My argument is not so much against drugs being controlled, but against government being in control of anything. Firstly we have to note a few points about government; The wheels of government, generally, turns slowly; government is, generally, inefficient; government is, generally bad at planning; government is a spender of wealth, NOT a creator of wealth; politicians are, generally, self-serving in their motives.

Assuming that government gets control of the drug trade, will they grow/manufacture the raw materials locally or import it from the same countries who supply it illegally and outbid the current dealers? If it is grown/manufactured locally, will government be running these ‘factories’? It cannot be part of the NHS because the NHS is a service delivery agent, not a manufacturing facility.

Will these facilities manufacture all the different illegal drugs available at this time? And will they add new ones that may come into the market in the future? Just because government takes on a previously illegal drug manufacturing facility, does not mean competitors are automatically eliminated.

I’m assuming that in order for government to supply these products, said products will have to ‘be made’ legal. Since no one entity may run a monopoly in our economy, can potential providers not challenge this in court?

Is the ever wider, illegal, use of drugs not a failure of the legal and penal systems? Rather than allowing people to abuse themselves, and others, legally, let us fix the systems that are supposed to protect society.

Is the person who becomes addicted to drugs controllable? Is the person who uses drugs ‘recreationally’ controllable? Will both of these types queue regularly for their dose? Will both of these types be allowed to claim their dosage from government facilities, or will a ‘user’ have to be totally dependent on drugs before he/she can claim legally?

Once controlled and legalised, this market will be split into two. The addict, including those who cannot hold down a job and steals or robs in order to get the money to buy. They will have to be ‘fed’ for free, I assume. And the recreational users who do hold down a job. So will we end up with a legally controlled facility for addicts and an illegal supply chain for recreational users? Or will the government facility supply free to the addict and charge the recreational user. And are there enough paying  recreational users to make this system profitable, because currently, paying addicts (in the illegal market) will become benefit claimants in a government controlled market.

Let’s not fool ourselves by the arguments for tax collection and the foolish idea that addicts will suddenly queue to pay for legal, quality controlled drugs.

We all agree that those who cannot suffuciently provide for themselves should receive a helping hand from the community (in this case the country they live in). That is good and proper behaviour from a caring community. But why would that community agree that it is okay to give those same people a huge amount of money? A hugely dicounted house is taking money from people some people and giving it to other people.

The stock a community builds up must surely remain the property of that community and when the person(s) to whom it was lent nolonger needs it, it has to be returned to the community. People receive all kinds of benefits and in some cases it is a helping hand for life, in other cases it is a temporary helping hand.

Social housing can never become the property of the person(s) using it. If a decision is taken to sell it, it should be priced according to the market. No-one must make a profit out of a benefit supplied by the state. It is a totally absurd idea to make homeowners of people who cannot afford to pay rent in the open market and it is absolutely unfair to those who supply the money to make these benefits possible.

Obviously the best thing for the country is to have as many people as possible in the highest possible tax bracket because high earners always get regular salary increases, spend more and are much less likely than low earners to be claiming any kind of benefit. In fact it is stupid politicians who even offer high earners any kind of state benefit, e.g. child rebate, amongst others.

Believe me I have nothing against high earners, in fact, I strive to be one… I have something against government shouting at businesses to pay their employees a ‘living wage’, and businesses know that at least half of that increase will also find its way into government coffers via direct tax and other stealth taxes, or whatever other names they go by. On the other hand, same government, cannot tell business (e.g. Energy companies 18% price increase) that they will not be allowed to profiteer from their consumers as these energy companies boast a, sudden, huge increase in profits.

We elect government to represent us, not allow us to be ripped off and take part in this ripping off!

Workers want to be paid a fair wage. Workers want to pay a fair tax. Workers want to pay fair prices for products. Workers want to have a fair choice of products. Workers want to be able to abstain from buying a product if they are not satisfied with it. Which brings us to ‘necessary products’.

Nowadays everything is a product and we are the consumers whether we agree or not. The NHS is supplying us with products; our money is invested via buying all types of financial products, etc. Energy companies sell us their products, and politicians tell us to shop around in order to find the cheapest ‘product’. That makes sense… ONLY IF….  we could figure out how their pricing is structured and …ONLY IF… we had a choice, in the true sense of the word. You can, obviously, abstain from buying the product, but then you might as well move back to the stone age and make fires to keep you warm; a choice which, in many areas of the country, you DO NOT have! (Fires … nor Stone Age… ).

So where does that leave you and I. I offer this piece of advice. If ever you needed to encourage your children to become something it should be this: and here is they have a choice: Be very rich (and, therefor, totally financially independent) OR be very poor (so the state will have to take care of them). Anything inbetween will, unfairly, render them the workhorse of the tax system.

I don’t think the average worker should have any say over what their bosses earn. The only thing the average worker should care about is how much he/she earns and if you are earning within the deal you’ve cut for yourself then you should be happy. If not, go speak to the boss and if that doesn’t work go have your union do something about it.

a while ago I worked for a company where an engineer found out that the secretary was earning more than he was. He did not care about her track record, experience, qualifications, workload, none of that mattered to him. All he ‘knew’ was that he should earn more than a secretary. Until that moment he was very satisfied with his salary.

What we can and should fight against is what happens to the money we earn through our hard work. Government taxes takes on average forty percent of it in direct and aother stealth taxes. What do they do with that money? Take the NHS. Is it free? Of course not! They use the phrase ‘free at the point of collection’. N-O-N-S-E-N-S-E! If you pay for it, it is not free, not at any point! Especially not if this HEALTH system tells you that you have to fork out for part of your dental and optical needs and subscription collections.

All this while our politicians collect salaries, hugely inflated by guaranteed pensions and all kinds of claims and free expenditures. And when high earning civil SERVANTS are dished bonusses not hugely less than some private sector earners we have to fork out a few percent more on things like feul duty and the V.A.T. on top of that. Was it government who stopped the energy companies in the UK from raising energy prices eighteen percent? No! They let them carry on. Do they ever stop these businesses from profiteering from their captured clients? No! They take a windfall tax instead.

I am not saying that it is okay or correct that a handful of individuals own the biggest cut of the worlds wealth, but, at the same time, private companies can spend their cash any way they wish – this is the system most of us were happy with when everything seemed to be flowing along nicely. It is up to you to get in there and earn a bigger cut if you want.

It is the duty of government to ensure that every entity eligible to pay taxes have those taxes collected from them. Nobody lines up to ask how much tax they have to pay if the regulations are not in place and the loopholes closed off. In all of this, seeming, inequality, we must hold the people we elect to do the job on our behalf, to account.

I don’t know what the answer to the crisis is: Maybe we should fight for a change to the Capitalist system, and maybe we should divorce government from the nations finances.

Based on the above, what should their logical response be? Answer: To hammer their local authorities to build or have more Faith Schools built! Or; Import the good performance aspects of Faith Schools into government schools!

In reality, what is their response? Answer: Get rid of Faith Schools! Drag everyone down to the same level instead of elevating everyone to the level of good performing Faith Schools.

But why would atheists send their children to be educated in an institution which has as its base the exact thing that they rebel against? Is it not some of these people who claim that more wars have been fought in the name of religion than for any other reason?

And if these schools are closed down, do they expect those kids to just disappear with the school? Their kids will still have to fight for a place in the slightly worse government school along with the added totals from the Faith Schools- not so?

We all have certain beliefs, some religious, some not. We all want our desires seen to first. We all want our taxes spent on us only. We are all slightly selfish by nature. We all live in a democracy. Make your voice heard in order to change situations in your favour. But we must not allow our selfish nature drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator (i.e. If I cannot have it then no-one will have it).

Fight to elevate everyone to the same high levels. Copy the best features and apply it to your own situation. Allow the truth to reveal the facts: and the fact is that FAITH SCHOOLS (not non-faith schools) are the best performing schools which is why even atheists want their kids to be taught there. Let’s replicate THAT system! Not so? Or do I have it completely wrong?

What is the route out of this recession? Oh? We are not in a (2nd) recession yet? It is like player the numbers on inflation – RPI? Or PPI? I am in recession now and have been since 2008 at least!

It seems to me the only way out of this is a variation on the Economic Protectionim theme – let’s fix ours and let the rest fix theirs themselves, fo a while at least. And how long can China keep funding their own growth? When does that load come tumbling down. Probably as soon as we look like we are recovering, I guess.

Bekele Geleta, of the Red Cross was quoted in a newspaper, blaming the actions of the free market for the uneven distributuion of food. I think, harsh as it may sound, the free market is acting exactly as it should, free to supply to those who can afford to pay.

The system of free market economy was never intended to have any charitable intentions. It is the duty of govertnments to ensure that those in society who cannot cope are supported by a sytem of care. And where we have coutries that suffer we have international bodies and charitable organisations supported by those who can afford, to lend a helping hand.

Maybe the question that should be asked is whether Democracy, the Free Market economy, and other systems we have implemented are to the benefit of the world population or really only a handfull of individuals.

But let us now be enlightened by the facts. The planet can cope and is not overpopulated. We are employing the wrong systems and that is what needs to be corrected.

As I recall, when I voted, I did not vote for ‘that nice man off the telly’! I voted for how he was going to fix the economy; send crims to prison; get lazy arses off the dole, etc. That’s what I voted for! Definitely NOT to be told that I am a ‘bad’ citizen. We elect and pay them to do the work on our behalf. Go and do the work Mr Politician man. Find a way to get it sorted without telling me to do it; You took my vote which said you would do it.

So, if the job is too difficult for you, don’t sit there and suck up public money like a hungry whale, p^ss off and Find another job. Don’t spend your time working out how to increase your claims while reducing your workload! P^ss off! Go and spend your family fortune! Don’t sit there building a family fortune by employing virtual people and lazy-arse family! P^ss off! Let someone with real passion do the work.

My personal take on this (and I do not claim any deep understanding of economics) is that in order to start any kind of recovery, we will have to (against my desires and those of many others) institute some kind of protectionism. We will have to say to everyone else, sorry, but we have to take care of our own country first. I suggest every economy will have to do this. Impose heavy import duties and subsidise local industries to produce mainly for local consumption. In a sense, let’s start this whole free trading concept from scratch and put the proper regulations and protections in place based on what we’ve, hopefully, learnt from sinking into the deep dark hole we are in now.

The first lesson should be that all attempts to dump truckloads of money on our current problems have been for nought. We’ve burnt money for nothing. Even Trillions of Dollars of Virtual money has made NO difference. Secondly, if a business is about to fail, allow the rules of economics to take its course. Let the business fail and its resources be deployed more effieciently elsewhere. Make sure new businesses are equipped for ‘bad’ times and make sure they understand that running a business during an economic boom is like driving a car on an open, flat highway with no speed restrictions: even a learner can achieve that. I takes considerable effort to make a business fail during boom times.

During these times, direct the help at the citizens who are about to be hit, so they can decide to use the financial result of the help to stimulate the local economy. Countries, heavily reliant on exports will have to suffer while the restructure their economy to be more resilient. Coutries heavily reliant on one sector of the economy will have an opportunity to rebalance their economy and ensure that local industries learn about flexibility and price competitiveness.

Governments have to learn that Utilities, Public Transport and Public Health are Not-For-Profit; That efficiency saves money in the short, medium and long-term; that Citizens are not customers nor clients; that the Tax-Payer is the employer and that all politicians are Public Servants.

I could hand it in to the police, but because they are so stretched and this person lives in a different area, I assume the wallet would end up in a lost property room somewhere and never find its owner. Ther are items in there that the owner will want back, not only money.

If you can help, please pass this message on.

My contact email address patdsol@gmail.com