Your credibility drops 75% when you use that term.

So basically, the courts and police are unable to enforce the law in predominantly Black areas where criminality is off the scale, so they are giving up on a chunk of it to save time and resources.

Yeah but it's a great way to reduce the crime figures.

One more point

One of the few policy areas where libertarians and the far left agree on is on drug legalisation.

Traditionally I've always been against it myself, but I concur that there are some good arguments in there.

I suppose it comes down to the greater good and while I think not legalising is still the overall best position I won't deny it's not something I think has an obvious 'better' position.

I think whatever the position is taken their will be winners and losers....or more accurately those who live and those who die and it would culturally shift society as well, which also has a related cost or benefit depending upon what you want.

Edited by Stirlingsays (28 Mar 2021 1.18pm)

'I can't stand innuendo. If I see one in a script I whip it out immediately.' (Kenneth Williams)

I tend to agree with this. Regulate and tax low level drugs and put a big effort into policing the gangs and hard drugs. The current approach does not work, as you say.
Amsterdam is currently getting stricter, I think it's a shame. It was somewhere where men or women could walk around at any time of day or night and be pretty safe. Now watch the crime start to rise.

I used to put the manager's name in front of Red and Blue but got fed up with changing it. If someone cool becomes our manager then maybe..

Red and Blue Army!

How hard have we tried to stop the production and supply of drugs? Not hard enough I suspect.
It all comes down to resources and commitment I suppose, and the realisation that it might be futile in the bigger picture.
Organised crime will always exist even if the source of their income is changed.