"Addicts, it argues, should receive treatment and health services rather than prosecution through the law. Public resources should be channelled to prevention, rather than prohibition." Why, just because it works better and is cheaper? Those aren't good political reasons.
About time! Sadly politicians will not have the courage to listen. Being seen as "tough on drugs" gets votes, regardless of whether it is a totally useless waste of money or not. And votes mean prizes.
If I led a rich, nomadic lifestyle, I would also be hiring home-tutors: much more effective. Of course traditional schools that depend upon students coming to them on a daily basis cannot cope. That doesn't make the schools "bad" per se, merely ill-adapted to the children in question.
Traditional schools may not be good for most other kids either, but we all get what we are willing to pay for and put up with.
True, it s all the IMF's fault. The siphoning off of aid, oil, and commodity loans, grants and tariffs to the personal overseas accounts of the power elite had nothing to do with any of the economic problems of these countries.
You've heard of "Disgusted, Tunbridge Wells"? Well, I live in Holland Park and I've Had It. Up to here! An old curmudgeon, I rant and rave about things I read, see or hear in the News. Frequently sarcastic, irreverent and libertarian; often wrong - but never uncertain.