Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesman Garth McVicar’s analysis of prisons today:
“Under our present prison policy the inmates are basically running the prison”
Why does anyone take this man seriously?
The New Zealand labour movement used to have its own newspaper. A group of us thought that now might be a good time for it to be digitally reborn: The Standard v2.0.
Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesman Garth McVicar’s analysis of prisons today:
“Under our present prison policy the inmates are basically running the prison”
Why does anyone take this man seriously?
Why the hell is he being given space in a newspaper? He’s no more “qualified” than the next person to make these pronouncements.
Oh wait, in this instance I’m the next person and I’ve actually spent time in a prison. In that case, he knows comparatively **** all.
Certainly they’re not run as well as they should be, and staff are barely able to cope. They’re under incredible stress and most do an excellent job despite, rather than because of, the facilities they’re managing (while a large number have simply given up and become automatons).
And why is this? Well for one thing it’s because narrow minded one-note idiots with no clues on correctional systems keep insisting we have “sensible” sentences which see offenders who could actually repay their debt to society by doing something positive for the community instead being stuffed, in ever greater numbers and for ever-lengthening times, into our prisons.
Now, if only we could identify the idiots responsible for encouraging that trend through their increasing tantrums every time a sentence is handed out with which they disagree, we could refer them to Mr McVicar for a damn good thrashing…
McVicars the only drop kick who will speak out against such transgressions thanks to his fort knox protected house, all lovingly paid for by supporters of SST. Sounds similar to someone else who preaches….
Bring back the death penalty I say.
Once more than 10 maori are hung/drawn/quartered, Turia and Sharples might walk the talk instead of blabbering on about shit.
McVicar will then have nothing to talk about - after all SST is all about “hang em high” policies to anything that involves biblical crimes.
Sit back, and watch crime rate drop accordingly. Turia will blame neoliberal post colonialism as a reason for maori getting hung, while conveniently ignoring the history of tribal warfare.
Even reinstating it for 2 years would be enough of a disincentive to not murder/rape/pillage/plunder. Bearing in mind that 98% of criminals caught in this country have a rap sheet longer than my arm, and are the ones who committed such atrocities.
But who can blame maori. They’re simply acting out their post colonialism tribal aggression.
BTW: Im fully aware of the fact that maori is a noun, I just choose not to give them capital status. Just Capital Punishment.
I’m all for harsher sentances, providing they are for crimes that have a real victim.
I’m sure if we got rid of our silly cannabis laws, the prison population would shrink, and we would have more room to keep the real bad bastards locked away, rather than someone who gets caught with a spliff.
BTW: Im fully aware of the fact that maori is a noun, I just choose not to give them capital status. Just Capital Punishment.
say what???
What does it say about the general population who seem to agree with the McVicars of NZ?
“Why does anyone take this man seriously?”
Option A: journalists who’d rather cut and paste a press release than find a real story
Option B: editors who have an interest in promoting the rantings of Mr McVicar
“What does it say about the general population who seem to agree with the McVicars of NZ?”
that they’re being lead by the nose by an msm with very obscure journalistic standards.
I’m once again in agreement with MikeE. There’d be less people in prison if there weren’t so many pointless laws. We lock people away from society because they pose a risk to themselves. It’s patently absurd. Legalise it… all.
I’m addressing a conference on Restorative Justice next week (along with a whole lot of people with far more knowledge than I on the subject) and have been doing my level best to get an Aussie journo or two along. I’ve just got yet another “sorry, I’ve got better things to do” response. Yeah, like regurgitating press releases from the local equivalents of McVicar, for instance. *sigh*
Mike E, QtR: Instant fines for possession of small amounts of cannabis have been the policy in several Australian states for some time now. NSW has trialled a policy of issung Criminal Infringement Notices (on-the-spot fines) for minor offences such as offensive language, minor cases of common assault (pushing and shoving basically), obstructing traffic and first time shoplifting*.
This frees up police from paper work and helps unclog the courts and the offender doesn’t end up with a criminal record.
Predictably there’s an outcry as other states try to introduce a similar scheme, complaining we’re “going soft” on “crims”. *sigh*
* Only if it’s a first offence, the goods are worth less than $300 and the shopkeeper agrees.
People take him seriously because I think he had a family member that was a victim of a crime, and he was put through hell through the system and saw the system was set up to help the criminals and not the people who were victims.
Rex - We want it legalised. I don’t want to see some system of fines in place. It ought to be legal as should every other drug. One thing on that list: offensive language! I would hate to see the day you got a fine for offensive language. IMO there is no such fucking thing (libel is another matter). I don’t actually know what the laws are in New Zealand surrounding “offensive language” but I do recall being in a fairly inebriated state and telling a police officer using a few choice words what I thought of her profession and merely getting an indifferent response.
Wow you’re really showing your wisdom now. Great idea. Lets legalise heroine and cocaine and PI. Great thinking there QtR.
On behalf of every medical professional in NZ - QTR you are a dingbat !
We certainly do not want all drugs legalised in NZ - legal and illegal drugs cause more than enough problems already.
GC - I’ve always thought that and said so many times on this site. You may wish to disagree with the freedom of a person do with their own body what they wish, but it’s something I believe in. It’s also something MikeE coming from the opposite end of the economic/political spectrum as I agrees with. IMO P, heroin, cocaine, ecstasy,mescaline, LSD, BZP, PCP, DMT whatever it is if people want to take they shouldn’t be criminalised for it. You might find this site interest: Law enforcement against prohibition. It’s a more commonly held belief then you may think ginger.
PS - GC what’s wrong with a heroine.
HS - Go back to kiwiblog.
On behalf of every medical professional in NZ
How about you just speak for yourself HS, unless they had a vote and named you chief bloviator.
They’ve pretty much legalised heroin in Switzerland, had a referendum, about 65 percent in favour. Hard core junkies can get their fix of uncut smack at the pharmacy. Heaps fewer needles lying around in parks and I hear about a third of the junkies on the deal have since quit their ten year plus habit. Funny that.
The war on drugs has been a miserable failure, though it’s funded lot’s of narco wars and given the CIA and other such high minded individuals decent funding for deniable adventure with excellent blowback opportunities going forward. So if you’re into that sort of terror and bullet in the back of the head hijnks, it’s not a complete loss. And it mostly only happens to the not white people and third world failed staters so meh, eh?
I don’t think its a commonly held belief. A wee few perhaps but I don’t see many asking the argument for legalising all drugs. There is certainly opinion around cannabis that i think is legitimate. But when not a single political party or even a minority of people talk of legalisation of all drugs, you can hardly call it a common held belief.
Now that is your opinion so your certainly entitled to it but I think its a poor argument to bring criminal numbers down.
—-
I’m still wondering why Jasper has not been banned. That was the most disgustingly racist thing I’ve ever read here.
GC - I didn’t say it was a commonly held belief I said it was a more commonly held belief than you may think and linked to that site to help my case. You may be surprised ginger, for example Pen and Teller. Here’s the show rather than me arguing the point with you and taking this thread further off topic.
Actually the call has been to de-criminalise (can’t spell!) marijuanna, which is not the same as legalise. Might give police more important things to worry about?
Ginger, why do you think it’s a poor argument re criminality?
For the sake of argument let’s posit that we legalise the lot, regulate suppliers similar to alcohol etc, and have quality controls so that users know what they are buying etc.
Way I see it, beyond the obvious fact that users and dealers would no longer be criminals, you’d also eliminate all the crime surrounding the market. Competitors in the alcohol business don’t tend to murder each other. Retailers only rarely find that their new supplier has sold them coloured water and shot through to Sydney or Jo-berg with a quarter million in cash, requiring the time consuming and dangerous task of locating and extracting the specialised, expensive, and not very nice debt recovery services available. Similarly Liquorland doesn’t feel the need to employ enforcers to beat the shit of slow paying creditors. Alcoholics seem to be able to find their fix cheaply enough and reliably enough that they don’t need to steal up to grand a week in widescreen TV’s and XBOX360’s to keep the DT’s at bay. There wouldn’t be millions locally and trillions globally floating around needing laundry services and payoffs to everyone from border officials and politicians to police, judges, bankers, lawyers and god knows who else. (disclaimer/sidetrack deflection - I’m not saying that outright corruption is a big problem in NZ, but I wouldn’t say it doesn’t exist, and those millions do get laundered somewhere).
Narcotics are estimated to be, I understand, right up there with oil and guns as the most traded things on the planet. The war on drugs just transfers all that cash to bad, bad men.
Do you disagree? What would you suggest we do to start ‘winning the war on drugs’, if you think that is possible?
Garth McVicar wouldn’t know, and neither would the ‘just say no’ crowd. They’re big criminal narco’s bff. Pump up the margins and pass the cut merchandise baby.
There has to be a better way to regulate than this surely? IMO etc.
GC - I haven’t been banned because while I was busy snorting coke, smoking marijuana and cooking P, I must have dazed off into a dreamland where I wished that my husband, neice, nephew, sister in law, mother in law and several cousins would all be goneburger.
Somehow my rant was only taken seriously by you. Are you one of the fawning masses who drool over McVicars every word too?
Tane - apologies if it came out as being moderately serious and not in the same style as a McVicar rant… I must have been slightly more coherent.
QtR - Fully agree. Legalise all dugs. Government gets revenue, stigma goes away, it’s no longer a “cool” drug to do as there’s no element in getting caught. Most drug takers only do it for the thrill.
Canberras decriminalisation has led to a massive drop in the number of people with MaryJane in that state alone.
Funny. Captcha is Competent There.Who is?
PB,
The argument you make is a very good one. It makes sense on the pragmatic level you pitch it to. Yet I cannot help but still have reservations.
Where an act has a direct social dimension (eg murder or theft), we seem to have no problem enacting and enforcing laws against it.
By contrast where the direct victim of an act is also the perpetrator of it (eg drug use) enforcement becomes far more problematic. There is no doubt that drug abuse (and I include alcohol) carries an enormous indirect cost to society as a whole.
Let me try these numbers. Crime in NZ is estimated to cost about $8-10b pa. About 70% of that can be directly linked with alcohol abuse. Something like 30% of all accidents and medical costs are probably related to it, and I would suggest that lost workplace productivity and opportunities probably amount to at least 5% of GDP. Add all those up and alcohol abuse alone probably costs this country close to $20b pa. (Not to mention all the uncountable human misery. And if only we could invoice LiquorKing for this cost we might be able to afford some real tax cuts.)
We seem to happily accept the staggering social cost of alcohol abuse, while deploring (as we should) acts like murder, rape and child abuse that probably have a somewhat lessor total impact on society.
What drives this distinction? Why is it that we find crimes like murder relatively easy to reach a social consensus about (leaving aside the question of capital punishment for the moment), but twist ourselves in moral and intellectual knots over drug abuse?
Jasper:
That’s the downside of satire; sometimes it’s impossible to distinguish from reality.
I can’t see how legitimising the use of dangerous drugs as a good thing. In a commercial content arguably the drugs would be safer but they’re still dangerous and very open to abuse. That is one concern. Secondly, we know that by lowering the age of alcohol use there has been an increase in young people drinking and the health costs and criminal activity attached to that law change has increased. We know being liberal about alcohol laws means poorer areas see huge growth in liquor stores etc. In the legalisation of all drugs that same increase would be seen. And who would suffer more than others? Why the very people that are Labour’s core voters. They constantly vote Labour and the left That surely is a concern? Because you legalise drugs and the biggest increase would be the South Aucklands, the Aranuis of Christchurch etc etc.
Likewise, in legalising drugs you will see crime increase. The changes in liquor laws have seen more and more criminal offences by drunk people. That would also extend to drug users. You don’t think places that sell drugs won’t be targeted by criminals? I beg to differ. You’d also see a rapid rise in health costs as more and more people use drugs. See I don’t think legalising drugs will make less people use them I would think there would be a considerable increase in drug usage and there would thus, be an increase in health costs and criminal costs.
—-
Jasper I really don’t care if you were joking or not.I just saw what you wrote as racist, non-funny and offensive. I like some of what Garth McVicar has to say and I believe some of the things he does is in the interest for New Zealand and something that has a general concensus. I also think he goes way too far and often ignores white collar crime.
QtR: I agree fines are just a bloody nonsense for possession, and have nil value as a deterrent (which is presumably why they exist). I was just pointing out that even a small step in the right direction gets decried.
I also agree with you re legalising it all, for precisely the reasons so eloquently enumerated by Pascal’s bookie above.
Higher Standard: normally you talk sense, but before you start speaking for the entire medical profession have a word with some of your colleagues. I’d recommend starting with Andrew Byrne, an incredibly compassionate GP who’s become a specialist in addiction treatment. He’s seen the misery addiction can bring and is certainly no proponent of the “let’s legalise it so we can all party” POV (which I detect a slight whiff of from QtR… my apologies if I’ve read you wrong).
But Andrew and others who’ve worked with addicts (including, in a small way, myself) know full well that the intervention of some Plod with a charge sheet has never done anyone an ounce (pardon the pun) of good.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to see any drug (including alcohol) abused. But if GPs are still hanging their hat on prohibition as a prophylactic, then they need to do some professional development, urgently.
Red - But what is it you advocate - that we should prohibit alcohol? It seems to me that you’re the one tying yourself up in a moral knot. I’m certainly not in any. The point of our argument is that prohibition has been an absolute failure. We saw so plainly what a failure alcohol prohibition was in America (and interestingly enough in Russia) and I think it’s plainly obvious the immense failure of the global war on drugs fought since the early seventies. Drugs are easier to access and cheaper in the U.S. now than before the war began and I think it would be comparable worldwide. Calling for an end to prohibition is not in any way advocating drug use. Humans are always going to look to use psychoactives it’s just a plain fact of life. You can’t suppress it anymore than you can suppress sex.
Ginger - You give me one example where prohbition has actually led to a significant decrease in the rates of use. Then you’re argument will have some merit, but otherwise it doesn’t and I know of no instance where it has. I don’t think the argument that lots of people will start taking drugs if it was legal and crime would increase bears up to any scrutiny. Alcohol prohibition did nothing to use and crime increased as Al Capone and the like went on murdering sprees. The wiki article quotes the New York county lawyers association thusly:With aid of these distinctions, we see that present drug policy appears to contribute to the increase of violence in our communities. It does so by permitting and indeed, causing the drug trade to remain a lucrative source of economic opportunity for street dealers, drug kingpins and all those willing to engage in the often violent, illicit, black market trade.
Meanwhile, the effect of present policy serves to stigmatize and marginalize drug users, thereby inhibiting and undermining the efforts of many such individuals to remain or become productive, gainfully employed members of society. Furthermore, current policy has not only failed to provide adequate access to treatment for substance abuse, it has, in many ways, rendered the obtaining of such treatment, and of other medical services, more difficult and even dangerous to pursue. ”
Rex - I’m not adverse to little smoke here and there, but I’m no party animal.
Give me evidence that legalising drugs somehow benefits society. Any legitimation of drug use will have problems and that you can’t see that I find dumbfounding.
Also I never actually said the prohibition of drugs cuts usage but I believe it has to be better than legitimising and legalising dangerous drugs.
As for your arguments about alcohol QtR yes making alcohol prohibited saw an increase in gangs etc but one thing you can’t deny. That the opening up and acceptance of alcohol and new liberal laws around alcohol sales etc. Has caused social issues, increases in admissions to hospitals etc and increases in crime.
—-
Are our current laws in terms of illegal drugs wrong? Possibly. But I don’t favour decriminalising anything other than cannabis and I frankly do not see the benefits of making current illegal drugs legal.
Personally I’m very liberal socially, and happy for people to do whatever they like as long as it doesnt have a real negative impact on the rights of others. But it is funny to see alcohol used as a justification for the legalisation of other drugs. We clearly need more of the problems that alcohol provides, though on the other hand prohibition is a clearly worse solution.
The damage caused to our society by alcohol abuse is far more widespread and expensive than any other drug - apologies for that sweeping statement to any individuals on the receiving end of any drug related trauma.
The solution is simple but unpalatable to most of our society. Decriminalise drugs, supply them legally, tax the hell out them, provide rehab services and have draconian penalties for possessors of unlicenced narcotics. Might as well raise some tax revenue from an inelastic commodity - it may help pay for the lost productivity, increased medical costs etc society as a whole incurs. And run the same sort of campaign against, dope, party pills, P etc that we now run against cigarettes.
Why are cigarettes unacceptable but dope, party pills aren’t? (Always amuses me when fussy, greenie, “natural is good” types take party pills - there’s consistency for you.) Cant understand the logic disconnect there. Oh, and minimum sentence of (pick a number greater than 1) years for anyone driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. I don’t want a doped up idiot running over my kids as they walk to school. Though if said doped up idiot stays in his bedroom eating pizza I don’t really care.
Garth McVictim is an absolute joke. My mind often wanders when I’m stuck on menial tasks at work, and I was thinking today about he really aught to fess up that the policies he advocates have been shown to increase crime, he really aught to be honest to people that hes willing to live in a more dangerous society, in return for getting a bit of revenge.
The others are right in identifying a significant racist element in his work, when Jack Nicholas was shot, in McVictims general area, that was a big turning point for the SST, they really used it to pump up their profile. This was all kind of based around the expectation \ assumption that the person who shot him would be a Maori growing a crop of dope on his land. Bit of a shock to McVictim when I turned out to be a white fella, but that’s the way the chips fall.
The other thing about drug prohibition that I don’t think has been covered here is the example of Vancouver’s safe injection site. Similar too other programs, clean gear provided, medical supervision ect (but drugs not supplied like some other places). Two benefits not really mentioned that have been seen in the Vancouver set up is it tends to have all the users in the near by area, while this is at the expense of that area, things are a lot better in the rest of the city for it.
It also takes drug use out of the shadows and provides much better access for medical and psychological treatment for the users. Many of which their drug use has gone well beyond about using or pleasure from a drug, its just pure addiction and dependence. The safe injection sites result in a much higher rate of getting people clean.
Red, I’m not suggesting that drug use is without cost. Why we tie ourselves in knots? I don’t know. But what is undeniable is that for a large number of humans, in pretty much any time and place you care to mention, ‘recreational’ drug use has been important to them, socially, spiritually and emotionally. I don’t think that is going to change. At present society offers only one legal drug. One that when abused makes people violent and dangerous. Much more so than many of the other drugs that are illegal. Ask cops about whether they feel safer visiting dance parties or pubs after 4AM. And where they make more arrests. P is a menace, it’s also a crap drug that’s easy to make and powerful. Black market mana.
gc
“legitimisation” is a red herring. People that want to take drugs, and that is a lot of people BTW, take them now. They are very widely available, through criminals who will sell them to anyone, restricted only by their personal sense of who they want to sell them to. These are the only people users can buy them off, they would far rather get better quality safer product at licensed dealers.
Most drug users manage fine. Alcohol is one of the most damaging personally and socially IMO, yet the biggest dealers of that drug are widely respected pillars of the community.
Think Douglas Myers, what is the difference between him and the guy selling Ecstasy tablets? Answer: The guy selling e’s is a criminal with fewer deaths on his hands (as a result of the product).
What we need to do is minimise the social harm done by drugs. Most of that harm is due to the criminality of the enterprise, and the fact that alcohol is legal. It still cracks me up that at events like the Gathering you used to get around ten thousand people camping out for 3 days, alcohol prohibited, a low police presence and trained folks on hand to look out for problems. Hardly a single problem with violence or non drug crime despite 95 percent of the punters being out of their gourds as much as they liked on pot, e, mushrooms, lsd etc. I guarantee if alcohol was involved there’d have been a lot more problems and a lot less fun. Down the road in Nelson there’d be a couple of hundred piss heads get together for one night at new years eve,- riots, dozens of arrests heaps of property damage etc and so on.
Given the choice, lots of the people that at the moment cause problems due to alcohol, (young males) would be using drugs that are less aggro, and don’t mess with your head in the same way that alcohol does.
One question:
Does anyone think the clever people at the big pharma companies would not be able to develop safer recreational drugs than those we use now, if the stigma was removed from the idea that using drugs to have fun is ‘wrong’ ?
Any rational reasons why that isn’t happening?
People get nervous about the idea of legalised drugs. Given the problems illegal drugs cause I find that ridiculous.
Ginger - I also see the issue as a wider issue than the pragmatic side, the social cost, the economic cost, etc of the drug war, I see it as a moral one in that I don’t think the government ought to control what we put into our own bodies. I think that is a basic point of difference between our views that is irreconcilable. Yes you are dumbfounding GC. The pragmatic side is obvious and you really can’t argue it, you don’t even bother. You yourself said you didn’t say that prohibition of drugs cuts usage. So what’s the point in prohibition then? Just an incredibly bizarre and expensive game. I think the best quote is from someone on the National research council in the U.S: “the drug war has no interest in its own results.” In countries with relatively liberal approach to drugs such as the Netherlands there is actually less drug use than other nations with harsher approach to drugs. Answer me this if cocaine was legalised tommorrow would you suddenly start snorting cocaine? I think your answer would be no and I think that answer is the same for most people. The argument that usage would actually increase with legalisation is just plain wrong. Drugs are already readily available and easy enough to acquire the people that want to take drugs do take drugs prohibtion or no prohibition. Also I believe that harm reduction can be much better achieved if the people we are trying to treat are not criminalised and the money saved on law enforcement and mass imprisonment was spent on healthcare and education. Your side of the argument is not only untenable from a moral perspective it’s untenable from a pragmatic perspective. Another interesting quote from that article, since I know you didn’t bother to read it. Martin Friedman said: “See, if you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel. That’s literally true.”
Also answer me this ginger Do you drink alcohol, smoke tobacco or drink coffee? If the answer is yes then you are a drug user. Did you know that when the U.S drew up its list of drugs to make illegal on such and such’s law (I can’t remeber the name), violating their own constitution, coffee was short listed, we’re just lucky that it wasn’t arbitrarily made illegal like so many other drugs, as the rest of the world followed America’s lead.
Just because he was a victim of crime doesn’t mean he’s an authority on prisons I’m afraid.
gingercrush asks:
The vast - and I do mean vast - numbers of people who wouldn’t have been burgled, robbed at knife / gun / syringe point, mugged, car jacked, stood over for money and just plain stolen from (thought that’s mainly partners, friends and family, specially mums and dads - it’s the public who get the really nasty stuff committed upon them) by a junkie who needs to spend hundreds of dollars a day on a drug when decriminalising it would lower the price and make it affordable.
The kids of junkies who might get fed if mummy and / or daddy could afford a fix and food.
The medical staff, spcially at hospital A&Es, who wouldn’t have to deal with violent addicts withdrawing and demanding drugs they’re not legally allowed to prescribe and could get on with treating people who needed help (or, sadly, drunks who’d had too much and glassed one another, but that’s another story).
The cops who wouldn’t have 80% of their time taken up with the above.
It’s nigh on impossible to extract reliable drug-related crime data from the overall statistics - especially crimes not involving drugs, but committed to fund their purchase, because no one really collects it.
But spend a while in the “justice” system in any capacity at all, from judge to crim, and you’ll soon see the enormity of the crime committed to purchase illegal substances. Crime that would virtually vanish overnight if those substances were decriminalised and affordable.
It’s like Frank Gallgher says in the opening title sequence of the brilliant Shameless; “Make poverty history: cheaper drugs now”
To which I’d add “And make most crime history too”.
Killinginthenameof:
Misprint, or confession?
ginger- the argument (interestingly, both sides argue from facts, not ideology) that we should decriminalise is based on the assumption that certain types of drugs are harmless enough that the black market that supplies them, and other trappings of criminalisation, such as ignoring drug addiction as a health problem both mental and physical, exceed the harm of simply letting people have the drug.
Most people with any slant on drug decriminalisation believe that cannabis is probably the best candidate, and certainly worth a try given the drug-related crime statistics in the only country that has to any degree decriminalised it. (Most of the incidents are foreigners who came to the country specifically to smoke, which seems to be evidence for decriminalisation.)
Would you agree for instance that removing penalties for possession only is likely to still allow police to go after people who really are abusing the system- like growers and dealers- without having to bust people for choosing to endanger people for their own health?
QTR
“I see it as a moral one in that I don’t think the government ought to control what we put into our own bodies”
And who’s responsibility is it for paying and cleaning up the mess resulting from what people put in their bodies ?
QTR your comments are the same sort of drive I used to spout decades ago before I grew up.
Rex
“The medical staff, spcially at hospital A&Es, who wouldn’t have to deal with violent addicts withdrawing and demanding drugs they’re not legally allowed to prescribe and could get on with treating people who needed help (or, sadly, drunks who’d had too much and glassed one another, but that’s another story).”
Rex addicts withdrawing and demanding drugs is more of a problem at secondary care level, the majority of drug/addiction problems in A&E is self harm or harm to others caused by the patients abuse of drugs (prescription and non prescription, legal and illegal)
For secondary care read primary care (GPs)
(I think you mean “whose”
)
Ideally their own, but keep in mind that the long-term cost of treating addicts is probably a lot lower than the long-term cost of arresting them.
PB:” At present society offers only one legal drug.”
Two - tobacco is pretty bad as well - ask anyone who gives up.
Lynn, true that.
McVicar may come across as a bit of a buffoon at times but he quite clearly represents the utter frustrations of a very significant proportion of the population who have suffered from crime and the justice system and who see massive flaws in it.
They won’t go away until things improve for them. And good on them quite frankly.
I don’t understand why some have a problem with their wailing at the politicians.
VTO: Because if they give McVicar and his lot what they’re after it sure as hell won’t improve things and could very well make things worse.
HS - Speaking on behalf of the galatic federation… You grew up HS but Noam Chomsky, Milton Friedman, those guys who signed the american constitution, all those classic liberalists like John Stuart Mill, Julian Critchley former head of the U.K’s anti-drug coordination unit, all the former and current law enforcement persons at LEAP, and so on and so forth.
All of them are immature young people and you are the wise old man isn’t that right HS. Two quotes for you the afformentioned Julian Critchley:I think what was truly depressing about my time in UKADCU was that the overwhelming majority of professionals I met, including those from the police, the health service, government and voluntary sectors held the same view: the illegality of drugs causes far more problems for society and the individual than it solves. Yet publicly, all those intelligent, knowledgeable people were forced to repeat the nonsensical mantra that the Government would be ‘tough on drugs’, even though they all knew that the Government’s policy was actually causing harm.
and Albert Einstein:The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this.
I didn’t know you were a member of the galactic federation.
QTR - I don’t think one needs to look past the effect of lowering the drinking age to see what the likely effects of across the board drug legalisation or decriminalisation would be. In terms of what I would consider one of the less harmful drugs that could be considered for decriminalisation have a look at the issues below.
“The Swiss Experiment: Tolerant drug policies in Switzerland have resulted in an influx of drug users. In 1987, the Swiss Government permitted drug use and sales in a part of Zurich called Platzspitz, or “Needle Park.” By 1992, over 20,000 drug users congregated in the park, and the surrounding areas were overrun with crime. The park has been shut down and the experiment has been terminated.”
“The Canadian Experiment: The aggressive decriminalization effort in Canada has resulted in the highest levels of pot use in 25 years. The Canadian Government released a report indicating that marijuana usage had increased to the same levels as the late 1970’s. Kids were getting mixed messages about the dangers of marijuana during the 1990’s when the decriminalization discussion was going on. According to the November 24, 2004 Canada Addiction Survey, marijuana use among Canadians has doubled since 1994. A decade earlier, 7.4% of respondents indicated they had used marijuana; usage levels are currently 14%. The study also indicates that there has been an increase in the number of Canadians using an injectable drug: the number rose from 132,000 in 1994 to 269,000 in 2004.”
“In Ireland, the number of children treated for mental disorders caused by smoking cannabis has quadrupled since the government downgraded the legal status of the drug, according to an article in the Sunday Times (September 18, 2005). Addaction, an Irish drug charity, told the Times that “three months after police stopped arresting anyone found in possession of small amounts of the drug, the overall number of users treated for such conditions rose 42%.”
“Mayor of Maastricht Pushes Cannabis Cafes to Edge of City: According to a New York Times article (August 20, 2006), “The mayor (of Maastricht) wants to move most of the city’s 16 licensed cannabis clubs to the edge of town, preferably close to the border” (with Belgium and Germany). Mayor Gerd Leers is reacting to growing concerns among residents who “complain of traffic problems, petty crime, loitering and public urination. There have been shootings between Balkan gangs. Maastricht’s small police force…is already spending one-third of its time on drug-related problems.” Cannabis clubs have drawn “pushers of hard drugs from Amsterdam, who often harass people on the streets.” According to a police spokesman, the clubs have also attracted people looking to buy marijuana in quantity. Piet Tans, the police spokesman also stated that “People who come from far away don’t just come for the five grams you can buy legally over the counter…They think pounds and kilos; they go to the dealers who operate in the shadows.”
Lynn apologies for the cut and pastes - linking not working for some reason.
JFTR,
HS’s quotes seem to be taken from a D.E.A. website. Which is useful to know.
HS - First of all the swiss experiment, only yesterday in the press they had an article on swiss voters Swiss voters have overwhelmingly approved a move to make permanent the country’s pioneering programme to give addicts government-authorised heroin.
It goes on to say:The heroin programme has helped eliminate scenes of large groups of drug users shooting up openly in parks that marred Swiss cities in the 1980s and 1990s, supporters say.
Second of all citing the Netherlands to defend your case is ridiculous. The Netherlands has a soft approach to natural drugs Cannabis, mushrooms, etc and the use rates of hard drugs are correspondingly lower than the rest of the EU and the use of Cannabis use is lower than countires with a much harsher approach to Cannabis like the U.S. Furthermore deaths from drugs are lower than other nations and the rates of AIDS due to intravenous drug use is also lower. That quote from the police woman could easily support an argument that Cannabis laws should be further liberalised in the Netherlands as people are going to criminals “who operate in the shadows” to buy large quantities instead of a shop.
Thirdly, the average consumption of alcohol in New Zealand is average on a world scale, we’re mormon tea drinkers comparable to some countries, wealthy european countries for instance.
Fourthly you’re all over the place with your Canadian example. Injectable drug use is up all over the world, the reason is Afghanistan. Also you give numbres not percentages so you’re not accounting for population increases. The Netherlands has a softer approach to Cannabis then canada and their rate of use is around 6%. The use of Cannabis in Canada is about the same as that in our country and as you say about the same as when the laws were harsher in the seventies which supports my view that prohibtion or legalisation will not really change the number of people doing drugs anymore than making sex illegal would have an effect on the number of people having sex.
Fiftly - In Ireland that is just as anyone supproting an end to prohibition would expect, that once the criminality of a drug is removed it would be easier for drugs users to seek treament. The quote from the New York county lawyers association I put in an earlier comment says that current policy has not only failed to provide adequate access to treatment for substance abuse, it has, in many ways, rendered the obtaining of such treatment, and of other medical services, more difficult and even dangerous to pursue. Furthermore Cannabis use in Ireland is relatively low less than half of what it is in this country.
Now what have you to say about my earlier comment are you still maintaining that all those people are immature and young?
Two things. If some form of decriminalisation occur, it is likely that the recorded incidence will rise as there is no reason to hide. Think of the apparent rise in recorded incidence of violent crime when publicity encouraged reporting of domestic violence. (sort of the same.) One small country with decriminalisation in some form is sure to attract a huge number of outsiders. If all countries were in, there would be no need for the congregation.
And the legal use of alcohol does not prevent problems arising from its use. But if alcohol was a banned substance I think the serious consequences would be even greater.
QTR
Your Einstein quote refers to the prohibition of alcohol in the US in the 20s - I can’t see it’s relevance in relation to your wish to make all drugs of abuse legal and I hardly think that’s what Einstein was suggesting when he made that statement.
Though one could argue that prohibition of a previously legal substance may cause major issues ……. although the prohibition on smoking in restaurants etc certinly hasn’t caused any great problems, so one could expect different issues dependent on what is prohibited and what restrictions are placed around drugs of abuse which is hardly surprising.
Secondly you seem now to be making the argument that we need legalisation of drugs of abuse so that we can make medical services and treatment to get people off the drugs of abuse more freely available - which is bordering on the non-sensical.
I doubt we’ll ever see eye to eye on this issue as my position will remain is that drugs of abuse are harmful and need to be treated and restricted as such whereas you appear to take the libertarian view….
“I see it as a moral one in that I don’t think the government ought to control what we put into our own bodies. I think that is a basic point of difference between our views that is irreconcilable.”
….having seen the damage caused by legal and illegal drugs of abuse I find I can’t agree with at all
Ianmac
I tend to agree with your position on total alcohol prohibition although it would never happen in NZ and we wouldn’t know unless we tried it. However what would be the effect of having a zero limit for drink driving with very harsh penalties - would it lead to a furthering lowering of alcohol related road fatalaties over the next decade.
HS - Well I see the alcohol prohibtion a perfect example of the failure of prohibition and the same things that went on with alcohol in America in the prohibition era is the same that goes on with other drugs now, that is poorly made drugs causing harm to users, bath tub gin in the days of prohibition, drug cartels controlling the market, we all know about the gangsters in the prohibiton days and we can see the drug cartels and gangs in action today. Remember all the while during prohibiton of alcohol cannabis was legal, opium was available in snake medicine and heroin was prescribed for sore throats. When many drugs that are illegal are more innocuous than alcohol your argument against prohibiton of them is hypocritical in the extreme if you are not calling for the prohbition of alcohol. You take issue with my Einstein quote fine, but what about the rest, are they all immature young people? You decided not to aruge any of the points I raised only the health issue. I make the argument against prohibition for many reasons not just that. Many people in law enforcement and health care have made the same argument that harm reduction can be much better achieved if prohibition was ended. You believe that the number of users would increase, I do not. You haven’t provided any examples to back up your argument. As I’ve said before those that want to use drugs or try them have or will, prohibition or no prohbition. The war on drugs has done nothing to the availability or cost of drugs, they’re now cheaper and more readily available then before the war on drugs. the only thing that would make your argument work is that if you could prove that prohibiton does anything to the number of people using and trying drugs and you can’t prove that. I asked ginger whether he’d start using drugs if they were legal I’ll ask yout he same question; If cocaine or heroin were legalised tommorow would you start using them? In conclusion your argument is indefensible from any moral or pragmatic level.
P.S. You’re a freedom hating wowser.
QTR
“In conclusion your argument is indefensible from any moral or pragmatic level.”
So your position is that it is both moral and pragmatic to legalise drugs - right then
“If cocaine and heroin were legal tomorrow would you start using them”
No,
“Many people in law enforcement and health care have made the same argument that harm reduction can be much better achieved if prohibition was ended. You believe that the number of users would increase, I do not. You haven’t provided any examples to back up your argument.”
Try the article below
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/presentation-e/single-e.htm
or
http://pb.rcpsych.org/cgi/reprint/22/4/230.pdf
or
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/335/7627/967
I’m pretty much in total agreement with the comment the author makes…
“Drugs are not dangerous because they are illegal; they are illegal because they are dangerous. A child who reaches age 21 without smoking, misusing alcohol, or using illegal drugs is virtually certain to never do so.Today, most children don’t use illicit drugs, but all of them, particularly the poorest, are vulnerable to misuse and addiction. Legalisation and decriminalisation—policies certain to increase illegal drug availability and use among our children—hardly qualify as public health approaches.”
There are also other links that argue for an end to prohibition so an interesting read form both perspectives as I have said previously my perspective is from that of someone who has to clean up the mess caused by drugs of abuse and as a parent who does not only want more restrictions placed on the availability of alcohol and tobacco but would exit NZ in an instant if the government moved to make currently illegal drugs legal as per your heroin and cocaine argument.
And in regards to being a freedom hating wowser - no not really I’m just not in favour of people killing themselves and others as a result of their abuse of legal and illegal drugs.
Wowser - Right, so I skimmed over you first link (bloody long) and found this in the conclusion:Decriminalisation measures in the U.S. and Australia were much less radical than their name implies. The new laws involved a change in penalties whereby cannabis possession offenders were no longer subject to potential jail terms, which had already been an uncommon sentence in most jurisdictions, as well as providing the opportunity for possession offenders to avoid a criminal conviction and the resultant problems. In both countries, these so-called decriminalisation laws did not appear to have had a major impact on rates of use, as many feared that it might have.
Tha’s what I’ve been saying laws or lack of will not change usage and if they don’t is there in any point in the whole war? I will read in more detail and check out the other link later.
QTR
But your not arguing decriminalisation are you ?
Your arguing for “..Rex - We want it legalised. I don’t want to see some system of fines in place. It ought to be legal as should every other drug”
I’m happy to argue against either to some extent but would certainly view option 1 as the lesser of two evils.
Wowser - Your second article is by its own admission totally inconclusive. I simply don’t agree with the third article and many in the health profession and in law enforcement do not either. We could both sit here and cherry pick others’ opinions forever if we wish. Back to the first article I think it proves my point that liberalisation even if it’s just a small move like decriminalisation does not do anything to the number of users and that criminalisation is no deterrent and has had no effect on the number of users. The people that want to use drugs do and those that don’t don’t and the changing the laws won’t change that fact. From the article:
The presumed benefit of the criminalisation of cannabis possession is the deterrence of cannabis use. There is, however, little evidence of a strong deterrent effect. Substantial increases in marijuana use occurred in the 1960s and 1970s despite the application of criminal penalties for cannabis possession both in the U.S. (7, 23, 44) and in Australia (17). These trends in cannabis use do not constitute conclusive evidence regarding the lack of a deterrent effect, as it is not known whether rates of use might have increased even more if cannabis possession had not been prohibited. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that nonusers rarely cite fear of legal consequences as a reason for their nonuse (34, 44). Rather, the simple lack of interest or fear of adverse health consequences are the most commonly given reasons for abstention from cannabis use
The available data indicate that these decriminalisation measures substantially reduced enforcement costs, yet had little or no impact on rates of use.
Changes in rates of use appear to be more strongly connected with changing perceptions of health risks rather than availability or any changes in the legal status of the drug.
Cannabis use is very popular, being by far the most widely used illicit drug in both countries. The cannabis market has been described in the U.S. as being “near-saturation” (23) and this would probably also apply to Australia as well.
Under these circumstances, it should not be surprising that the reduction of penalties for cannabis possession to a fine only did not lead to significant changes in rates of cannabis use.
Am I to take it that you are now in favour of decriminalisation?
Arghhhhh you’re not your … I’ve caught SP’s disease.
No I’m not in favour of decriminalisation I merely stated that it’s the lesser of two evils.
Are you now in favour of only decriminalising cannabis or are you still wishing to legalise all drugs of abuse ?
I would also point to an rather obvious point that appears lost on you - make something easier and cheaper to obtain, and you increase the number of people who will try it.
If we have indeed got saturation usage of cannabis this may not be the case with this drug of abuse, but to extrapolate that to other drugs of abuse or new drugs of abuse is foolhardy.
We know that keeping an activity illegal deters many people from taking part in that activity. Remove the penalties or sanctions, and many more people will take up the activity.
We can learn from history here. After Europe imposed the opium trade on China in the mid-19th century, by 1900 there were an estimated 90 million opium addicts in the nation. When British physicians could write prescriptions for heroin in the 60s, the nation’s junkies increased thirty to forty-fold.
HS - No I still support legalisation.
We know that keeping an activity illegal deters many people from taking part in that activity. Remove the penalties or sanctions, and many more people will take up the activity.
Now you’re just making blind assertions. The article you linked to on Cannabis decriminalisation comes to the exact opposite conclusion:Changes in rates of use appear to be more strongly connected with changing perceptions of health risks rather than availability or any changes in the legal status of the drug.
You said: I would also point to an rather obvious point that appears lost on you - make something easier and cheaper to obtain, and you increase the number of people who will try it. It is not an obvious point. I would say it is false. As I asked you if you’d start taking heroin or cocaine if they were legal and you said you would not. My point as I have made many times is that drugs are easy to acquire, available in abundance and relatively cheap and those that want to try them do regardless of the laws. I’ve made this point: the war on drugs has done nothing to the availability or cost of drugs, they’re now cheaper and more readily available then before the war on drugs. It’s you who doesn’t seem to get the point that after years of mass imprisonment, executions, spraying of vast swathes of land, many deaths on both sides law enforcement and criminal absolutely nothing has been achieved by the drug war. Nothing. And as I said drugs are actaully cheaper and more readily available then when the war started. I think the quote I put in an earlier comment sums it up best: “the drug war has no interest in its own results.”
As to your spurious comments about heroin in Britain, I have no doubt that you have absolutely no understanding of the situaiton. Your numbers are way over the top. First of all British physicians could write prescriptions for heroin since the twenties to help addicts so your claim is laughable. The laws actually became harder in the 60s and seventies in Britain surrounding many drugs. Now there was an increase in heroin users in the sixties, I’ll allow you to draw own conclusion on the fact that when the approach to drugs became harsher use increased. There is a long article here about supplying heroin legally to addicts.
Here are some quotes from it:
Bv 1924, when the Rolleston committee met, the disastrous effects of the United States decision to refuse legal opium, morphine, and heroin to addicts were conspicuously visible. Dr. Harry Campbell came to the United States in 1922 to observe what had been happening during seven years of enforcement of the Harrison Act. What he saw flabbergasted him. Upon his return to England he informed his medical colleagues of the astonishing conditions he had observed: … In consequence of this stringent law a vast clandestine commerce in narcotics has grown tip in that country. The small bulk of these drugs renders the evasion of the law comparatively easv, and the country is overrun by an army of peddlers who extort exorbitant prices from their helpless victims. It appears that not only has the Harrison Law failed to diminish the number of drug takers-some contend, indeed, that it has increased their numbers-btal far from bettering the lot of the opiate addict, it has actually worsened it; for without curtailing the supply of the drug it has sent the price up tenfold, and this has had the effect of impoverishing the poorer class of addicts and reducing them to a condition of such abject misery as to render them incapable of gaining an honest livelihood.
And the sixties:In short, Britain had begun to adopt American antidrug propaganda methods, and was beginning to reap Americanstyle rewards in terms of a rise in youthful addiction.
I still can’t understand your ket reason for making substances that are harmful to oneself and society legal perhaps you should list your rationale again.
But to cover some further points.
“We know that keeping an activity illegal deters many people from taking part in that activity. Remove the penalties or sanctions, and many more people will take up the activity.Now you’re just making blind assertions.”
Nope
During Prohibition in America, consumption of alcohol declined substantially, as did the cirrhosis death rate for men (cut by two-thirds between 1911 and 1929), and arrests for public drunkenness (dropped 50 per cent between 1919 and 1922).
When Muslim societies removed restrictions on hashish in the 15th century, it is said that this resulted in “a large number of people from all walks of life [being] in a constant state of intoxication”.
Some advocates of legalisation claim that such a move will reduce drug-associated crime. Even if we assume that lower prices will cause addicts to commit fewer offences, there is a very real possibility that this will be offset by the general crime increase associated with the increase in users.
Any health professional or police officer will tell you that a person on drugs will be more likely to neglect a child, abuse a spouse or take a life. It’s not just that people do bad things to get drugs; drugs make them do bad things.
Consider some statistics:
-A 1991 US federal survey found that a majority of those arrested in 24 cities for robbery, assault, burglary and homicide tested positive for drugs.
-In New York in 1987, 73 per cent of child abuse cases involved parental drug abuse.
-A 1994 study of 31,000 abused and neglected children in Cook County, Illinois found that more that 80 per cent of the cases involved drugs.
-A 1992 study of NSW inmates found that 67 per cent of prisoners had been on drugs while committing the crime they were imprisoned for.
Also, cheaper drugs do not necessarily mean less crime. When inexpensive crack cocaine flooded America in the early 1980s, the rate of addiction soared, as did crime rates. Indeed, police noted that wherever drugs were the cheapest, crime rates were the highest.
Some would argue that we’re fighting a losing battle but consider that several decades ago around 60% of all adults and young people smoked cigarettes. But now, due to education, health warnings, and government restrictions, that figure is declining as is well below 20 per cent. Social trends can be reversed.
By declaring certain things illegal, the law sends out a moral message that such activities are wrong and to be avoided. Correspondingly, to legalise a previously illegal activity sends the signal, especially to our young people, that such an activity is now morally acceptable. What society was once seen to disapprove of it is now seen to endorse.
HS - You don’t give up do you. I will have the last word no matter how many days it takes. Each time you come up with some bullshit I debunk it and you don’t even bother to defend it you just divert to some new erroneous claims. The heroin supply to addicts was a case in point, you were clearly bested when I pointed out to you that heroin was supplyed by those in the medical profession since at least the twenties and probably well before that. Furthermore there was the own goal with the link on Cannabis decriminlisation which further strengthed my case (I don’t think you even read it). Now you’ve come out with another clearly mistaken claim about alcohol prohibition. You clearly don’t look or don’t wish to look at the evidence.. At the beggining of alcohol prohibtion use went down, but as soon as the bootleggers and rum runners got into business it soon went back to normal. Also you must remember that prohibition was hardly enforced in much of America for obvious reasons. From the drug library alcohol section: In discussing the relative successes and failures of Prohibition, most observers conclude that the undertaking failed.
Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became “organized”; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism.
Although some view the theory of prohibition as reasonable, it is generally conceded that the realities of manufacture and distribution make it unworkable, for in one form or another, alcohol can be easily produced by farmers, high school chemistry students, and ordinary citizens.
The per capita rate for the Prohibition years is computed to be 1.63 proof gallons. This is 11.64% higher than the Pre-Prohibition rate (Tillitt, 1932: 35). Based on these figures one observer concluded: “And so the drinking which was, in theory, to have been decreased to the vanishing point by Prohibition has, in fact, increased
The trend of death from alcoholism reflects hardly anything else than progress in the treatment of the so-called diseases of chronic alcoholism. Nevertheless, statistics of death from alcoholism have been used by both Drys and Wets to prove that Prohibition or repeal has greatly improved the rate of death from alcoholism. . . . Death from alcoholism is simply not an index of the prevalence of inebriety. Death from alcoholism could fall to zero in response to medical progress, while at the same time the rate of inebriety might rise many fold (Jellinek, 1947: 39).
“In making out death certificates (which are basic to Census Reports) private or family physicians commonly avoid entry of alcoholism as a cause of death whenever possible. This practice was more prevalent under the National Dry Law than it was in preprohibition time” (Tillitt, 1932: 114-115).
Nevertheless, gross statistics drawn from 383 cities indicate that arrests for drunkenness per 10,000 population reached a high of 192 in 1916 and fell to 71 in 1920. From this level, they rose steadily again to reach 157 in 1928 (Warburton, 1932: 102). Of course, arrests prior to Prohibition may not bear the same relation to the use of alcohol as they did subsequently, Warburton theorizes:
. . . [U]nder Prohibition, especially during the early years, police were more strict in making arrests, and . . . a larger proportion than formerly of persons appearing on the streets under the influence of liquor are arrested. Also, since the sale of liquor is illegal and cannot be obtained in public saloons, and when the police are more strict in arresting intoxicated persons, it is reasonable to suppose that drinking is less public and that fewer drunken persons appear on the streets relative to the quantity of liquor consumed (Warburton, 1932: 103).
You’ve also got to ask yourself why there was such a clamour for the repeal of prohibition if it was as in your eyes so successful. Are you advocating alcohol prohibtion?
I’m not arguing with you about the harm that drugs can cause. I’m arguing that prohibition achieves nothing and harm reduction can be better achieved where prohibition is ended.
P.S. 15th century muslim societies you’re clutching at fucking straws there.
ooh look plagiarism.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5490/is_200203/ai_n21310571/pg_2
I’m surprised what with hs being a Doctor that teaches at the Uni and all. It’s really not hard to use some quote marks and say “as Bill Muehlenberg said…” HigherStandards aren’t what they used to be.
A few questions I’ve not seen you answer there doc:
Do you think the ‘war on drugs’ approach is actually working?
Are you happy with the current state of affairs re the effects of drugs on society, locally or globally?
How could we make the ‘war’ more effective?
Most importantly, please answer this one because it’s destroying whole nations in S. America and other places (Russia and Mexico not the least):
Do you think it best that the at least hundreds of billions of dollars spent globally on drugs currently go exclusively to criminals and terrorists who foster corruption and outright warfare to protect that income? How do you plan on stopping that hs? It’s only been getting worse for decades. (hint: getting consumers to ‘just say no’ is the current plan = epic fail)
Because if you can’t answer that question, you are ignoring the costs of prohibition and your analysis is not worth anything because it only looks at the benefits. (hint: getting consumers to ‘just say no’ is the current plan = epic fail)
Would it not be smarter to take the successful approach we have used with tobacco instead, with taxing it and having state funded education and support?
You can say that the state does offer such support now, but it is compromised by the fact the people most in need of it, fear legal sanctions, and that much of the information is propagandistic nonsense (’drugs of abuse’ indeed) that users find to be completely separate from their own personal experiences.
“I’m not arguing with you about the harm that drugs can cause. I’m arguing that prohibition achieves nothing and harm reduction can be better achieved where prohibition is ended.”
Nice to see that you’ve amended your argument from where you were originally position…
“Rex - We want it legalised. I don’t want to see some system of fines in place. It ought to be legal as should every other drug.”
and
“You may wish to disagree with the freedom of a person do with their own body what they wish, but it’s something I believe in. It’s also something MikeE coming from the opposite end of the economic/political spectrum as I agrees with. IMO P, heroin, cocaine, ecstasy,mescaline, LSD, BZP, PCP, DMT whatever it is if people want to take they shouldn’t be criminalised for it. ”
Now there can be no doubt that your comment that prohibition achieves nothing is patently absurd when if prohibition wasn’t in place all those substances would be freely available to NZers to experiment and possibly become addicted to and become a considerable burden on and potential harm to society.
In terms of harm reduction being better achieved when prohibition is ended it would be interesting to see the relative numbers of persons seeking assistance with their addictions because of the criminal justice system or of their own free will.
PB
Do you think the ‘war on drugs’ approach is actually working?
With some drugs and in certain countries Yes in others No
Are you happy with the current state of affairs re the effects of drugs on society, locally or globally?
No
How could we make the ‘war’ more effective?
How about the death penalty for manufacture and supply ?
I also find the example of tobacco to be odd…….. the suggestion would involve legalising and making more freely available harmful substances so we can then embark on a major campaign to educate people against using them .
Dude, drugs are freely available now.And they are cut with all sorts of crap. It’s easier for kids to get P or pot than vodka. Why is that do you think?
With some drugs and in certain countries Yes in others No
cop out
How about the death penalty for manufacture and supply ?
Really? But not for anyone you know or their families aye? Oh no, it would be probably. No worries, you’ll pull the switch right?
HS - How have I amended my argument? I haven’t. My position is the same as it always has been. All drugs should be legal. All I said was I’m not arguing about the harm they cause becasue I know they cause harm and you can spout statistics till y