On May 3, 9:10 pm, tvaerska...@aol.com wrote:
> On 3 May, 20:38, Mel Rowing wrote:
>
> > The focus of the drug problem is the user. If there were no users of
> > the substances you talk of, there would be no dealers and every square
> > inch of Afghanistan could be put down to poppies and it wouldn't
> > affect us one jot.
>
> Conversely if there were no drugs there would be nothing for anyone to
> be a user of.
>
> But there are and there is and I'm afraid we are stuck with the world
> as it is rather than as we would like it to be.
Sorry! I don't follow the line of your logic here!
It's patently obvious that if there were no users then there would be
no drugs trade. Drogs are illegal. So long as they are illegal then
the authorities' task is to enforce the law. Remove a user then the
dealer has one less customer. Remove a dealer then the demand for his
product remains intact . Another dealer will step into his boots. Nine
out of ten dealers are probably users anyway.
As things stand, users don't give a toss about being caught in
possession so long as they are not found with enough gear to make a
charge of dealing stick. Life should be made much more difficult for
the user.
> > As it is, liberal forces that have prevailed in this country for
> > several decades now dictates that the problem should be seen as a
> > medical one as opposed to one of law and criminal justice.
> There are a whole range of supposedly medical problems that might be
> taken out of the hands of doctors and made subject to the criminal
> law. Criminalise obesity, bulemia, anorexia, tobacco smoking and a
> host of other personal failings and we might just eliminate them.
Except that none of the above involve a breach of the law. Neither do
they have third party repercussions nor do they indicate any desire on
any part of the perpetrator to enter into another mental dimension.
> > I would urge anyone who supports such an approach to look towards
> > Singapore and Kuala Lumpur. These are cities where there is no "drug
> > problem" and further you can enjoy a walk back to your hotel after an
> > evening out without worrying.
>
> The Asian authoritarian states aren't so successful at eliminating
> drug addiction:
>
> http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/01/15/singapore.executions....
Really?
3393 offences in one year in a population of 4.6m or 0.74 offences/
1000 population.
Compare that with 178502 within a population of 55m.
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page16.asp
or 3.25/1000 population.
Setting aside the fact that Singapore is the crossroads of Asia, would
the Metropolitan Police swap those figures I wonder?
I'll tell you something else about Singapore. Nobody seems to rob or
steal there "to feed habits". As I said when you come out of a
restaraunt or theatre late at night you don't have to anxiously search
for a taxi. You can safely walk back to your hotel. On the way you
will notice that street market stalls have been left as they were
during trading, just covered with a tarpaulin and tied down. Do that
in London and their stock would have disappeared by morning.
If ever there were an advert for strong law enforcement in relation to
both drugs and crme in general then Singapore must be it.
> > The net result is that we see druggies seen as "victims" or
> > "sufferers" despite the fact that most of them seem reluctant to seek
> > treatment as such. Freedom of will and the exercise of it has been an
> > assumption that has underpinned criminal justice and law enforcement
> > for centuries provided "mens rea" can be established.
>
> I don't think it is such a pleasant thing to be a drug addict and drug
> addicts certainly are victims of and suffer from their addiction.
It could well be that they don't suffer anywhere near half enough
which is why they don't make anywhere near enough effort to pack it
in.
> certainly suffered from my addiction to tobacco many years ago and it
> was not an easy thing to break it. Perhaps a sharp application of the
> criminal law would have helped me along.
I had a tobacco habit too! When I learned the stupidity of my ways I
stopped and was surprised to find how easy it was. I've not had any
more than the odd cigarette for getting on for over 30 years.
> A powerful addiction does go beyond willpower. It takes, or at least
> it took me, a superhuman amount of willpower and a lot of suffering to
> stop. A psychologically weak, damaged or vulnerable person might not
> be able to manage it on their own at all. I really don't think any
> simplistic "pull yourself together man and use your willpower"
> nonsense has much relevance in most cases of addiction.
I'm afraid it doesn't! I'm told by those who ought to know that
therapy is absolutely pointless unless the subject has the will and
inclination to change his behaviour. That's why it's absolutely
pointless to parcel up drug addiction treatment with any punishment.
It's equally pointless to give consideration to the fact that an
offender has "voluntarily" entered rehab when he comes up for
sentencing.
Make life more difficult and inconvenient for them and they might want
treatment that little bit more!
> And drug users have problems.
We all have or have had problems!
> Since both drugs and drug users, despite our best wishes to the
> contrary, actually do exist in the the real world, then real world
> solutions are called for. How to solve the problem? Prison? the Birch?
> Zyklon B?
>
> I would prefer to see a more realistic, workable and humane approach.
Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind at least if addiction is as
unpleasant as you say it is. |