Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B1295 - Drug (Decriminalisation) Bill 2017 Watch

    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Sorry for going off topic, but it is comments like this one that stops people working with the Libertarians. The Libbers come up with great policy ideas, have a fairly strong membership, are capable of producing well written bills, but then they have members that feel the need to be petty and aggressive at every opportunity.

    Connor - You don't have to make a political point with every comment you make, because eventually you will alienate your party. Sometimes it's better to just say "As a Libertarian, I wouldn't support increasing tax on this bill. I would have liked to have seen full legalisation, but it is important to take small steps and attempt to find consensus in the house, rather than trying to rush a controversial bill and have it possibly fail".

    Again, apologies for going off-topic, only thing I'll say on the matter
    I will have to defend Connor on this one. The first comment on this thread was quite provocative itself, but I didn't take offence to it - unlike a lot of people here I take the view that it is better to be honest with others than to act falsely nice to them. As leader, it is my job to use more friendly language than my members

    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Fair enough. I can completely see your reasoning, though I still would have liked to have seen a bold first reading even if you had no intention of letting it go to division in that form just to state your intentions and eventual commitment to full drug legalisation
    I didn't want to put people off what is quite evidently very important reform, which is what stopped me from deciding to go for an overly bold first reading. On the other hand, I worried that there would be people who find this goes too far in legalising drugs rather than not far enough. You can't satisfy everyone but I saw this as the best way of enacting change and I defend my choice in doing so.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I'm not going to talk about the past Joe, I'm talking about this now. We can't continue you like this. The pettiness and toxicity around this place brings the whole MHoC down
    The post was removed yesterday and then the comment on this bill, I agree that the pettiness has to end but your comment against only Connor did not go to the source of it on this bill.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    The post was removed yesterday and then the comment on this bill, I agree that the pettiness has to end but your comment against only Connor did not go to the source of it on this bill.
    Just to jump in on this. That was my genuine opinion around the bill. I was surprised to see that standard of bill come out especially considering some of the other things your party (and quite a few others) has produced this term.

    I personally don't produce many bills but when I do I try to make them as good as possible - I've been working on a bill surrounding solving the social housing crisis for the past 3 weeks and it's still not done - mainly because the RL legislation I'm seeking to resolve is quite complex.

    My 'bullying' (and it's not - if you think the odd snide comment is bullying then seriously?) is merely acting how yourself and quite a few of your colleagues are at least perceived and indeed do act towards us. Except we don't call it bullying and act offended at every opportunity. Otherwise I could have reported all the communist remarks and the lying liberals etc etc. Don't paint yourselves as the only offended party in this.

    I'm happy to call a truce if you guys do too. I appreciate I've not been the 'bigger man' (for want of a better term) with how I've handled this and for that I apologise, however I am not the sole perpetrator here and you and the Libertarians need to realise that. You can't dish it out like you do and then not expect flak back, so at the very least get a tougher skin, and I hope we can actually try to put some differences away from us.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
    Just to jump in on this. That was my genuine opinion around the bill. I was surprised to see that standard of bill come out especially considering some of the other things your party (and quite a few others) has produced this term.

    I personally don't produce many bills but when I do I try to make them as good as possible - I've been working on a bill surrounding solving the social housing crisis for the past 3 weeks and it's still not done - mainly because the RL legislation I'm seeking to resolve is quite complex.

    My 'bullying' (and it's not - if you think the odd snide comment is bullying then seriously?) is merely acting how yourself and quite a few of your colleagues are at least perceived and indeed do act towards us. Except we don't call it bullying and act offended at every opportunity. Otherwise I could have reported all the communist remarks and the lying liberals etc etc. Don't paint yourselves as the only offended party in this.

    I'm happy to call a truce if you guys do too. I appreciate I've not been the 'bigger man' (for want of a better term) with how I've handled this and for that I apologise, however I am not the sole perpetrator here and you and the Libertarians need to realise that. You can't dish it out like you do and then not expect flak back, so at the very least get a tougher skin, and I hope we can actually try to put some differences away from us.
    I would actually say it’s the opposite way around look at petros jumping on the libers rather than your comment, that has happened a lot.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    I would actually say it’s the opposite way around look at petros jumping on the libers rather than your comment, that has happened a lot.
    I didn't jump on the Libbers. I've made my feelings clear to my leader internally. I'd also point out that I was talking to Connor in a general sense, as he was also quite snide to a member of the Labour Party
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    No no no no no
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saunders16)
    With regard to taxation, it was something I wrestled with when writing this bill. Whilst it is considerably below the amount levied on alcohol and tobacco, one of the purposes of this bill (and the Cannabis Legalisation Bill 2015 which this amends) is to incentivise people to purchase drugs from reputable and licensed traders rather than street dealers that will potentially pursue profit maximisation to the extent where they would put their customers at risk, whether that be through low-cost and low-quality goods or mixing drugs. Nonetheless, considering the existence of the National Health Service, a Pigovian tax of some form is necessary so that healthy taxpayers do not face the burden of people's poor decisions. For that reason, I chose to set VAT at the standard rate and I stand by that. A raise could, however, be acceptable in the future but upon the enacting of this bill it would simply be counter-intuitive.

    Whilst I believe warning labels to the extent at which they are seen in the tobacco industry would be a form of government overreach, I accept your concerns about the line "it shall be the responsibility of the individual purchasing a psychoactive substance to understand the risks of what they are purchasing". It was my intention to defend the right of licensed adults to trade legal substances with other licensed adults, but this will need amending if it is not to be abused in court. I will need to think over this one but my first thought is that it would be best to require drugs to be packaged with a label outlining what it contains. Any feedback as to how I could rewrite this line would be appreciated.

    As for information, I find that http://www.talktofrank.com/ is greatly informative and adequately impartial. I did not actually realise until this point that it is government owned. Therefore, further funding will not be necessary and instead I will find a way to integrate it with the new website for processing licenses that is created through the passing of this bill.

    I hope that by the point the bill reaches division you will be able to vote for it.
    I'm afraid that without a higher tax on drugs I would not be able to support this. Alcohol and Tobacco are taxed higher than other goods because they have an increased cost to the taxpayer in healthcare costs. I wouldn't support this unless it also included an increased tax on these items as well, particularly the ones that will have the highest increased cost to the taxpayer. I reject the idea that it would be better to pass this and then amend the tax levied as that is much harder to do. The tax should start as it means to go on.

    I'm not really suggesting the same type as we see on tobacco (and I don't think I could get you to agree if I was proposing that) but the requirement just to highlight and product that contains psychoactive ingredients and another for highly addictive contents would be helpful. Tbh I would just remove the rule altogether. The fact that these would now be legal would protect sellers in the way you devise, however that way consumer rights are not affected. Alternatively, change it simply to say that existing consumer laws will be extended to these new products.

    I've found it to be quite flawed in many areas, though in fairness I haven't looked at it in a long time. I would still like to see a small amount given to update and maintain the site, however this need only be a small fraction of the income this would generate.

    (Original post by Connor27)
    A strong aye - DayneD89 do you honestly think as libertarians we would implement heavy taxation on drugs? lol...

    I would also like to have seen full legalisation but that will come in due course if this passes, but it is important to make the first step on this incredibly detailed and well written bill (best piece of legislation this term?)

    As for Afcwimbledon2's comment; at least our party actually produces bills, how many have your three parties in government produced this term with an inbuilt majority to pass virtually anything you want?
    No, I guess not. I would like a reasonable tax, however, one more in line with the extra cost to the taxpayer that this will create in order to make this a net gain on the public purse. I don't think bringing the tax on drugs to be in lime with alcohol and tobacco is too unreasonable. Without it I would have to oppose this Bill, even if I do so reluctantly as I can see major advantages in this Bill.

    I can think of 4 Bills that we have that are in the final stages, and I know of at least 3 more in development by various people. Governments are always more productive at the end of their tenure than at their beginning so I'm sure you'll see plenty from this government as the term comes to an end.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Yassss
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    This bill will not do anything I think to stop people stealing or engaging in other crime to fund drug habits, the £50 fine for not participating in rehab (if facilities are there) is minor. We need more places where people can come off drugs with professional support, more knowledge and action to stop deaths and injuries from those driving or engaging in other activities under the influence of drugs, and more action against dealers. There may be a case for changing the law and indeed re-classification according to the harm an individual drug causes, but not the approach this Bill has.

    Nay.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    aye
    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    This bill has entered division.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 28, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.