Difficult really

Tackle the causes of drug addiction

Humans like getting blitzed. And?

Reduce social inequalities: the demand for drugs is greatest in neighbourhoods where young people grow up feeling they are already life’s losers.
Create accessible and stable housing in the same neighbourhoods: this is the foundation for recovery in many drug users.

Ah, should have guessed. Everyone to be equal in council houses. Sure dealing with North Korea’s meth problem, innit?

38 thoughts on “Difficult really”

  1. Demand for drugs is not greatest in low income neighbourhoods. Such areas use drugs to gain income. Where drugs are used the most is in high income neighbourhoods where they have the money to buy the drugs.

  2. Allthegoodnamesaretaken

    Inspired by this post by Tyler Cowen, my unconventional colleague Bryan Caplan shares some of his conventional views, such as this one (that I also share):

    Most academics are out of touch with the real world and have little useful to say about it.

    (This view, of course, is not conventional among academics, most of whom fancy themselves as possessing deep insight into, and special knowledge of, the workings of the economy and society. In addition to these absurd fancies, most academics also believe – even more absurdly – that they are of nobler and purer character than are the icky likes of entrepreneurs, investors, and other profit-seeking business people – people who are actually willing and able to be productive in ways judged as such by real-world consumers; ways that not one academic in 500 could possibly pull off. Academics, in general, – and like politicians – ought not be taken seriously. A shockingly large number of them are ignorant and officious fools.)

    https://cafehayek.com/2015/02/some-links-514.html

  3. Select text, Ctrl + C, then Ctrl + V……. for the thousandth time – ‘Whatever the problem, socialism is the answer. Always’.

  4. “Humans like getting blitzed.”

    Any drug policy that doesn’t start from that is doomed to fail. And when half the front bench have done their bit to keep Escobar in hippos, it’s going to fail hard.

  5. It has been repeatedly found that giving an addict a house is a waste of a house.

    I suspect that a huge proportion of addicts come from broken or single parent homes. Promoting marriage and the family would do more good than any government policy of the past 50 years.

  6. I suppose nobody in the wealthy echelons has ever got drunk, got addicted to drugs…. I guess this must have come from a geographer or sociologist, and probably a Marxist to boot. They are the kind of people who view reality in such simplistic terms

  7. Does he mean all those celebs in and out of rehab clinics? I suppose they do suffer from social inequality – it’s tough being a millionaire – and live in neighbourhoods full of life’s losers… look at Hollywood.

    Clearly they need more accessible and stable mansions to live in.

  8. It really is a load of bo**ocks, isn’t it?
    You want to cut down on the drug scene, clamp down on immigration. Simple as that. Although probably a bit late now. Wholesale deportations would be needed.
    I was living in Central London in the late 60s. The goto areas if you wanted to score were Brixton & Notting Hill. There was a restaurant in All Saints Road you were pretty well guaranteed to find a connection. Subject of a film made a while back. How the owner was victimised by the police over drug dealing. Yeah. Right. 50s & early 60s? Before my time but the collective memory lingered. Soho. The Malts & the Italians. See a pattern? Get involved with the drug scene & you’ll inevitably find yourself dealing with someone either wasn’t born in the UK or whose parents weren’t. These days it’s all sorts of newcomers. Africans. The Asians make a strong showing in both hues. E Europeans. S. Americans try. Some Colombians were hopeful in the 80s but didn’t bank on London making Medellin look like a kindergarden tea party. They were in the foundations of Canary Wharf before the stamps on their passports had dried.
    The reason’s obvious. Immigration selects for criminals in the first place. Immigrants are always less invested in where they came from. That’s why they immigrated. And they have little investment in where they’ve gone to. They’re not part of the society & feel no obligations to it. Laws are just inconveniences to be overcome. Helped by the tendency to omerta of the existing immigrant communities they join. They may be a bad boy but they are one of their’s. Drug dealing’s a good way of making a living if you lack marketable skills & don’t mind the odd bit of violence.
    Deprived areas & drugs? Guardian ought to look in the mirror. The per-capita demand for illegal substances is likely 3 or 4 times greater amongst writers for the Guardian than it is in the worst of the UK’s deprived areas. Not far short of that amongst its readers. That’s the sort of society you’re living in.

  9. It is quite amazing that the Conservatives should try to demonise the dealers while excusing the users: who makes the demand?
    And in other news, demonises the people traffickers, and not the criminal immigrants, or their conspirators, who fund them.

    If you really want to make drugs illegal, go after the users, and if you are effective, the supply will dry up. No market, no supply. Blood tests and so on can catch users long afterwards, and if you take the Singapore route, end of problem.

    Or you admit Prohibition doesn’t work any better this time than last, regard it as a medical condition and supply prescription drugs, destroying the illegal market and the crime that funds it.

    But all that supposes you want to solve the problem.
    As it is, the War on Drugs ‘justifies’ draconian powers and out of control enforcement. And if you escape that, Mr Waldorf, we have the War on Terror. Are you a Brazilian electrician by any chance?
    It’s just smoke and mirrors to cover the naked state power.

  10. How can someone living in Spain and who used to live in London complain about immigration? Why are you allowed to live where ever you want? But black people and Eastern Europeans are banned from living where they want?
    Answer me?
    Are you Spanish person who lived in the UK, or a English person who thinks only English people should be allowed to live where ever they want?
    I bet it is the latter.
    I have noticed loads of the most anti immigration people tend to be people who think English people can live where they want, but that non-English people should not be allowed to live in England?
    Why is that?
    I have no problem with English people living where they want to. But the same is true of all races and nationalities. You cannot have one law for the English and another for everyone else.
    Scots, Welsh, Irish, Poles, Czechs, Swiss, Greeks, Turks, Brazilians, Africans, Indians, Chinese, Americans, Australians, should all be allowed to live in England. Free and fair.

  11. Why is it Bloke in Spain is allowed to live in Spain, and London? Then claim immigration to England should be stopped.
    One minute he claims immigration is evil. The next minute he is living in Spain and London.
    So the alternatives are that he is;
    1. A Spaniard who lived in London.
    2. An Englishman who lives in Spain.
    I think the latter is more likely.
    I have noticed loads of the most bigoted anti-immigrant racists, are people who have lived in other countries and then lecture other people not to live to England.,
    I have no problem with English people living where ever they want. But that should apply to all races and nationalities.
    It is not one rule for the English, and another for everyone else.
    Scots, Welsh, Irish, French, Germans, Italians, Greeks, Swiss, Austrians, Czechs, Africans, Asians, South Americans, can all live in England. Be free, consistent, and fair

  12. Why is it Bloke in Spain is allowed to live in Spain, and London? Then claim immigration to England should be stopped.
    One minute he claims immigration is evil. The next minute he is living in Spain and London.
    So the alternatives are that he is;
    1. A Spaniard who lived in London.
    2. An Englishman who lives in Spain.
    I think the latter is more likely.
    I have noticed loads of the most bigoted anti-immigrant racists, are people who have lived in other countries and then lecture other people not to live to England.,
    I have no problem with English people living where ever they want. But that should apply to all races and nationalities.
    It is not one rule for the English, and another for everyone else.

  13. Why is it Bloke in Spain is allowed to live in Spain, and London? Then claim immigration to England should be stopped.
    One minute he claims immigration is evil. The next minute he is living in Spain and London.
    So the alternatives are that he is;
    1. A Spaniard who lived in London. –
    2. An Englishman who lives in Spain.
    I think the latter is more likely.
    I have noticed loads of the most bigoted anti-immigrant racists, are people who have lived in other countries and then lecture other people not to live to England.,
    I have no problem with English people living where ever they want. But that should apply to all races and nationalities.
    It is not one rule for the English, and another for everyone else.

  14. Immigrant, the problem is the ‘type’ of people who are migrating to the UK. They are not, in general, brain surgeons. This is not new; I read an article in the Evening Standard, written by an East German when ‘free movement within the EU’ was introduced. He explained that the people who migrated to West Germany from East Germany after the wall came down were of ‘lower ability’ (and many criminals) and were more often than not, a net cost to West Germany, and that is what the EU could expect if they opened their borders. And that is what happened.
    That is not generally the case with Brits moving abroad (or other western types – my sister in law, Italian, lives in Spain, and has Irish, Belgian and Norwegian neighbours). For the most part they bring wealth with them and are a net benefit to the host country. I don’t see Spain having a problem with British expats. We do have a problem with third world shitholers.

    In general, I have no issue with anyone coming here who has something to contribute and will abide by our rules and our customs. The rest can fuck off.

  15. Immigrant. Tim’s spam trap is stuffed. You don’t need to repeat yourself.

    As for immigration, since I grew up when anti-colonialism was all the rage, I naturally believe that the people of a country have the right to determine who may migrate there. If the Dagos or the Poms don’t want me in their country, they don’t have to let me stay there. And of course if I don’t want them in Oz, I can tell them to bugger off too.

    I simply don’t believe foreigners have an automatic right to enter someone else’s country.

  16. Mr in Spain entered Spain with the permission of the Spanish government and remains there at the invitation of the Spanish government.

    The Spanish have long standing tradition of dealing with unwelcome guests.

  17. So it is one law for Bloke In Spain and another for all other nationalities and races.
    He says immigration is bad except in his case. Hypocrisy.
    And I doubt he was invited by the Spanish government, as if that makes any difference. What are you saying that King of Spain send him a telegram? Help we urgently need you please come here. What are you saying only immigrants who are invited into the country can come.
    Well we invited immigrants into this country from Eastern Europe, and the West Indies.
    So what is the problem with immigration from Eastern Europe and the West Indies?
    I have no problem immigrants from the West Indies and Eastern Europe.
    As I said loads of anti-immigration people seem to not mind themselves living in many different countries. But then pull up the drawbridge for everyone else. It is stupidity beyond belief, to say people can go from our country to others, but not from other countries to ours.

  18. ‘Tis a nasty echo, isn’t it. Acoustics are bad.
    You really have got this wrong, haven’t you? Sure I’m an immigrant here. So’s the dark-coffee coloured female sits down to breakfast with me, mornings. Portuguese/African/Indio for the record. I have no problem at all with emigration/immigration. I’m even originally from Central London, not the suburbs or whatever it is exists outside the M25. A diverse community’s the only thing I’ve known.
    But I am aware that immigration comes with costs. And the costs are often the very same things as the advantages. Economics doesn’t take the slightest interest in laws. It works for everything. Legal & criminal. That the UK is a good economy to come to, a country of opportunity that welcomes entrepreneurs, doesn’t take much notice of what they’re entrepreneuring in. Criminals have a lot of advantages. They’re very adaptable, opportunist & don’t take much notice of regulations. Here on the Costa Fortuna we’ve more than our share of Brit low-life. Retired or still operational. It’s known for it. Same with all the other ex-pat communities. There was a Belgian bloke full of bullet holes found in apartment not far from me, last week. 4 Dutchmen busted for drug running the week before. Then there’s the Russians. We’ve so many & they’re so good they out-compete the locals. That’s the price the Spanish pay for their tourist industry & wanting to sell all these villas & apartments in the sun to foreigners. And it happens everywhere in the world. New York got the Italians & the Mafia. West Coast gets the Hispanics. How would the UK’s so-called deprived get access to drugs without immigrants? They’ve no contacts reach out to Peru or Colombia. Afghanistan or Pakistan. They wouldn’t have the bus fare to the airport. They’d be getting their jollies on cheap cider & supermarket vodka. Like I say, if you want global you get global. Good & the bad.

  19. Are you arguing for no trade and immigration with other nations? That sounds like a country that has had sanctions placed on it. It is like arguing to be like North Korea, or Iran.
    Plus you can still get drugs made in this country without foreign imports.
    There are native people who grow cannabis plants.
    Immigration and the drug trade are different issues.
    As I said, are you suggesting only English people should be allowed to live in other nations.
    I have seen lots of English nationalists who claim only they should be allowed to move to different nations. It is utterly ludicrous as a logic.

  20. “Are you arguing for no trade and immigration with other nations? ”
    Hardly. I’m all in favour of it. Well over half the people I know in London are foreign born. But I do recognise that there are costs as well as benefits. Drugs are one of the costs. Or benefits, if you’re into drugs. Like most things, what’s good & what’s bad depends on your point of view. Mine’s indifference.

  21. PJF. That would mean huge numbers of asylum seekers would have to ask for invitation to leave their country. That is a cruel heartless policy. It is also stupid. Does that mean the UK tourist authorities would have to send out invitation letters to tens of millions of people each year?
    And that is against libertarian views to say that people have to invited to other countries. That is a restriction on the freedom of people to move around the planet to different nations.
    And as I said do you think you should have to be invited by another country to enter there, or is it just people coming to this country that your rule applies?
    It is a administrative nightmare, cruel and unfair to have such a ridiculous policy measure.
    Would the same rule apply to Irish, Welsh and Scottish people coming to England. Would they have to ask to apply from the English authorities? It would be a massive negative measure of no common sense.
    Would you expect English people to have to be invited by the Scottish government to visit Scotland?
    Would the Queen and Boris Johnson have to wait to be invited by the Scottish government to go to Scotland?
    You are suggesting a massive retrograde steps for freedom of movement, peace, trade, and liberty.

  22. That would mean huge numbers of asylum seekers would have to ask for invitation to leave their country.

    Asylum seekers are not immigrants, they are visitors. If they fit the UK’s criteria for asylum they are invited in (perhaps permanently).
    .

    Does that mean the UK tourist authorities would have to send out invitation letters to tens of millions of people each year?

    Tourists are not immigrants.
    .

    And that is against libertarian views to say that people have to invited to other countries.

    No it isn’t.
    .

    That is a restriction on the freedom of people to move around the planet to different nations.

    Correct, people are not free to move around the planet to different nations.
    .

    And as I said do you think you should have to be invited by another country to enter there … ?

    Yes, I should have an invitation to enter another country; visa agreements between countries count as invitations. These are not difficult to administer.

    Would the same rule apply to Irish, Welsh and Scottish people coming to England.

    No, these people are part of the same unitary state (the United Kingdom, which counts as a “country” for the purposes of this discussion) and can travel freely, or in the case of citizens of Eire (Southern Ireland) the people can travel here freely by historic agreement.
    .

    You are suggesting a massive retrograde steps for freedom of movement, peace, trade, and liberty.

    No, you are just a dullard who doesn’t seem to know what the word “immigrant” means.

    Immigrant: a person who has come to a different country in order to live there permanently

  23. Immigrant, my favourite asylum seeker tale is the battle of Adrianople in 378 AD. So even if you invite them in, sometimes immigrants can be a pain.

  24. PJF – Asylum seekers are immigrants. You are just making up definitions now.
    You have said that people can only come to the UK if they are invited, that would have to include tourists and immigrants.

    It is against Libertarian values to restrict where people can live. You do not understand what being a Libertarian is.

    You have said that people have to be invited. Applying for a Visa is not an invitation. It is you applying and asking if you can live in or visit a country.

    Now you are claiming that people from Scotland, Wales and Ireland can visit England by historic agreements. Well we have had historic agreements with all EU nations. How do you pick and choose with historic agreements we support and which we refuse.

    You call me a dullard and then read my posts. That makes you a dullard of the highest order.
    You are like a man who wanders the country to take pictures of train spotters, to complain how sad train spotters are.

    You have failed to explain in any way why it is OK for English people to live in Spain but wrong for immigrants to come to England. You raise petty points, waffle, and straw men arguments, and hooligan style views, to hide your low IQ. You have failed.

  25. Boganboy The Roman Empire colonised most of Western Europe. They moved their people into the the South and West of Britain. Yet immigration into the Roman Empire of other tribes was wrong in your book,
    There seems to be a lesson that the colonisers can go where ever they want. But that other tribes should be banned from immigration into the colonisers land.
    You seem to take the colonisers side strongly.
    Why should the English be allowed to go where every they want but nobody else can come to England?

  26. Who needs libertarian values? They’re an impractical crock of shit. They’re something cobbled up by people who never expect to personally suffer the consequences of them.
    Like the conventions on refugees. Agreed between a bunch of intellectuals for intellectuals. At a time when travel inside countries was difficult enough, let alone between countries. What they had in mind was a few political dissidents getting away from the heat they’d stirred up in their own country joining their mates in another. It was the same politicians signed that odious piece of paper were blocking the European Jews from going to Palestine in the 40s. They certainly didn’t envisage hundreds of thousands of ordinary folk going half way round the world. They’d have fought tooth & nail against it.

  27. Immigrant. So you’d argue that no one except the first neanderthal has any title to anything, and any other mob can just come in and rob and burn. Must admit I don’t agree with you.

    As for the English, they can’t go wherever they want. Other countries must agree to allow them in.

  28. As an immigrant to Canada I had to ask and receive permission, they handily had a list of preferred occupations so you could say I was invited to apply if I met their criteria.
    Invite doesn’t have to be to specific individuals it can be general or groups

  29. Now you are claiming that people from Scotland, Wales and Ireland can visit England by historic agreements.

    Unbelievably shit thick; no comprehension, no understanding. A complete no-hoper and a complete waste of time.

  30. “Yet immigration into the Roman Empire of other tribes was wrong in your book,”

    Oh.. You could easily get in and around the Roman Empire.. As long as you respected Pax Romana, greased the right palms, and generally behaved there really wasn’t much trouble there.

    Becoming an actual roman citizen…. oh dear… They had pretty strict ideas about that one..

  31. Immigrant = Violet Elizabeth Newmania sockpuppet. Now that Brexit hasn’t caused the catastrophe that Violet Elizabeth was predicting he/she has found a new hobby horse.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *