know for a fact that you’re intelligent enough to appreciate this, yet you seem to forget it at opportune times. You’re obviously a rational person, but bloodlust seems to overrule your reason.

56. Chaise Guevara

It’s far from perfect evidence, but when they banned another drug in America, crime shot up astronomically.

Did it? Are you sure?

That’s because we’ve been floating in the strange world of decriminalisation. Legalisation is a different matter entirely.

The prescription of heroin is and always has been legal I seem to remember. But can you explain to me why it is that free heroin, if it is decriminalised, has less of an impact than cheap heroin if it is legalised?

That’s too convenient. Criminals are defined by crime. If you change the nature of crime – such as by legalising something that does no harm to other people – then you change the number of criminals. If a product or activity that was important to you was banned, I doubt you’d be saying “the solution is jail”. You’d be demanding that the ban was lifted.

A lot of things important to me are banned. And yes I call for the law to be changed. But I don’t mug people to exercise my ability to break those laws. By and large I just don’t break those laws. You have missed the point. In general I agree with you. The fewer crimes we have, the fewer criminals. Which is why Racial Vilification laws and most regulations and drink driving laws all ought to be repealed.

However taking heroin is not something anyone is forced to do. Everyone knows it is illegal and bad for you. Users have to search out people to introduce them to the habit. They have to search high and low for a reliable supply. They choose to do so. It is not important to them, it is merely very pleasurable. They can stop any time they like. They choose not to by and large.

Thus people who do it are people who feel themselves above and beyond the law. To paraphrase Keith Richards’ famous sub-Nietzsche quote – for people who think they are above petty things like the law. Sociopaths in short. People who take heroin are also likely to steal. Because crime takes place in the mind of the criminal and people with criminal minds are likely to ignore the law.

So stop talking about heroin causing crime. It does not. People do not steal to feed their habit. They have a habit because they like to steal.

Crime isn’t an absolute, it’s a human institution. I know for a fact that you’re intelligent enough to appreciate this, yet you seem to forget it at opportune times. You’re obviously a rational person, but bloodlust seems to overrule your reason.

I don’t see anyone claim it is an absolute. But some people are just improperly socialised. They are incapable of feeling empathy or compassion. They usually go on to commit crime. Although they do sometimes do something useful with their time like create Apple. This may be biological. It may be a matter of up bringing. But it exists. It is a fact of life. No matter how many laws we do or do not have, such people are likely to violate them in the end. Because laws only apply to little people. Not them. Thus we will have to jail them.

You can deny this as long as you like. I simply suggest you go out and meet some of these sorts of people. You will see what I mean.

@ SMFS

“However taking heroin is not something anyone is forced to do. Everyone knows it is illegal and bad for you. Users have to search out people to introduce them to the habit. They have to search high and low for a reliable supply. They choose to do so. It is not important to them, it is merely very pleasurable. They can stop any time they like. They choose not to by and large.”

No, first time users usually don’t actively search it, they are introduced to it in a less then optimal setting. When hooked on heroin on the other hand, yes they search high and low for a suppy. Being addicted to heroin is not like being hung over, it is unfathomably worse. It being a choice or not is relative to the individual situation. Compare it to the choice you have being held at gunpoint. Sure, you still have a choice to follow the imaginary gunmans order or die. As you’ve advocated before, get some experience and then talk about choice.

“Thus people who do it are people who feel themselves above and beyond the law. To paraphrase Keith Richards’ famous sub-Nietzsche quote – for people who think they are above petty things like the law. Sociopaths in short. People who take heroin are also likely to steal. Because crime takes place in the mind of the criminal and people with criminal minds are likely to ignore the law.

So stop talking about heroin causing crime. It does not. People do not steal to feed their habit. They have a habit because they like to steal.”

Someone breaking the law doesn’t automatically mean that someone feel above and beyond the law. Would it be relevant at all to claim that users of alcohol are also likely to rape? No, but still many cases of rape have a connection to alcohol.

Crime takes place in the mind? That’s just silly. Again, I call you out as a troll.

“.. But some people are just improperly socialised. They are incapable of feeling empathy or compassion. They usually go on to commit crime. Although they do sometimes do something useful with their time like create Apple. This may be biological. It may be a matter of up bringing. But it exists. It is a fact of life. No matter how many laws we do or do not have, such people are likely to violate them in the end. Because laws only apply to little people. Not them. Thus we will have to jail them.

You can deny this as long as you like. I simply suggest you go out and meet some of these sorts of people. You will see what I mean.”

Being incapable of feeling empathy or compassion is the trademarks of a sociopath. They usually go on to become the big players in politics and the corporate world, given that they’ve had a priviliged upbringing. Too bad we can’t jail them. Because the laws only apply to the little people. You can deny this as long as you like. I simply suggest you go out and meet some of these sorts of people. You will see what I mean.

@ 57 SMFS

“Did it? Are you sure?”

Yep. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Effects_of_Prohibition

“The prescription of heroin is and always has been legal I seem to remember. But can you explain to me why it is that free heroin, if it is decriminalised, has less of an impact than cheap heroin if it is legalised?”

Because the “decriminalise and prescribe” approach still sees people becoming addicts on black-market product. Therefore at risk of a bad dose, or of owing money to gangsters.

“A lot of things important to me are banned. And yes I call for the law to be changed. But I don’t mug people to exercise my ability to break those laws. By and large I just don’t break those laws.”

Don’t change the subject. We were talking about the illegality of drugs, not muggings.

“You have missed the point. In general I agree with you. The fewer crimes we have, the fewer criminals. Which is why Racial Vilification laws and most regulations and drink driving laws all ought to be repealed. ”

I’d LOVE to know how you can condemn heroin use while giving people a free pass to drink-drive.

“However taking heroin is not something anyone is forced to do. Everyone knows it is illegal and bad for you. Users have to search out people to introduce them to the habit. They have to search high and low for a reliable supply. They choose to do so. It is not important to them, it is merely very pleasurable.”

And of course drink driving is a life essential, Captain Consistent?

“They can stop any time they like. They choose not to by and large.”

FFS. Must I point out what’s wrong with what you just said? Really? Do you really know that little about heroin, or indeed narcotics in general?

“People who take heroin are also likely to steal. Because crime takes place in the mind of the criminal and people with criminal minds are likely to ignore the law.”

If they take heroin cos they’re criminals, and steal cos they’re criminals, then banning heroin, however effectively, isn’t going to remove the causative factor, is it?

“So stop talking about heroin causing crime. It does not. People do not steal to feed their habit. They have a habit because they like to steal.”

Total and utter bollocks. Stealing is not in any way a prerequisite for drug abuse. I know you like to reinvent the world in your own head, but there’s no reason the rest should live in your fantasy land with all its ludicrous assumptions and easy black and white morality.

“I don’t see anyone claim it is an absolute. But some people are just improperly socialised. They are incapable of feeling empathy or compassion.”

That made me giggle, as the LC regular most fitting that description is, well, you.

“They usually go on to commit crime. Although they do sometimes do something useful with their time like create Apple. This may be biological. It may be a matter of up bringing. But it exists. It is a fact of life. No matter how many laws we do or do not have, such people are likely to violate them in the end. Because laws only apply to little people. Not them. Thus we will have to jail them.

Blah blah blah complex issues always have one precise cause that fits my worldview blah blah. What has this got to do with whether drugs should be legal?

59. Chaise Guevara

Yep.

One unsourced claim on Wikipedia is not exactly proof is it?

Because the “decriminalise and prescribe” approach still sees people becoming addicts on black-market product. Therefore at risk of a bad dose, or of owing money to gangsters.

How does it see people becoming users of a black-market product? If, by definition more or less, you get all the free heroin you want from your GP.

Don’t change the subject. We were talking about the illegality of drugs, not muggings.

I am not changing the subject. We are talking about how legalisation will reduce crime. I will point out again that even though many people disagree with many laws, by and large they do not murder people in breaking those laws. Heroin users often do. From which we can conclude there is something wrong with the sort of people who use heroin. As much as you would like to talk of something else.

And of course drink driving is a life essential, Captain Consistent?

Now who is changing the subject?

FFS. Must I point out what’s wrong with what you just said? Really? Do you really know that little about heroin, or indeed narcotics in general?

Point away. And find a single medical source that says that stopping heroin is not extremely common with virtually no side effects except it makes the users a little unhappy. Heroin users choose to use. By the time they are 40 or so most of them have lives and children and so they choose not to use. It is a simple choice that is rather easy to make.

If they take heroin cos they’re criminals, and steal cos they’re criminals, then banning heroin, however effectively, isn’t going to remove the causative factor, is it?

Which is precisely what I said. Why the f**k are you bothering to reply when you are not bothering to follow what the thread is about? Yes, they are criminals. No, they do not commit crime because of the drugs. If we legalise they will continue to steal. If we ban they will continue to steal. Which means there is no point in hoping for a drop in crime if we legalise. Come on, Chaise. Even Leon can do better than this.

Total and utter bollocks. Stealing is not in any way a prerequisite for drug abuse. I know you like to reinvent the world in your own head, but there’s no reason the rest should live in your fantasy land with all its ludicrous assumptions and easy black and white morality.

Not if you have been granted massive wealth, that is true. But that sociopathy will come out in some other way. Nor did I claim it was a pre-requisite. Like Leon, you’re just making sh!t up as you go along aren’t you? I said that people who like to break one set of laws are also more likely to break another set. Not all sociopaths use drugs. But it is a reasonable assumption that all people who use drugs are sociopaths. I point to any long-term drug-using rock star you like to name.

That made me giggle, as the LC regular most fitting that description is, well, you.

Then I know what I am talking about and you should listen to the expert. Come on, Chaise. Spare us the Leon.

Blah blah blah complex issues always have one precise cause that fits my worldview blah blah. What has this got to do with whether drugs should be legal?

Sorry but who said it had one precise cause? Who said this issue is complex? And oddly enough most of us adapt our world views to fit the evidence and our own experience. What do you do Chaise? Live in an ideologically driven fantasy world …. oh wait. It does not have a lot to do with whether drugs should be legal or not. But it does have a lot to do with whether we can reasonable expect a drop in crime if we legalise. As you claimed. We cannot.

@ 60 SMFS

“One unsourced claim on Wikipedia is not exactly proof is it?”

Nope. But every single bloody source I’ve ever seen has said that crime boomed massively under prohibition. Where’s your counter-example?

“How does it see people becoming users of a black-market product? If, by definition more or less, you get all the free heroin you want from your GP.”

Because you only get it when you’re already addicted, or at least already using. Hence, you originally got your heroin from an illicit source. This not obvious?

“I am not changing the subject. We are talking about how legalisation will reduce crime. I will point out again that even though many people disagree with many laws, by and large they do not murder people in breaking those laws.”

No, you really are changing the subject, because we were talking about whether the fact something you want to do is illegal makes it wrong. You decided to move onto the related topic of people committing different crimes in connection to the original thing you wanted to do. Presumably because you only like to see “legal” as being synonymous with “right” when the law doesn’t affect you.

“Heroin users often do. From which we can conclude there is something wrong with the sort of people who use heroin. As much as you would like to talk of something else.”

We can’t actually conclude that, there’s not enough information. For the record, I assume that people who use heroin would be more likely than average to commit crime even if they never took heroin. I also assume that, in some cases, heroin addiction caused them to commit crimes that actually harm other people and are therefore immoral, e.g. mugging.

“Now who is changing the subject?”

You brought up drink driving. I just pointed out that you’re a hypocrite.

“Point away. And find a single medical source that says that stopping heroin is not extremely common with virtually no side effects except it makes the users a little unhappy. Heroin users choose to use.”

Why would I want to find a source to defend a claim I’m not making? I’m not saying that stopping heroin use is rare, I’m saying that it’s difficult. More accurately, that avoiding quitting heroin is an incentive that leads people who otherwise would have not hurt people to hurt people.

“By the time they are 40 or so most of them have lives and children and so they choose not to use. It is a simple choice that is rather easy to make.”

It’s so easy to ignore other people’s problems, isn’t it? And to ignore the fact that surviving to 40 is itself a statistics-skewer for heroin users?

“Which is precisely what I said. Why the f**k are you bothering to reply when you are not bothering to follow what the thread is about? Yes, they are criminals. No, they do not commit crime because of the drugs. If we legalise they will continue to steal. If we ban they will continue to steal. Which means there is no point in hoping for a drop in crime if we legalise. Come on, Chaise. Even Leon can do better than this.”

So why do you disapprove of legalisation? Said that way it’s a net positive: more freedom for individuals, zero effect on society.

“Not if you have been granted massive wealth, that is true.”

Come again?

“But that sociopathy will come out in some other way.”

Only if it exists to begin with. Black and white morality again: you’re conflating the fact that someone is prepared to break the law without hurting people with the idea that they WANT to hurt people.

“Nor did I claim it was a pre-requisite.”

Fine. The desire to steal is also not a prerequisite for heroin use.

“I said that people who like to break one set of laws are also more likely to break another set.”

That’s basically the only sensible thing you’re saying.

“Not all sociopaths use drugs. But it is a reasonable assumption that all people who use drugs are sociopaths.”

No, it isn’t, unless you’re redefining “sociopath” to make that true by definition. It’s a fucking stupid assumption. I’ve used drugs. You’d struggle to call me a sociopath under any useful definition of the term. I don’t need to accept the definitions provided by an irrational zealot.

“I point to any long-term drug-using rock star you like to name.”

Could I possibly interest you in a beginners guide to statistics? You might find it helpful. It would certainly prevent futility-induced headaches on my part.

“Then I know what I am talking about and you should listen to the expert. Come on, Chaise. Spare us the Leon.”

I should probably stop and say that comparing me to Leon doesn’t work, even when you do it three times. Leon’s problem is rationality. So’s yours, albeit in a different fashion. I’m not a perfect rationalist, but I know I’m better than either of you in this regard.

“Sorry but who said it had one precise cause?”

You. To whit: “it’s cos they’re criminals, innit? Problem solved!!!!”

“Who said this issue is complex?”

Me. Almost all issues are more complex than you generally make them out to be.

“And oddly enough most of us adapt our world views to fit the evidence and our own experience. What do you do Chaise?”

Hilarious. I’m not actually a mirror of you, I don’t share your inability to see bias when it’s screaming in your face. More specifically, I don’t start with an answer I like the sound of, then ignore all logic so I can backfit the evidence to my preferred conclusion. That’s your job.

“Live in an ideologically driven fantasy world …. oh wait. It does not have a lot to do with whether drugs should be legal or not. But it does have a lot to do with whether we can reasonable expect a drop in crime if we legalise. As you claimed. We cannot.”

We can. But as I said before, why do you want drugs banned if you don’t think that legalising them will affect crime? Do you have a religious objection to personal freedom, or get your rocks off from controlling other people’s lives, or what? I know for a fucking fact that you’re not motivated by a desire to help drug users.

@55 – Great, when are you reporting to prison, Comrade SMFS? After all, you are technically breaking the law on defamation here all the time.

Oh, and “sociopathy” is a woolly, useless term which might refer to one of several mental disorders. Which DSM-IV disorder do you mean? Moreover, why does it not apply to you?

@43 – So they were about to commit multiple criminal offences, which were undeniably in breach of the peace? Well done, they’ve made the gang otherwise known as the police look reasonable in arresting them.