Can anyone tell me the last time a terrorist bombed a school, hospital or other soft target?
More likely the idea is to ensure that lots of buildings are blurred out. Blurring out only a few would effectivly mark them as targets for terrorists. It might well be better to just add some false "blurred out" buildings where no buildings actually exist though:)
The pedo has become the 21st century boogie man, like the commie in the 50s. They tried using terrorists but found that it doesn't shut up critics like pedo does.
The other "problem" with using terrorists in this role is that plenty of governments support various terrorist groups. The only possible issue with "pedos" is sexism...
The govt. will never stop at the originally intended intent of the law, no matter how much they promise to limit the reach of the law for the intended use that 'everyone can agree with'.
One thing which is uncertain is if said law will actually be used its "intended purpose" (the reason it was claimed to be needed in the first place.) e.g. In the UK non of the recent anti-terrorism laws appear to have been used against terrorists who cannot be portrayed as "Islamic". However it turns out that none of these laws are actually needed to sucessfully prosecute terrorists.
Heck...look at the new and creative ways in the past decade that they have been expanding the RICO act which was put in place only to target the mob.
But not used, in rather less creative ways, against corrupt businesses. e.g. the RIAA's activities look very much like a form of racketeering.
We should insist that most new laws are not only VERY narrowly defined, but that they also have sunset provisions....to give the public at least a fighting chance to not only keep laws from expanding in scope, but, to also have hope that some that are downright bad...have a chance to go away. So long renewing a law is at least as hard as passing a new one this has the positive effect of less laws.
The most powerful argument I have heard for use of surveillance technology is that people that don't break the law should not fear it. The problem is what if the laws change to suit the people in power.
In many cases there are so many laws that people will break several a day. Thus it can be more a case of changing which (and how) laws are enforced...
We don't need to give the government power that it does not need, but if we need to give them power to protect us it must come at a great cost to them.
Governments always claim to need additional powers to protect the public. Yet often appear unwilling to use the powers they have. For example why have the assets of no bank executives been confiscated?
Regulate the access of the information. Make the process completely transparent.
If an exception needs to be made do so via a court order which contains specifics.
If abuse occurs make the system stop functioning or let the abused go free.
Also ensure that the abuser is punished. Including such things as a crime committed by an official of the state should automatically attract a higher sentence than one committed by a member of the public. If anyone should be considered "guility until proven innocent" it should be government ministers and senior police officers too.
I can see this being very impractical for a few reasons. Main one it's incredibly hard to store aluminium in a way where it won't oxidise, especially as this would work would need it to be powdered
Which is probably more use for making rocket fuel
and without that layer of oxidised aluminium on the top, it's incredibly reactive and dangerous.
An oxide layer typically protects the metal. It's a combination of reactive metal and inert oxide, thus under normal conditions you have what appears to be a quite inert metal.
You're then left with a large pile of Oxidised aluminium which I don't believe has any use apart from the production of 'pure' aluminium (which requires lots of electricity).
Electrolysis of water would probably require considerably less electricity. Since electrolysis of alumina requires it to be in a liquid state.
A more effective email campaign would state that dear old Jack was being held hostage by pirates off the coast of Somalia and that a generous donation to ransom fund would free him.
Assuming anyone who did this didn't get lots of emails back saying "You keep him", "When do you plan on picking up the rest of them?" or similar.
And so, equally, shouldn't be disclosed to a foreign corporation, which is what happens if you are storing them on a Microsoft-owned and controlled mail server. If I found out that my doctor or lawyer was storing my case details in Google Docs I would be equally appalled.
The Information Commissioner's Office would probably want some explanations were that to happen. Since it would be hard to do this without breaking data protection laws.
Of course if the guy in the article were smarter he would have wondered what that little icon (roaming indicator) on his screen was before he watched a streaming telecast.
Except that he was using a data card. Which may well not have "roaming indicator". It was mentioned in the article that he was sent warning text messages, but since he was not using a phone had no way of seeing them.
You need an aircraft to even attempt that. Even planes not designed to land on water, such as the A320, could probably manage this. The only thing this rocket could do was CRASH, since it was never designed to land anywhere...
Worse than that - people are banned from wearing "obstructive headwear". The real problem is with "hoodies", but the Police can't be seen to be discriminating against a single ethnic group so they target the easy to pick on groups instead.
Should the Metropolitan Police get much closer to being real life "Keystone Kopps" they'd probably just arrest each other. Problem solved!
True, even if they get caught and locked up (or put under curfew, or fined enough that they can't afford to drink) it isn't preventing anything.
Because as we all know, getting drunk and being violent is something everybody does once, and nobody ever repeats it.
Keeping violent people off the streets is an expected function of government. It literally is one of those things people "pay their taxes" for. If people are only violent when they drink alcohol then the obvious solutions include keeping them away from alcohol; keeping them away from the public or giving them some other drug which prevents them being a threat to anyone even if they do drink alcohol. Taking photographs/videos of them being violent is only of much use if it convinces the judiciary to take action they would not otherwise have taken. Photos/videos of them behaving non violently are irrelevent to the required ends. Thus a waste of public money which could be put to better use or not taken from the public in the first place. If "Wacky Jackie" (or her underlings) thinks it is a good idea to film her employeers going about their daily business them maybe she should use HER money to do it.
I do agree on legalizing cannabis though. Most smokers will never be harmed by it, and those who smoke too much are the sort of people who should be kept docile for the good of the rest of us. The MASSIVE consumption of cannabis in the 1960s/1970s is ample demonstration of its benign effects. Remove it from the black market and, as with alcohol, you de-fund criminal empires.
Not only do you no longer have the drain on public resources which goes with prohibition doing so would bring in money even without any special taxes.
Let everyone grow their own and it won't cost much of anything.
Not everyone is going to want to grow their own cannabis any more than they would want to grow their own tobacco or brew their own beer/wine. Legal businesses pay all sorts of taxes, just as a part of operating a legal business.
Similarly, CCTV doesn't seem to be so much of a deterrent as it is an additional piece of evidence to be used in court.
There appear to be plenty of cases where they aren't even any use for this.
A convenience store clerk who "swears he remembers" the face of the guy who robbed the register cannot provide a convincing eyewitness account (there are thousands of scientific studies to back this up). However, a CCTV image that shows the guy robbing the register is pretty damning, and rather difficult to refute.
In which case the camera dosn't have to cover the entire shop it needs only cover one very specific place. The camera can be set up optimal focus, zoom and depth of field. Appropriate illumination can also be installed with the camera, which need not even use visible light. With something like a street a camera needs to both have a large depth of field, with varying light levels (N.B. any kind of automatic iris will mess up the depth of field) and have resolution to be useful even at its furthest range. A decent framerate on the recording is helpful too.
The cops also get watched on the CCTV cameras -- this can go a long way toward ensuring that they stay in line, given that virtually all of their actions are going to be under intense scrutiny. I think we can all agree that the dashboard cameras placed in most cop cars are a fantastic idea, as they protect both the police and the citizens.
In the UK filming police may well be now illegal. Such a camera in a cop car would also require that the public have real time access to the footage, the police in the car cannot tamper with the camera and without the camera operational the car's engine is disabled.
A few years ago (2002) I was cycling home in Hackney, East London, when a group of teenagers dragged me off my bike, kicked me in and stole my bike. Luckily a woman in a flat opposite heard the noise and called the police. Also I managed to get to my feet and flag down a passing biker who helped me chase down the kids and get my bike back.
Met. police investigated the case and told me they couldn't use the CCTV footage- the event was all captured on CCTV - as the quality was too low to be of any use.
Great bloody use of my council tax that was, putting in all those CCTV cameras if they don't actually work well enough to do what they are supposed to do.
A pity you couldn't have given some of your council tax to the two members of the public who came to your assistance... On the other hand at least the police didn't arrest you and the biker for violating the poor little tea leaves "human rights" in some way!
No, the solution is to get rid of violent drunk people. Not by throwing them in jail forever. Just outlaw alcohol.
Then you'll complain about prohibition, but outlawing alcohol is only the first step. Alcohol brings out the worst in people - that's why we'll outlaw it. But to give people a chance to wind down with a nice relaxing substance, we'll legalise cannabis.
There are still going to be people who want alcohol. You'd please people who were previously using illegal cannabis. You might get some people to change from alcohol to cannabis, who were probably sensible drinkers in the first place, sensible drinkers arn't so noticable and are probably trying to avoid those who get violent when drunk. The problem with prohibition is that the supply of alcohol is now in the hands gangsters who prefer machine guns to lawyers when it comes to any "business disputes".
Think about it - who'd you rather get run over by? Someone who's had too much to drink or someone who's smoked too much cannabis? Hint, the guy on cannabis is likely to be sitting in the passenger seat, and if he somehow manages to find the driver's seat, he'll be likely to drive at 3 miles an hour.
Might be a better idea to have more police to stop people driving when they are under the influence of mind altering drugs. Especially in places likely to be frequented by pedestrians. Even if they are only driving at walking pace they are taking up the space of 10-15 people.
Not that I am in support of the CCTV plan but to suggest that drunk people are not causing serious problems in UK towns suggests a woeful lack of experience in the subject matter. It is practically impossible to go out on the town on a Friday or Saturday night, returning after midnight, without seeing at least one act of violence or criminal damage.
How often do they do this inside pubs and how often do they do this on the streets already well covered by cameras? If cameras were actually that much use you'd expect that the number of such incidents would soon fall due to such people not being at liberty... The other possibility is that such people are somehow being replaced with previously inactive hooligans as fast as they are picked up by the police.
and demand cameras/microphones in the houses, offices, and cars of all public officials, elected or otherwise. Actually, make them wear an ankle bracelet as well.
Start with this for all MPs and police officers(even those called something else) then see how things go... Government ministers and police chiefs would have their own broadcast TV channel, they'd be considered to have resigned if their channel went off the air for more than 1 hour without a very good reason.
1984 was a cautionary tale about the true nature of power. Most people don't seek power, so its a cautionary tale for most people. But for the minority of people who are so driven to seek power over other people; they don't need an instruction manual. Their core psychological behavior defines why they behave the way the do. People who seek power over others, almost by definition seek to control other people, so they seek to remove choices from the people they gain power over.
Thing is that these are typically the last people who should have access to any kind of power. The same personality traits also mean that they will abuse whatever power they have and will always seek more power.
They tell us its for our own good to help us. But its not, its to help them.
It probably isn't even for their own good either. Any more than giving any other addict whatever it is they are addicted to. (Though other kinds of addicts can be useful members of society even whilst still addicted.)
The people who seek power are seeking to become the political elite ruling over all others. Their goal is power and all that power brings them. But what they tell us is very different. The never ending myth and sales pitch of the political elite is that we can vote out anyone we don't like. Which on the surface appears true but it hides a problem.
It is literally true in that specific individuals can be voted out. But in the process you vote in someone else who is likely to be a member of the same dangerous minority. Even in Europe (and especially smaller, less than 20 million people, European countries) where it is possible for regular members of the public to stand as political candidates this is a serious problem. In somewhere like the US where it is virtually impossible for anyone to stand without having been through the political system the choice is between "pie" and "pie".
In which case you presumably wouldn't mind it installed in your living room. Care to post your address and I'm sure some/. volunteers will be round soon to install...
Around here (Baltimore, Maryland, USA), a bar or restaurant choosing to install CCTV cameras would be a non-story.
The local police forcing a bar or restaurant to install CCTV cameras, would be a big deal.
It's also that the police appearently want a system installed to their (rather than the owner's) specifications. Including being able to demand footage without having to provide a warrent. Effectivly the owner is being asked to install a police system at their expense. Also consider that this is the Metropolitan Police. A police force which has bungled at least two murder investigations and two of who's officers have literally managed to "get away with murder".
That is the interesting bit, it was the Office of the Information Commissioner who stopped them. Now we need to keep our eyes open to see what happens there.
Except that the Information Commissioner's Office hasn't actually stopped them. Stopping them would telling them something along the lines of "You can't do this and enforcement action will be taken against you. If you even think about trying anything like this again there will be more serious consequences. By the way we will be around to check you havn't done anything else against the laws we enforce."
In some ways I think highly addictive drugs should be made illegal, but on the other hand, an adult should be allowed to do what they want.
There probably arn't that many drugs which are so dangerous that prohibition is the better option. Even the most addictive drug sold legally at whatever cost legal business can make a profit is unlikely to be as much of a problem than a black market with well armed criminal gangs.
Please, you don't design a system where your sole safegaurd is having the "the right people in charge", not in a democracy at least.
More likely to actually work is to have a situation where power is not concentrated into a few people. So that doing anything really bad would require a large conspiracy. Even better if things are such that even planning such a conspiracy goes against the self interests of people/groups who'd need to conspire.
Slashdot Mirror
Can anyone tell me the last time a terrorist bombed a school, hospital or other soft target?
:)
More likely the idea is to ensure that lots of buildings are blurred out. Blurring out only a few would effectivly mark them as targets for terrorists.
It might well be better to just add some false "blurred out" buildings where no buildings actually exist though
The pedo has become the 21st century boogie man, like the commie in the 50s. They tried using terrorists but found that it doesn't shut up critics like pedo does.
The other "problem" with using terrorists in this role is that plenty of governments support various terrorist groups. The only possible issue with "pedos" is sexism...
The govt. will never stop at the originally intended intent of the law, no matter how much they promise to limit the reach of the law for the intended use that 'everyone can agree with'.
One thing which is uncertain is if said law will actually be used its "intended purpose" (the reason it was claimed to be needed in the first place.) e.g. In the UK non of the recent anti-terrorism laws appear to have been used against terrorists who cannot be portrayed as "Islamic". However it turns out that none of these laws are actually needed to sucessfully prosecute terrorists.
Heck...look at the new and creative ways in the past decade that they have been expanding the RICO act which was put in place only to target the mob.
But not used, in rather less creative ways, against corrupt businesses. e.g. the RIAA's activities look very much like a form of racketeering.
We should insist that most new laws are not only VERY narrowly defined, but that they also have sunset provisions....to give the public at least a fighting chance to not only keep laws from expanding in scope, but, to also have hope that some that are downright bad...have a chance to go away.
So long renewing a law is at least as hard as passing a new one this has the positive effect of less laws.
The most powerful argument I have heard for use of surveillance technology is that people that don't break the law should not fear it. The problem is what if the laws change to suit the people in power.
In many cases there are so many laws that people will break several a day. Thus it can be more a case of changing which (and how) laws are enforced...
We don't need to give the government power that it does not need, but if we need to give them power to protect us it must come at a great cost to them.
Governments always claim to need additional powers to protect the public. Yet often appear unwilling to use the powers they have. For example why have the assets of no bank executives been confiscated?
Regulate the access of the information. Make the process completely transparent.
If an exception needs to be made do so via a court order which contains specifics.
If abuse occurs make the system stop functioning or let the abused go free.
Also ensure that the abuser is punished. Including such things as a crime committed by an official of the state should automatically attract a higher sentence than one committed by a member of the public. If anyone should be considered "guility until proven innocent" it should be government ministers and senior police officers too.
What sounds a LOT more plausible is that this is all an attempt to further demonize P2P.
Possibly also to help bolster the reputation of P2P "monitoring" companies.
I can see this being very impractical for a few reasons. Main one it's incredibly hard to store aluminium in a way where it won't oxidise, especially as this would work would need it to be powdered
Which is probably more use for making rocket fuel
and without that layer of oxidised aluminium on the top, it's incredibly reactive and dangerous.
An oxide layer typically protects the metal. It's a combination of reactive metal and inert oxide, thus under normal conditions you have what appears to be a quite inert metal.
You're then left with a large pile of Oxidised aluminium which I don't believe has any use apart from the production of 'pure' aluminium (which requires lots of electricity).
Electrolysis of water would probably require considerably less electricity. Since electrolysis of alumina requires it to be in a liquid state.
A more effective email campaign would state that dear old Jack was being held hostage by pirates off the coast of Somalia and that a generous donation to ransom fund would free him.
Assuming anyone who did this didn't get lots of emails back saying "You keep him", "When do you plan on picking up the rest of them?" or similar.
And so, equally, shouldn't be disclosed to a foreign corporation, which is what happens if you are storing them on a Microsoft-owned and controlled mail server. If I found out that my doctor or lawyer was storing my case details in Google Docs I would be equally appalled.
The Information Commissioner's Office would probably want some explanations were that to happen. Since it would be hard to do this without breaking data protection laws.
Of course if the guy in the article were smarter he would have wondered what that little icon (roaming indicator) on his screen was before he watched a streaming telecast.
Except that he was using a data card. Which may well not have "roaming indicator". It was mentioned in the article that he was sent warning text messages, but since he was not using a phone had no way of seeing them.
How can you LAND on the OCEAN?
You need an aircraft to even attempt that. Even planes not designed to land on water, such as the A320, could probably manage this.
The only thing this rocket could do was CRASH, since it was never designed to land anywhere...
Worse than that - people are banned from wearing "obstructive headwear".
The real problem is with "hoodies", but the Police can't be seen to be discriminating against a single ethnic group so they target the easy to pick on groups instead.
Should the Metropolitan Police get much closer to being real life "Keystone Kopps" they'd probably just arrest each other. Problem solved!
True, even if they get caught and locked up (or put under curfew, or fined enough that they can't afford to drink) it isn't preventing anything.
Because as we all know, getting drunk and being violent is something everybody does once, and nobody ever repeats it.
Keeping violent people off the streets is an expected function of government. It literally is one of those things people "pay their taxes" for. If people are only violent when they drink alcohol then the obvious solutions include keeping them away from alcohol; keeping them away from the public or giving them some other drug which prevents them being a threat to anyone even if they do drink alcohol.
Taking photographs/videos of them being violent is only of much use if it convinces the judiciary to take action they would not otherwise have taken. Photos/videos of them behaving non violently are irrelevent to the required ends. Thus a waste of public money which could be put to better use or not taken from the public in the first place.
If "Wacky Jackie" (or her underlings) thinks it is a good idea to film her employeers going about their daily business them maybe she should use HER money to do it.
I do agree on legalizing cannabis though. Most smokers will never be harmed by it, and those who smoke too much are the sort of people who should be kept docile for the good of the rest of us. The MASSIVE consumption of cannabis in the 1960s/1970s is ample demonstration of its benign effects. Remove it from the black market and, as with alcohol, you de-fund criminal empires.
Not only do you no longer have the drain on public resources which goes with prohibition doing so would bring in money even without any special taxes.
Let everyone grow their own and it won't cost much of anything.
Not everyone is going to want to grow their own cannabis any more than they would want to grow their own tobacco or brew their own beer/wine. Legal businesses pay all sorts of taxes, just as a part of operating a legal business.
Similarly, CCTV doesn't seem to be so much of a deterrent as it is an additional piece of evidence to be used in court.
There appear to be plenty of cases where they aren't even any use for this.
A convenience store clerk who "swears he remembers" the face of the guy who robbed the register cannot provide a convincing eyewitness account (there are thousands of scientific studies to back this up). However, a CCTV image that shows the guy robbing the register is pretty damning, and rather difficult to refute.
In which case the camera dosn't have to cover the entire shop it needs only cover one very specific place. The camera can be set up optimal focus, zoom and depth of field. Appropriate illumination can also be installed with the camera, which need not even use visible light. With something like a street a camera needs to both have a large depth of field, with varying light levels (N.B. any kind of automatic iris will mess up the depth of field) and have resolution to be useful even at its furthest range. A decent framerate on the recording is helpful too.
The cops also get watched on the CCTV cameras -- this can go a long way toward ensuring that they stay in line, given that virtually all of their actions are going to be under intense scrutiny. I think we can all agree that the dashboard cameras placed in most cop cars are a fantastic idea, as they protect both the police and the citizens.
In the UK filming police may well be now illegal. Such a camera in a cop car would also require that the public have real time access to the footage, the police in the car cannot tamper with the camera and without the camera operational the car's engine is disabled.
A few years ago (2002) I was cycling home in Hackney, East London, when a group of teenagers dragged me off my bike, kicked me in and stole my bike. Luckily a woman in a flat opposite heard the noise and called the police. Also I managed to get to my feet and flag down a passing biker who helped me chase down the kids and get my bike back.
Met. police investigated the case and told me they couldn't use the CCTV footage- the event was all captured on CCTV - as the quality was too low to be of any use.
Great bloody use of my council tax that was, putting in all those CCTV cameras if they don't actually work well enough to do what they are supposed to do.
A pity you couldn't have given some of your council tax to the two members of the public who came to your assistance... On the other hand at least the police didn't arrest you and the biker for violating the poor little tea leaves "human rights" in some way!
No, the solution is to get rid of violent drunk people. Not by throwing them in jail forever. Just outlaw alcohol.
Then you'll complain about prohibition, but outlawing alcohol is only the first step. Alcohol brings out the worst in people - that's why we'll outlaw it. But to give people a chance to wind down with a nice relaxing substance, we'll legalise cannabis.
There are still going to be people who want alcohol. You'd please people who were previously using illegal cannabis. You might get some people to change from alcohol to cannabis, who were probably sensible drinkers in the first place, sensible drinkers arn't so noticable and are probably trying to avoid those who get violent when drunk. The problem with prohibition is that the supply of alcohol is now in the hands gangsters who prefer machine guns to lawyers when it comes to any "business disputes".
Think about it - who'd you rather get run over by? Someone who's had too much to drink or someone who's smoked too much cannabis? Hint, the guy on cannabis is likely to be sitting in the passenger seat, and if he somehow manages to find the driver's seat, he'll be likely to drive at 3 miles an hour.
Might be a better idea to have more police to stop people driving when they are under the influence of mind altering drugs. Especially in places likely to be frequented by pedestrians. Even if they are only driving at walking pace they are taking up the space of 10-15 people.
Not that I am in support of the CCTV plan but to suggest that drunk people are not causing serious problems in UK towns suggests a woeful lack of experience in the subject matter. It is practically impossible to go out on the town on a Friday or Saturday night, returning after midnight, without seeing at least one act of violence or criminal damage.
How often do they do this inside pubs and how often do they do this on the streets already well covered by cameras? If cameras were actually that much use you'd expect that the number of such incidents would soon fall due to such people not being at liberty... The other possibility is that such people are somehow being replaced with previously inactive hooligans as fast as they are picked up by the police.
and demand cameras/microphones in the houses, offices, and cars of all public officials, elected or otherwise. Actually, make them wear an ankle bracelet as well.
Start with this for all MPs and police officers(even those called something else) then see how things go... Government ministers and police chiefs would have their own broadcast TV channel, they'd be considered to have resigned if their channel went off the air for more than 1 hour without a very good reason.
1984 was a cautionary tale about the true nature of power. Most people don't seek power, so its a cautionary tale for most people. But for the minority of people who are so driven to seek power over other people; they don't need an instruction manual. Their core psychological behavior defines why they behave the way the do. People who seek power over others, almost by definition seek to control other people, so they seek to remove choices from the people they gain power over.
Thing is that these are typically the last people who should have access to any kind of power. The same personality traits also mean that they will abuse whatever power they have and will always seek more power.
They tell us its for our own good to help us. But its not, its to help them.
It probably isn't even for their own good either. Any more than giving any other addict whatever it is they are addicted to. (Though other kinds of addicts can be useful members of society even whilst still addicted.)
The people who seek power are seeking to become the political elite ruling over all others. Their goal is power and all that power brings them. But what they tell us is very different. The never ending myth and sales pitch of the political elite is that we can vote out anyone we don't like. Which on the surface appears true but it hides a problem.
It is literally true in that specific individuals can be voted out. But in the process you vote in someone else who is likely to be a member of the same dangerous minority. Even in Europe (and especially smaller, less than 20 million people, European countries) where it is possible for regular members of the public to stand as political candidates this is a serious problem. In somewhere like the US where it is virtually impossible for anyone to stand without having been through the political system the choice is between "pie" and "pie".
I am a big fan of CCTV and the like
/. volunteers will be round soon to install...
In which case you presumably wouldn't mind it installed in your living room. Care to post your address and I'm sure some
Around here (Baltimore, Maryland, USA), a bar or restaurant choosing to install CCTV cameras would be a non-story.
The local police forcing a bar or restaurant to install CCTV cameras, would be a big deal.
It's also that the police appearently want a system installed to their (rather than the owner's) specifications. Including being able to demand footage without having to provide a warrent.
Effectivly the owner is being asked to install a police system at their expense. Also consider that this is the Metropolitan Police. A police force which has bungled at least two murder investigations and two of who's officers have literally managed to "get away with murder".
That is the interesting bit, it was the Office of the Information Commissioner who stopped them. Now we need to keep our eyes open to see what happens there.
Except that the Information Commissioner's Office hasn't actually stopped them. Stopping them would telling them something along the lines of "You can't do this and enforcement action will be taken against you. If you even think about trying anything like this again there will be more serious consequences. By the way we will be around to check you havn't done anything else against the laws we enforce."
Plus the UK doing this somehow legitimizes doing this in the US
And vice versa...
In some ways I think highly addictive drugs should be made illegal, but on the other hand, an adult should be allowed to do what they want.
There probably arn't that many drugs which are so dangerous that prohibition is the better option. Even the most addictive drug sold legally at whatever cost legal business can make a profit is unlikely to be as much of a problem than a black market with well armed criminal gangs.
Please, you don't design a system where your sole safegaurd is having the "the right people in charge", not in a democracy at least.
More likely to actually work is to have a situation where power is not concentrated into a few people. So that doing anything really bad would require a large conspiracy. Even better if things are such that even planning such a conspiracy goes against the self interests of people/groups who'd need to conspire.