Too tough on drugs mules?

Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand

SENTENCES for criminals who smuggle drugs into Jersey should be reduced, Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand has said.
The former Magistrate said that the punishment for drugs couriers – or mules – was too tough and that the Court of Appeal should now review the sentencing guidelines.
He said that the Royal Court’s sentencing powers, which were set about 15 years ago, were becoming out of date and were no longer acting as a deterrent to those who want to smuggle drugs into the Island.
He is due to discuss the matter with the Bailiff Michael Birt and the Deputy Bailiff William Bailhache early in the New Year. (from JEP)

Perhaps they should execute them like the Chinese....

The Chinese have the right idea, dead people cant smuggle drugs. Reducing sentences would be like raising a white flag to the drug barons and all those people who choose drug smuggling as a career option.

Legalise everything - no need for smuggling then. Imagine the savings that could be achieved by reducing the amount of customs officers, prison officers, police officers etc.

Then there would be the revenue from duty, plus taxes on retailers profits, it would more than pay for the extra few support stafff who would be needed to help the people who end up with problems (which is inevitable, just look at alcohol).

And just imagine the marketing opportunities for the tourism trade!!

Yes legalise everything technophobe, murder, theft, prostitution and child slave labour, all bi products of the drugs trade.

Cockney

You're really showing your ignorance here. Why do you think the level of drug-related crime is as high as it is? Because the drugs are illegal, that's why. There is a relatively small amount of crime relating to alcohol and cigarettes (the main legal drugs) but not a huge amount. Imagine how much crime would increase if these legal drugs were suddenly made illegal. Look at prohibition in the US and the crime that went with it.

Legalisation, control of price and purity, and regulation is the way forward. The "war on drugs" cannot and will not ever be won. Unfortunately very few politicians have the guts to put this view forward as they are scared of the ignorant right-wing element of the electorate - the "hang 'em high brigade - such as yourself.

If you opened your mind a bit you might see the validity of these points. It would not lead to everyone becoming drug addicts as the scaremongers suggest. That doesn't happen with booze and fags (which have been shown to be more harmful than most illegal drugs time after time) so why would it happen with dope, ecstasy etc?

You can dress it up any way you like Technophobe but illegal drugs are evil, the people responsible for supplying and distributing them are evil and should be strung up. These people are motivated by greed, pure and simple. Anyone who falls foul of these people pay with their lives and if innocent children get in the way they will wipe them out with a clear conscience. So why should we turn these people into legitimate businessmen because the drugs trade is hard to overcome. Next you'll be saying we should give in to the terrorists who are out to destroy our way of life because this is also difficult to overcome. We fought two world wars to overcome a very formidable enemy intent on destroying the rule of law as we know it, as history shows we stood up to that challenge and overcame it.
The war on drugs can be won but it will take punitive measures to beat it and it would take time. All we need is our leaders to have the bottle to carry out the measures needed to beat it.

great post Cockney !!

Cockney

The war on drugs will be won? Dream on, it's been fought for a long time and the only people winning are criminals who make billions out of it. End of.

''We fought two world wars to overcome a very formidable enemy intent on
destroying the rule of law as we know it, as history shows we stood up
to that challenge and overcame it.''

so we lose millions of lives to save hundreds?

cockney wrote:You can dress it up any way you like Technophobe but illegal drugs are evil, the people responsible for supplying and distributing them are evil and should be strung up. These people are motivated by greed, pure and simple. Anyone who falls foul of these people pay with their lives and if innocent children get in the way they will wipe them out with a clear conscience. So why should we turn these people into legitimate businessmen because the drugs trade is hard to overcome. Next you'll be saying we should give in to the terrorists who are out to destroy our way of life because this is also difficult to overcome. We fought two world wars to overcome a very formidable enemy intent on destroying the rule of law as we know it, as history shows we stood up to that challenge and overcame it.
The war on drugs can be won but it will take punitive measures to beat it and it would take time. All we need is our leaders to have the bottle to carry out the measures needed to beat it.

Interesting comments cockney!

The ACMD in the UK compiled a chart of relative drug harms in 2007, that include Alcohol and Tobacco.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6474053.stm

It may surprise you that even though Heroin and Cocaine are top of the list, Alcohol and Tobacco are rated as being more dangerous to the individual and society than many illegal drugs including Cannabis, and more significantly current Class A drugs LSD and Ecstasy. Indeed Ecstacy comes in at number 18 on the harm scale, right at the bottom as one of the least dangerous drugs.

What is very interesting from a global point of view, is that that while the UK, and thus Jersey, seem to be taking a more hard line approach to drugs again in the past few years (ie Cannabis) many countries in the world are moving away from "The War on Drugs" and decriminalising and treating drugs as a public health matter, rather than criminalisation. This includes the USA, who historically have been the world leaders in the WOD. Indeed many US States have decriminalised Cannabis for personal and medical use, with California being very close total legalisation.

An interesting example is Portugal who decriminalised all drugs in 2001. Many sceptics suggested that this would be a disaster,with drug use increasing significantly. As matter of fact what has actually happened is that drug use and crime have fallen, with many more people who need help coming forward and entering treatment programmes.

Food for thought!

Caballero

A very good post, but one that I fear will not be taken on board by Cockney and the other right wingers. Common sense means nothing to them, hang 'em high does!!

Common sense tells me to stay away from illegal drugs. After all, they are ILLEGAL.

You obviously like being told what you can do without having to take the time or trouble to work things out for yourself. Speaks volumes.........

Caberllero’s post is food for thought, especially the stat’s from Portugal. The BBC link however just discusses the classification of drugs and there are few surprises with Heroin and “coke” at the top of the list. Surprisingly LSD and Ecstasy are well down. Alcohol/cigs are up there but as has been said before, if they were introduced today they would be made illegal. The difference between alcohol/cigs and the other classified drugs is legality.


The BBC link reinforces that drugs are harmful and it does not look to legalise them. The quote from the report, “He highlighted the fact that one person a week in the UK dies from alcohol poisoning, while less than 10 deaths a year are linked to ecstasy use.” is interesting because the report suggests that 500k people regularly use ecstasy on a weekend and there are 10 deaths a year whilst in the UK there are about 49 million people over the age of 16 and say 50% of those (conservative estimate) regularly drink, and yet there are only 52 deaths a year from alcohol poisoning. Without taking into consideration the people who die from related illnesses, I do not have that info for either drugs or alcohol, the above figures show that 0.002% of ecstasy users may die whilst only 0.0002% of alcohol users share the same fate. My maths may be off so I am happy to stand corrected by a better mathematician.

Technophobe, like it or not, you can whinge about what drugs are and are not legal, but until the law is changed you are going to have to put up with the facts that society on the whole does not subscribe to your liberal opinion on illegal drugs and it is wrong to condemn those that have an opinion opposed to yourself.


Should we be harder on drug mules, personally I think we should punish them to the full extent of the law as we are able to do with other offences that harm members of the public and the reason behind this is that they are carrying illegal substances.

Speaks volumes.......? So if I dont agree with the law of the land then I should break it? Thats good common sense, well in your world it apparently is. You wouldnt be one of those sheep who sit at a desk all day would you?

Cockney

You appear to be struggling to understand basic English, perhaps I'd be better off writing in rhyming slang?

I didn't say that if one disagrees with the law then one should break it, nothing of the sort. I simply meant that forming a view on the basis of something being illegal is ridiculous.

Have you not seen the recent thread on ridiculous laws? Do you agree with all of those as well then?

Seeing as drug mules are often mere pawns in the hands of the dealers, why are they not followed to their contacts.

Mainly cause they are pulled at the ports and then it is to late because they know they have been found out. There are instances where intelligence leads to the next person in the tree but not often and remember the pawns rarely speak about who the drop is intended for cause they either do not know or are far to scared. Unfortunately alot of the time they are witless victims of a vicious circumstance.

I dont base my views on drugs on their legality. Illegal drugs destroy lives as do the people who supply them. Technophobe, you are obviously a user of these substances and this has had an effect on your judgement which is a known side affect of drug abuse. You should give drug concern a ring.

You may be right there, cockney. David Cameron took drugs when he was at Eton.

"Booze isn't a drug! It's a drink!"

More food for thought cockney!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-waves-white-flag-in-disastrous-war-on-drugs-1870218.html

Hopefully in years to come the issue will become an issue of public health rather than criminalisation!

maybe this is the issue at hand
phama stand to loose again

yeah, and don't forget that diamorphine.

cockney wrote:I dont base my views on drugs on their legality. Illegal drugs destroy lives as do the people who supply them. Technophobe, you are obviously a user of these substances and this has had an effect on your judgement which is a known side affect of drug abuse. You should give drug concern a ring.

You seem to have changed your mind, one minute you're saying that you stay away from drugs because they're ILLEGAL, next minute you're saying that you don't base your views on their legality. You can't have it both ways chum(p).

I have used lots of different drugs in the past, some of them legal and some of them not. Nowadays I only use legal drugs such as caffeine, nicotine, alcohol etc. Does that make me a better person? Absolutely not, it's just that my drugs of choice happen to be lagal whereas the choices of others may not be so.

As for having a pop at my judgement, you think what you like. I'm quite happy the way I am, not condemning others for what they choose to do, whereas you seem to prefer a more hard-line approach. Bullied at school? Still wet the bed?

Even more food for thought:

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LayaGk0TMDc