9

Annette King should resign

by Whaleoil on April 30, 2008



War against billion-dollar P trade being lost – King – 01 May 2008 – NZ Herald: New Zealand National news

Annette King has raised the white flag and started a retreat reminiscent of French Armies over methamphetamine.

Her concession that the authorities are struggling to win the war against P comes in a new Cabinet paper setting out Government policies to target organised crime.

The Government set up a joint agency approach to tackling P in 2003.

Measures included reclassifying it as a Class A drug and creating a Methamphetamine Action Group.

But , methamphetamine-related cases as a percentage of all cases sent to the High Court have risen from 41 per cent in 2004 to 54 per cent in 2006.

If the senior cabinet minister responsible for law and order puts her hands up and and essentially concedes that they have lost the war on meth then if she had any decency she would resign forthwith. She won’t of course because decency and honour are two words that labour ministers are unfamilair with.

We need a government that will stand up to drug dealers, if necessary with force. We need a corrections policy of time sentenced=time served and we need to sever the heads of the hydra of the gangs immediately and with lethal force.

The gang and drug problem could be solved overnight if the government really was committed to ridding this country of the scourge of meth. I hear the going rate for Serb assassins is only a measly $50k. Hire a 1000 of them and task them to co-ordinate an single night attack on all the gangs simultaneously starting at the top and kill all the leaders, round up the rest and chuck them in the Auckland Islands to survive on their wits, for, oh, 50 years. Problem solved overnight.

You see the problem is a strech of 10 years and getting out after only one third of your sentence is a lark for these guys. Certain death or life on a desolate island isn’t a prospect many would want.

I reckon we need a tiered approach. Something like possession gets 5 years, no parole, dealing gets 50 years, manufacture gets death and organising distribution and money laundering death as well. That’ll sort it. After two years there’d be fuck all drug dealers on the streets, they’d either be in a box or in the slammer.

Tagged:

Related posts

  • brendensheehan

    Gee mate you have suddenly solved half of the world’s problems. Nancy reagans’s ‘Just Say No’ had nothing on your solution. Shame that your ideas have been tried and tested all around the world without any success. Indonesia, Malaysia, Afghanistan – death penalties for drugs all round. Has it stopped the flow? of course not.

    I worked for years in criminal law and have seen the problems drugs create. I hate them and I hate those who traffic in this vessel of human misery.

    The problem however is simply one of supply and demand. As long as there is a demand for drugs simple market economics dictates there will always be suppliers. And the more suppliers you rub out the higher the price will be to meet the demand.

    Although it defies the laws of Adam Smith I am afraid the drug problem is a demand-side equation. Cut out the demand and you immediately cut out the need for supply.

    And by and large drug users are unhappy people seeking either relief or a different reality. The way to address their needs are to make sure they are bloody happy in their day to day life and don’t need drugs to alleviate their pain.

    This means things like addresing violence, addressing poverty, addressing sexual abuse. You know – all the things the market ignores.

  • haddock

    Mr Sheehan, when you say that you worked in criminal law for years … and we know you to be a union organiser … presume you’re not a lawyer, or any other officer of the court … can only presume you have first hand knowledge of the wrong side of the bars?

  • Cactus Kate

    Brendan

    Explain why rich people do “P” then?

  • michaels

    I note that fucktard above Kate stopped short of saying he was a lawyer.

    However on another note…. I think Winston should also resign. Where are his (or NZF’s) returns?
    I heard that they have to wait for Winston to return to sign them off before they can send them in.
    Now really, did I not hear Klark say just a week ago that Williams should go and do what he does and leave the politics to the others? Surely this should work the other way and NZF should just send in their return, or is it that it really really is… WINSTON FIRST?

  • Whaleoil

    Sheehan obfuscates…I didn’t say have death penalties, I said kill ‘em, no courts involved. If you start killing the leaders, dealers and manufacturers of meth (only morons used “P”, as they can spell that) that will solve the supply side really very easily.

    This is the same method used by the British to solve the IRA problem, they started at the top and worked their way until it was really very dangerous to even belong to the IRA let alone lead it.

    We are dealing with thugs and crims here, they don’t understand the rule of law, or ignore it because they can. No one ignores a body full of holes, and they truly do understand stand over tactics.

    Hell 1000 serb assassins at $50k each is cheap compared to cost to society of Meth.

    On another note, Brendan, why do you bother coming here, every time you do you get your ass handed back to you on a plate. You nothing but a pinko corpse cuddler bereft of any plan or individual thought, so here is a thought, fuck off or the full weight of the VRWC will make your campaignig really rather difficult in Botany where Pansy is again going to hand you ass back to you on a plate. Fuck off.

  • MikeE

    This is a rare case (I feel sick almost writing it) where Mr Sheehan is actually correct. The war on drugs is a failure, was a failure and will always be a failure, as it is attempting to fight drug problems from the supply side.

    Anyone who has even a basic understanding of economics will know that simply messing with supply doesn’t do much to demand if people really want said product, all it does increase the price.

    You won’t get rid of gangs by violence, or locking them up. You cut their source of funding, and that is selling drugs which they have a monopoly over supply due to their legal status (i.e. being illegal). Put simply, these gangs only exist because of our drug laws, and any tightening of said laws are only going to line the pockets of these gangs further.

    Meth is a terrible drug. We had BZP for 6 or 7 years and we moved a great deal of people off it. Unfortunately the idiots in government and the opposition banned this, and will work to ban any other substance like it. Again lining the pockets of gangs and empoering them.

    Possession of drugs is a victimless crime. Manufacturing drugs is a victimless crime, selling drugs to consenting adults is a victimless crime. Stealing, raping, murdering whatever, these are real crimes, and it doesn’t matter whether they are drug induced or not, they are still just as bad. Blaming drugs for these crimes is taking the responsibility away from the individual who committed them.

    Waht we need is reform of drug laws, taking the manufacture of substance away from criminals, stopping from wasting police time on drugs and treat the problem for what it really is, one of education and health. And remove the defenses from criminal law of being under the influence of drugs.

    If the law was reformed, the gangs would lose almost all of their funding.
    If the law was reformed police would be able to focus on real crime
    If the law was focused police could really take on the gangs.

    Instead, we have “feel good” legislation, we “wage war” on drugs, but it is an unwinnable war, it looks good in the papers, you get the occasional haul of stuff found in a container, you get to lock up a few druggies who hurt noone but themselves (and whose jail sentance is worse than the drug use in terms of harm – yet we are “protecting them from their selves” apparently).

  • Dogmelon

    Its so simple. You blow away each criminal, no trial required, and with no more criminals you have no more crime. Like what Whale said, how hard is that. But no, criminals vote labour so their every need must be catered for, eh brendon.

  • MikeE

    I hope to hell you are joking, because that is scary as hell?

    Who defines what crime is?
    No trial? How do you ensure good governance?

    Scary, scary stuff. You know, the type of stuff you’d expect in a communist police state.

  • whitebread

    My father, who had been a Jap POW and seen his fair share of death and violence and did not speak about executions lightly, always said, “drug pushers? Execute them.” His attitude was they lived outside the law, off of the misery of others and we would be better off rid of them.
    I am in agreement. Taxpayers are fronting up with millions of dollars to pay for the costs involved in drug pushing. Ever been into an A&E at night and seen the number of idiot users cluttering up the ward, off their faces and abusive? Meanwhile genuine cases (ours was an asthmatic child) sit and wait and wait while creeps who have put themselves in a life threatening situation clog up the system. The users are bad enough and don’t give me any crap about supply and demand.
    But the pushers….even worse. Knock them off, no questions asked. Go read Tom Clancy’s Clear and Present Danger.