In a follow-up to News Ltd columnist Andrew Bolt's recent article about drugs, Ben-Peter Terpstra presents his three-point plan to combat drug abuse. Many, if not most Australians will agree with both journalists, but not our authorities, it seems. GC.Ed.@L.
I don’t always agree with Andrew Bolt. But, when it comes to drugs, well, he does make a strong case for a get-tough approach. Or as the Herald Sun columnist clearly articulates, “The ‘war on drugs’ can’t be said to be lost just because some people still take them. It’s like saying laws against murder have failed because some people still kill.”
I mean, what’s next? “Rape is a part of life, so legalise it”?
Following the drugs-first libertarian argument, we’d end up with anarchy, including LSD for primary-school students.
Keep in mind too that celebrity twits openly talk about their personal drug use in Australia, meaning that our drug laws aren’t scary enough.
So, here’s my novel plan:
First, enforce the laws we already have on the books.
Second, introduce tougher sentences and enforce them, Singapore-style.
Third, prepare to witness a big drop in crime.
Of course, a real war on drugs has never been launched in my lifetime because our look-at-my-compassion elites feel it’s their duty to mother drug users, as opposed to their long-suffering victims.
Notably, Bolt advances the argument that our self-styled experts on drugs aren’t being frank either: “When Hong Kong legalised opium, almost one-third of the Chinese on the colony were said to be users. When America gave up the much-rorted Prohibition, drinking rose, as did deaths by boozing, says the US National Bureau of Economic Research. Let the drug legalisers be frank. If we legalise drugs, more people are likely to use them.”
Moreover, it’s illogical to portray drug use as just a private liberty matter when so many drug users are sucking the life out of our social security. They, in my experience, often smell too.
And that’s the problem isn’t it? After all, many smelly drug-addicts are government-dependent citizens, with no real prospects because they have fried their brains.
Perhaps, some junkies didn’t plan for this, but results speak louder than intentions. Indeed, when taxpayers are forced to pay for overcrowded public hospitals, it’s time to get tough.
Remember: families have a right to safe roads, small businesses have a right to operate in safe streets and you have a right to be as safe as a Singaporean.
Coming from a Dutch background, I suspect Bolt understands that appeasement has irreparably damaged Europe. I’ve witnessed it firsthand. Bolt isn’t anti-liberty. He’s just against drugs-first libertarianism.
Ben-Peter Terpstra contributes to many publications including MH and Quadrant.
His blog: B.P. Terpstra.
So Bolt believes in free speech, including the freedom to offend, but he does not believe in the freedom to consume substances that others find offensive? Does he want cigarettes, alcohol, soft drinks and fast food to be banned too? If not, why not? As Ludwig von Mises observed:
"[O]nce the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments. A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government’s benevolent providence to the protection of the individual’s body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs … If one abolishes man’s freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away. The naive advocates of government interference with consumption delude themselves when they neglect what they disdainfully call the philosophical aspect of the problem. They unwittingly support the case of censorship, inquisition, religious intolerance, and the persecution of dissenters."
Posted by: Benjamin Marks | May 13, 2013 at 10:19 AM
Great post! Starts with a couple of false analogies, and then brings out the big stick.
So, here’s my novel plan:
First, enforce the laws we already have on the books.
Second, introduce tougher sentences and enforce them, Singapore-style. Hanging too?
Third, prepare to witness a big drop in crime.
Hasn't the USA been doing that for decades?
The result - 5% of the worlds population has around 25% of the worlds prison population (land of the free?)
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-right-the-drug-war/
Indeed, when taxpayers are forced to pay for overcrowded public hospitals, it’s time to get tough.
Public hospital emergency staff dread Friday and Saturday nights. Why? Alcohol related injuries.
Perhaps we should consider alcohol prohibition.
Oh, that's right. The majority of responsible alcohol users (most menzies house contributers?) shouldn't have their preferred 'brain tweaker' taken away because of a few irresponsible bogans.
They, in my experience, often smell too.
ie. the ones that smoke tobacco.
May I suggest that the overwhelming majority of illicit drug users use their preferred 'brain tweaker' responsibly and are otherwise law-abiding, contributing members of society?
Posted by: Arthur Dent | May 13, 2013 at 11:00 AM
“The ‘war on drugs’ can’t be said to be lost just because some people still take them. It’s like saying laws against murder have failed because some people still kill.”
The war on drugs is lost because it continues to cost a fortune for the community, give criminal records to non-violent teenagers and provide the lifeblood for bikie gangs and criminal thugs. And people still take drugs just the same as always.
It fails any cost/benefit analysis you care to put forward.
Murder laws are completely different. As it's impossible to live - literally, in the case of the victims - with a murderer in your midst, we will track down and deal with murderers no matter what. It doesn't matter what it costs, or even if we didn't have murder laws, we'd still do this just as every society has done throughout history. Hence, we need murder laws to civilise this process or we'll end up with mobs with pitch forks and lynching ropes.
Murder laws make society more civilised. Drug laws make society less civilised.
Posted by: John Mc | May 13, 2013 at 11:37 AM
So what you're trying to do, in your words, is extend the power of the government to criminalise what people do freely in their own time?
This not only sounds like a completely under researched theory, but it is also full of holes that need to be pointed out.
we’d end up with anarchy, including LSD for primary-school students
Citations please. Proof of where this is happening, going to happen, why or otherwise it's just pure speculation and FUD.
When America gave up the much-rorted Prohibition, drinking rose, as did deaths by boozing
And gang violence and crime related deaths went down, and the government's revenue went up with the tax they collected on these goods.
You've left out the complete other side of the matter, which is a classic example of biased reporting.
Moreover, it’s illogical to portray drug use as just a private liberty matter when so many drug users are sucking the life out of our social security. They, in my experience, often smell too.
So it's okay to continue to ban substances because of a very small minority? By that logic, lets ban poker machines too since welfare cheats use them to spend all of our hard earned tax payer money.
And so what if they smell? Plenty of people smell for entirely different reasons. Unless they're in your house or on property you own, you can't ask them to leave. I don't ask the slightly incontinent elderly women to leave my store because they smell on the odd occasion, so perhaps you just need to toughen up and deal with this so called 'problem'.
you have a right to be as safe as a Singaporean.
So we can have the highest number of fines per capita than any other country in the world, such as for eating chewing gum on a train or eating a durian in public?
What about leading the world in depression rates?
Or the fact that they that they still carry out the worst atrocities that any legal system can undertake, state sanctioned capital punishment, is this the future you want for Australia?
Posted by: Roger | May 13, 2013 at 11:59 AM
The only way you could possibly stop mass drug taking is by summary execution of users and dealers.
The Americans have been 'getting tough' for ages and what happens - handcuffs all round. But the drugs still exist.
Watch the program 'Cops' - endless arrests for little bags of forbidden. Over and over.
This is a good idea ?
Posted by: john malpas | May 13, 2013 at 12:02 PM
Maybe we should ban unpasturised milk and home made jam as well. also eating oysters, they can make you sick.
I still don't know why I should care what people consume in their own home. in my home my rules apply. would led zepplin sound better if they were sober when they played?
Posted by: Anton | May 13, 2013 at 01:22 PM
I am struggling with this touch screen thingy
Posted by: Anton | May 13, 2013 at 01:23 PM
I can speak with some knowledge of how soft laws destroy lives.
I have personally been to the police several times to dob a member of my family in for continually stealing from our parents.
Coppers had two responses. 1) The parents had to lay charges and 2)they knew about him but no use doing anything because the judge will just slap him on the wrist as it is "too harsh" to make them go cold turkey.
My brother is now a schizophrenic. The only way to lower crime is to be harsh on it. The compassionistas will never learn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
And that's from Wikipedia-not exactly a conservative zone.
Here is a supportive view of him-without all the caveats about Amnesty (like who cares about them left wing loons anyways)http://www.mcso.org/About/Sheriff.aspx
Abbott mentioned bringing in elections for Judges and Its a good idea. Wouldn't be long before the crime rates in the areas where Judges would rise and put folly to the whole its better to rehabilitate than jail crap favoured by the loons.
Rehabilitation is best reserved for AFTER they have served the time.
Posted by: kraka | May 13, 2013 at 01:41 PM
should read where the Judges are soft
Posted by: kraka | May 13, 2013 at 01:42 PM
G'day kraka.
I checked out your link (again) to that Joe Arpaio bloke - have seen various references to him over the years - but I did come across something new:"Arpaio is also known for his investigation of President Barack Obama's birth certificate, and his claim that it is forged."
I'm sorry kraka, but I had to stop there, you know, before I got to the part where he claims that he was abducted by aliens and.....er,um....probed.
On a more serious note; do you think that your brother may have had a predisposition to schizophrenia and it was inevitable?
Posted by: Arthur Dent | May 13, 2013 at 03:40 PM
Politician-enriching and empowering prohibition may not be the absolute worst thing fascistic authoritarian-regulatory governments have ever imposed upon their owners and financiers -- We, The People -- but it must be close to taking that prize!
And nowhere more disastrously than by the western world's close to worst example of an authoritarian-regulatory government: The one whose primary tumor resides in the ACT and that has metastasized to every corner of this once-somewhat-free land and - via the "health care" - that has inserted itself into every Australian's every bodily function.
Almost every societal evil now descends from prohibition whose principal primary effect has been to deliver all of the world's money into the hands of the world's most evil Men and via them into and has corrupted every corner and every aspect of every institution, every means of production, every industry and every institution, bank, bureau, secretariat, agency, force, department and political potty.
Rid the Judeo-Christian/Western/Human-Civilized world of the cynical manifestation of evil that is prohibition and with it -- IN AN INSTANT -- goes 90% of the civilized world's crime and corruption.
And for those of Australia's elitist nincompoops that haven't yet noticed and/or have chosen to have not? Singapore has long waxed fat as the main financier and profiteer of all of Asia's criminal drug production and trafficking, is the home and personal, private banker of most of Asia's and many of the world's very worst drug criminals. And, to boot -- whenever there's a handy nearby earthquake and/or tsunami, sees another Billion Dollar "foreign-aid"-financed housing-construction 'boom!'
Brian Richard Allen
Lost Angels - Califobamacated 90028
And The Very Far Abroad
Posted by: Brian Richard Allen | May 13, 2013 at 03:59 PM
I'll answer the last one first. Yes it is possible but if the law was upheld he would have not gone onto more insidious drugs and injections and thus had a much less chance of being mentally affected. Unless of course you want to deny the links between drug use and mental illness.
As for the birther thing-so what? Obama himself is the one who lied in a promotional pamphlet that he was "born in Kenya, raised in Indonesia" to appeal to his black roots.
It's a bit harsh to have a go at someone about conspiracy theories when the theory itself was started by Obama. You also have a whole lot of lefty morons who think the US government flew planes into the world trade centre. Now THAT is LUNACY on a grand scale if you believe that.
It doesn't take away from the fact he has lowered crime rates and keeps getting re-elected.
That was my point and pointing out he believes in a conspiracy theory (that quite frankly has a lot more basis than the WTC was an inside job)does not in any way, shape or form disprove that his harsh on crime stance has and is working.
I mean Tim Flannery is an idiot who has made numerous ridiculous (and false statements). I'm pretty sure you don't devalue his position in light of them.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/tim-flannery-extreme-climate-predictions/
Posted by: kraka | May 13, 2013 at 04:05 PM
For kraka, too:
.... Sheriff Arpaio is also known for his investigation of Barry Buraq Hussayn Frank Marshall Davis Soetoro's "birth certificate" ....
Which has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to have been forged. As is that sail-eared simpleton's Social Security Card/number.
Pity you didn't read on about modern American Hero, 'Sheriff Joe.' But ignorance, I'm told, is blissful?
Posted by: Brian Richard Allen | May 13, 2013 at 04:09 PM
@Benjamin Marks: Bolt never argues that drugs should be banned just because they offend him. To the contrary, he sees that legalisation leads to less liberty for the rest of us. In 2013, drug users are robbing taxpayers on a daily basis through their selfish (not to mention illegal) lifestyle choices. I’m just sorry that ideology blinds so many drugs-first libertarians to this point.
@Arthur Dent: No, the United States isn’t always tough on drugs. Compared to Singapore it is weak. A careful analysis of criminal sentencing records will set people straight. The fact that paranoid drug users in America feel persecuted is emotional blackmail. In point of fact, narcissistic entertainers openly brag about their illegal drug use in the U.S. without consequences.
Posted by: Ben | May 13, 2013 at 04:16 PM
For the record I'm not one who believes the birther conspiracy.
Posted by: kraka | May 13, 2013 at 04:19 PM
Hey dickhead-as I explained in my answer to AD, OBAMA himself started that conspiracy by lying about his background on an self auto biography for a firm he worked for. One of many times he padded his auto biography's.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii
Yes ignorance is definitely bliss hey BRA.
Are you disputing his methods don't work????? I notice how both you and AD did not dispute that his way worked, rather pointed out some obscure reference to a conspiracy theory that Obama himself started.
As I said to AD-at least that theory has more basis than the moronic idea the GWB ordered planes into the WTC. Wanker.
Posted by: kraka | May 13, 2013 at 04:27 PM
Brian - re-reading your post I'm not sure who you are having a go at there. My apologies if I have mis-read that.
Posted by: kraka | May 13, 2013 at 04:30 PM
I'll answer the last one first. Yes it is possible but if the law was upheld he would have not gone onto more insidious drugs and injections and thus had a much less chance of being mentally affected.
I take it you mean by "if the law was upheld" you mean if he was sent to prison years ago.
hmmmm. Isn't it easier to aquire injecting drugs in prison,and various related diseases?
Drugs in our prisons? wtf?
oh, that's right. Prohibition leads to corruption of police and prison officers. Silly me.
Brian Richard Allen quote-
" and has corrupted every corner and every aspect of every institution, every means of production, every industry and every institution, bank, bureau, secretariat, agency, force, department and political potty. "
As for the WTC conspiracy-
The 9/11 conspiracy theories started out mostly in the political left but have broadened into what New York Magazine describes as "terra incognita where left and right meet, fusing sixties countercultural distrust with the don’t-tread-on-me variety".
As for the the greatest conspiracy of human history- that a loving benevolent deity has us under 24/7 supervision(yep, He saw you do that kraka, and He knew you were going to do it before you did it, but if you repent blah blah etc).
Sorry, I tend to get on the soap box with conspiracy theories.
Cheers.
Posted by: Arthur Dent | May 13, 2013 at 04:39 PM
Pity you didn't read on about modern American Hero, 'Sheriff Joe.' But ignorance, I'm told, is blissful?
With respect Brian, I'm working on my ignorance, perhaps you should do a bit more research on your 'modern american hero'.
Did you know he-
a) claims to have arrested Elvis Presley (unfortunately no evidence exists)
b)claims he was a Korean War veteran (He was in the Army during the Korean War but he never set foot there. His overseas assignment was in France.)
c)As co-owner of Starworld Travel Agency in Scottsdale, Arpaio sells flight reservations for the first commercial spaceship to orbit the earth, for $52,000 each. The voyage is cancelled for lack of passengers, and of a spaceship.
d) Sheriff Joe Arpaio spent $10,000 in taxpayer money to have Arizona State University study recidivism in the jail system. The result showed that there was no change in the rate at which inmates returned to jail. Sheriff Joe Arpaio immediately declared that ASU was wrong.
There's more, but you get the idea.
Miss the bliss?
Posted by: Arthur Dent | May 13, 2013 at 05:10 PM
@Anton: Comparing oysters to mind-destroying drugs? Neuroimaging contradicts this argument. The criminal will rob houses to feed his or her heroin habit, not his or her penchant for home-made jams or oysters. Also, for the record, driving under the influence of LSD is different than driving under the influence of milk.
@kraka: Thanks for sharing your real life experience. Keep on speaking the truth. Yes, schizophrenia and drug use are good friends.
Posted by: Ben | May 13, 2013 at 05:30 PM
That would have to be the worst article I have ever read on this site. Biased descriptions, unsubstantiated claims, wild speculation and based on premises proven to be false. Some of the claims mirror the lefties cries of if you dont support this, you must by default approve of the opposite worst case. Shame on you Ben Peter, for failing to open your eyes to the reality of younger (including mine) generations lives. Shame on you for drawing links between drug laws and rape laws, simply disgusting.
Posted by: Mike | May 13, 2013 at 05:37 PM
Until you advovate for the complete prohibition of alcohol and cigarettes, your view is extremely hypocritical.
Posted by: Mike | May 13, 2013 at 05:41 PM
The criminal will rob houses to feed his or her heroin habit
Only because it's so expensive. If tobacco was illegal and $500 a packet on the black market, and you were a pack a day addict, what would happen?
Yes, schizophrenia and drug use are good friends.
Schizophrenia and genetics are better friends.
And unfortunately around 5% of the prison population have it. - Australian Institute of Criminology.
Posted by: Arthur Dent | May 13, 2013 at 05:52 PM
Arthur-all points taken but irrelevant to the discussion. None of those points disproves his harsher stance on crime works. They are red herrings.
To go back to Tim Flannery-how many (more) predictions does he have to get wrong before the ABC/SBS/Fairfax stop using him as an "expert" on climate. You see-it doesn't seem to stop anyone using Flannery as a poster boy when he is obviously a halfwit when it comes to climate predictions. In fact, it is the opposite-because he agree's with their leftist view of climate change he is able to ad nauseum repeat fictional claims. At least Sheriff Joe can point to his achievements that cannot be belittled by pointing out inconsistencies in his history.
Hell, maybe if the US and the Oz media had of paid as much attention to the historical inconsistencies of Obama and Rudd as they do to Sheriff Joe we might not be in the parlous fiscal state we are.
As for my brother-perhaps if the cops had of dragged him home by the ear, kicked him up the bum etc at a young age instead of turning a blind eye because it is all too hard, things would be different.
As for getting drugs in jail-well that is what happens when you make eunochs out of the security system. Christ-prisoners go on strike because they didn't like xmas dinner. In your world it's hand over the roast turkey and the prisoners will be happy.
In my world it's belt the bastards over the head with a club, put them in solitary with 1 meal a day.
In your world, appeasing the criminals somehow stops them because it shows we understand them. I'm pretty sure it is obvious which way stops the prison strikes.
Posted by: kraka | May 13, 2013 at 05:54 PM
This writer (and Bolt) has no idea what he is talking about! Comparison of murder and rape with drug use!...I mean really! Just because moral regulation - prohibition is appropriate for murder and rape (one of either is too many) doesn't mean it is the same for taking some drug other than what he thinks is acceptable.What is being proposed is plainly draconian forms of punishment.Our road rules are based on harm reduction principles, do you want a conviction and criminal record instead parking or speeding fine. After reading this again, quickly, I doubt it is possible to engage with people who think like this! Reeks of discrimination.
Posted by: Rob Chapman | May 13, 2013 at 06:07 PM
@Arthur Dent: I’m not one for making excuses for home invaders. There is no excuse for a heroin addict to invade a home, no matter what. What’s more, if there’s no respect for the property rights of law-abiding citizens, the libertarian argument has already crashed. We must stop mothering lawbreakers.
Posted by: Ben | May 13, 2013 at 06:12 PM
Surely, property rights start with ownership of your own body, and your choice of how you use your own body is your business.
Posted by: John Mc | May 13, 2013 at 06:35 PM
Arthur-all points taken but irrelevant to the discussion. None of those points disproves his harsher stance on crime works.
I thought the last point did. The recidivism rate for his prison was the same as others. Isn't that the benchmark?
As for my brother-perhaps if the cops had of dragged him home by the ear, kicked him up the bum etc at a young age instead of turning a blind eye because it is all too hard, things would be different.
Did your parents try that approach? You know, a bit of good old 'home correction'? A smack around the head or a good belting with the strap?
In my world it's belt the bastards over the head with a club, put them in solitary with 1 meal a day.
Even the ones suffering from schizophrenia? That'll work for sure. (insert sigh here)
Posted by: Arthur Dent | May 13, 2013 at 06:37 PM
Ben, I'm not trying to make excuses, only looking at cause and effect.
Posted by: Arthur Dent | May 13, 2013 at 06:42 PM
No Ben, it is ridiculous to claim diminished responsibility due to a chemical you voluntarily consumed. Our courts accept the argument, but you can see the results yourself.
And the libertarian argument is not disproved, actually quite the opposite. The libertarian view is individual freedom WITH PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. and private property rights are to be respected.
Just because we should not prosecute people for taking drugs, does not mean we should not prosecute and punish them for property and liberty deprivation crimes. Sentence the house invader regardless of the chemicals in their system.
And yes, where a person can take drugs and remain a law abiding citizen by their own controls they should be left alone. This is actually the case for most "recreational drug" users, believe it or not.
Posted by: Anton | May 13, 2013 at 07:44 PM
What constitutes are 'drug' in this argument ben?
Booze?
Oxy Contin?
DMT?
Tremadol?
You do realise that Heroin has practical applications and is still used in childbirth and pallative care in the UK?
You seem a little vague about who, what and where. But that's what you get when you read the 'advice' of someone who doesn't know the pharmacology let alone social aspects of any drug usage.
Best stick with things you know Ben, like online gaming and donuts.
Posted by: pk | May 13, 2013 at 10:03 PM
I'm starting to see a pattern with you AD. Criticize everything and offer no solutions.
What would you do Arthur-to lower the crime rate???
Very easy to nit pick-if somewhat inaccurately as Sheriff Joes recidivism rate is far better than the national average-instead of just being a sarcastic asshole how about coming clean your solutions.
Posted by: kraka | May 14, 2013 at 10:56 AM
Get lost pk-you still live in the 60's movement where abortion is about a women's right to choose and the child's right to live is of no importance.
I'm getting a little cranky here-drugs are a serious problem and all you socialist wankers can come up with is criticisms. How would you deal with the problem of drugs. Do you have solutions that don't involve giving away free needles and releasing criminals back on the street.
I reckon you know jack shit about the "pharmacology let alone social aspects of any drug usage."
You are a cartoon character, a joke-all the pretence of intelligence but show all the signs of stupidity.
Posted by: kraka | May 14, 2013 at 11:00 AM
Kraka you are exhausting.
And BTW, you make drug addicts criminals by criminalisation what is a health issue. I prefer to listen to those from the front lines, than armchair observers like Ben.
http://www.leap.cc
Posted by: pk | May 14, 2013 at 01:01 PM
Read my original post-I am on the frontline. Your statement is pure bullshit. Drugs are the cause of the health issue, not the symptom.
Anyone who believes legalizing drugs such as cocaine and heroin will somehow lessen the health effect is a moron. As it states on it's own site-the drug war is lost.
I guess that means the welfare war is lost too so if you want to live on government handouts you should be able to never have to work again. Oh Wait-that already is the ALP/Green philosophy.
Posted by: kraka | May 14, 2013 at 01:43 PM
>As it states on it's own site-the drug war is lost.
correct so why keep using the same old tactics.
I'm interested in people who say if you decriminalised 'drugs' then more people would use them. Would you shoot up some smack if you could get a doctors prescription to do so? So why would anyone else (who isn't already able and does take drugs now?)
Posted by: pk | May 14, 2013 at 02:58 PM
Kraka, should it be the government that tells us what we can and can't use?
Why should they have to 'protect' free thinking adults who can freely make their own choices?
Posted by: Greg | May 14, 2013 at 06:01 PM
I'm starting to see a pattern with you AD. Criticize everything and offer no solutions.
What would you do Arthur-to lower the crime rate???
Not really criticizing kraka, more like analysing. Just asking questions. You blame soft policing for your brother's behaviour. What about your parent's parenting skills? Were they lacking?
As for the crime rate. Stats seem to show that there has been an overall reduction in crime over recent decades. Perhaps if we want it even lower, we should consider the Norwegian model, which has the lowest recidivation rate in Europe.
Trouble is, it sort of goes 'against the grain',(you know, human nature-eye for an eye, payback, revenge genre films etc etc) and would be extremely hard to sell politically.
Hey, I reckon someone like Jesus could sell it. What do you reckon?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-prison-inmates-treated-like-people
Posted by: Arthur Dent | May 14, 2013 at 06:20 PM
I'll give you my bong, kraka, when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Posted by: Arthur Dent | May 14, 2013 at 07:01 PM
Looks like you won't have to get to that point, kraka looks out of steam and out of an argument for government intervention.
Posted by: Oscar | May 20, 2013 at 11:02 AM