The criminal drug trade is run by dangerous people whose evil has no limits... I won't stand by while evil gangs exploit our children, writes Home Secretary PRITI PATEL
Today, the Government is publishing a ten-year drugs strategy. Our focus is on reducing crime, saving lives, and sending a clear message to the criminals – if you peddle these substances across our community, we will come after you with the full force of the law.
By breaking the cycle of crime, we will support treatment and recovery for drug addicts. We will work in schools on prevention to intervene early, and support young people and families who are vulnerable and in need of help. And, when drug misusers are sentenced, they will be referred into treatment, as will prisoners after their release.
As we work to cut and reduce the demand for drugs, we will impose tougher sanctions for those who break the law. This means tougher penalties for those so-called ‘recreational’ users, such as students who ignorantly take drugs with no thought to the criminality they are supporting and those they are exploiting. Their actions are directly leading to an increase in violent crime and people dying – but they pay no price.
That will change. We will bring down the harshest possible legal sanctions and consequences for these users, including criminal sanctions, fines, curfews, compulsory drug- awareness courses and the removal of their passports.
It is a fact that certain people are more likely to fall into the drugs trap than others. It is a sad truth that misuse is rife among those who are homeless, and it is also more frequent in northern cities, seaside towns and central London boroughs. It is in everyone’s interests that we beat the problem.
Them letting ministers overturn the law if they feel like it is a hell of a lot more important than any of the shrill cries which drown it out about them hypocritically taking cocaine. If anything, that article now just feels like bait to draw focus further by bringing that aspect in.
>>94965 It's not a distraction from that, world's most naive man, because the story about Parliament being overrun with drugs came from government. The whole thing is posturing nonsense that doesn't actually deal with any of the problems it proclaims to.
>>94974 There's nothing fucking funny about what her and her ideology of slowburn fascism, you fucking prick. I hope you get a fucking fat embolism from a really bad fracture.
I can't say I've noticed it, but there is at least one mod who will ban anyone that offends his sensibilities. Try and have a debate with them and you'll inevitably get banned for having a different opinion.
Not me, guv. I could tell what where this thread was going to go the moment I saw the picture of Priti Patel as the OP because you're a bunch of sex pests.
I just think it's funny a mod has managed to derail this thread by causing the Streisand Effect rather than choosing not to engage with thirstylad and letting the discourse continue past him unimpeded, IYKWIM.
Well, look what the alternative has achieved. Much better than ignoring the lads who inevitably post "she'd definitely, definitely get it" when a... vaguely human female is brought up?
>As we work to cut and reduce the demand for drugs, we will impose tougher sanctions for those who break the law. This means tougher penalties for those so-called ‘recreational’ users, such as students who ignorantly take drugs with no thought to the criminality they are supporting and those they are exploiting. Their actions are directly leading to an increase in violent crime and people dying – but they pay no price.
Yes, this will definitely work, just like all the other times governments have eliminated drug-adjacent crime by going after end users in the last 50 years.
I can see how people might have sincerely believed this was a sensible strategy back in the 90s but now there's plenty of evidence from countries that have tried it that decriminalisation and legalisation strategies have measurably better results.
A more cynical person than me might be inclined to think this is intended to be selectively enforced against certain groups the government doesn't like, but then again this government isn't exactly known for it's competence or love of evidence based policy.
Pretty sure they're just cynically chasing that maungy pensioner socially conservative vote, because they think (perhaps correctly, in fairness) that's what put them in power in the first place; and Priti is a literal soulless psychopath so she's happy enough to go along with it.
I mean everything else is falling apart around the government's ears, scandal about half the party being bent, broken promises about Are HS2, covid coming back for a third lap, it's a clusterfuck right now. So what else have they got to fall back on but "Erm... We'll erm... What if we bring back caning in primary schools?" to which the over 70s cry in chorus, "YEAH, TOO BLOODY RIGHT. THAT'S THE BLOODY TROUBLE NOWADAYS, UNDER 11s DON'T KNOW NO RESPECT"
Does anyone bother to enforce current laws? Drugs are abundant when outside, and the police are more interested in twitter.
>now there's plenty of evidence from countries that have tried it that decriminalisation and legalisation strategies have measurably better results
There's plenty of evidence from South Korea and Japan that enforcing the law works. To reassure you, the Tories will eventually legalise marijuana.
This is not about selective policing but about getting a headline to satiate a few boomers. It'll go the way of the migrant boats: money is spent, nothing changes. Don't worry, in 10 years they'll get 'even tougher' on it.
>>94985 >Yes, this will definitely work, just like all the other times governments have eliminated drug-adjacent crime by going after end users in the last 50 years.
If you start placing curfews on druggies and removing their passport so they can verify their ID you're going to make it a lot harder for them to actually get a job and get back on the straight and narrow.
>>94982 Is that actually what it was? Someone objectified Priti and got banned and their post removed? How come OP image was removed? I thought stuff only got removed if it was illegal or dodgy links.
Well, the mod had a bit of a teary that the Patel fantasy was detracting attention away from his super serious posts about this story being a distraction from the real story about the government wanting to turn the country into a police state. When the response to that was a post imagining Patel's smiling face while she asphyxiated you to death he was sent well and truly over the edge so started with the bans and the post deletions.
I guess this makes a change from him deleting his own posts.
Well, tell me what happened from your perspective instead.
☑ Someone was banned for making the kind of sexual remark you see here on a regular basis.
☑ One of the mods has a bit of a reputation for being a hot-head and making a fool of himself, sometimes sheepishly deleting his own posts once he's cooled down later and realised what a clown he has been.
>>94963 >By breaking the cycle of crime, we will support treatment and recovery for drug addicts.
>we will impose tougher sanctions for those who break the law.
These two sentences really don't go together...
>such as students who ignorantly take drugs.
Oh.
So yeah you can read that as "We're going to go out of our way to hand criminal records out to young , otherwise law-abiding people, thereby sabotaging their future opportunities to be useful productive members of society."
What the actual fuck is wrong with this governement.
I'd support the deletion of this thread if it wasn't such a delightful demonstration of the perverse, ouroborotic nature of .gs shitposting. >>94998 is clearly a bellend though.
>>95003 If this doesn't get a ban then I'll drink another beer. Don't think I won't.
>>95007 As the world's most naive man, I'm unreasonably confident that if people actually stopped and thought about the capital punishment, we could swing this.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a meeting with a solicitor regarding my purchase of London bridge.
