[Athens]

The second article I wrote for my site, another issue that im sure fits right in for debate.

http://brian.is.a.rootboy.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6

War on Drugs

I think the issue with drugs is a medical issue and not a criminal issue. Laws that prohibit drugs are what creates the criminal element in drugs which affects every one else. I don’t believe in laws that protect people from themselves. I think laws should be to protect people from others. If a adult wants to stick a needle in there arm and inject a harmful drug, the state has no right to say otherwise.

People choose to do drugs for many different reasons. Drugs being illegal doesn’t stop people from using. The money spent on fighting drugs could be better used in solving the root causes of drug use, rehabilitation and providing medical drug relief then trying to fight its use.

The criminal element that comes from drugs are not the drugs themselves, but the limited access to the drugs and high prices of the drugs. Because it is illegal there is great risk in providing the product and great costs to smuggle and distribute the product. Because of this cost users who are hooked have to support the addiction with crime. Drugs being illegal cause more problems for society on a whole then just allowing users to use and providing the drugs as part of a medical program.

For example here are two situations with two drastically different approaches which have very different outcomes for society.

Example one follows today’s attitudes towards drugs and drug use. John who is already addicted to Heroin needs his daily fix. Each fix costs him $50.00 so it’s a habit that costs him around 1550 a month. In order to support this addiction which is the only thing in his life that matters, his next fix, he has to break into cars and houses to steal what ever he can and sell it at a local pawn shop. In this current situation money is being spent on police to try and control the illegal drug use. Money is being spent by the insurance companies to pay for the stolen goods. Money is being spent on medical help for people that get hurt. Now if John is arrested then more money is being spent on the courts and then money spent on jail. Over all a costly way to deal with what should be a medical problem not a criminal problem

Example two is a more radical way of dealing with the problem. John needs his fix, he has already been given a prescription by his doctor who recognizes he has a addiction so he is allotted one fix per day. So he goes to the Safe Injection clinic and is given his allotted one fix. The fix is still his only priority in life as in the other example but what’s different is he’s not committing crimes to get his fix and the dealer in example one has no business and no profit because the drugs are freely available to people like John at a clinic. This removes the theft element and the smuggling element. Police that where needed to deal with properties and drug related crimes can concentrate on other priorities. Mean while because John is in a safe environment to inject there is less chance of a overdose, bad drugs killing him and a place he can seek help when he really wants it. Insurance rates for every one decrease because the number of property crimes lower. John is still hurting himself, but now he’s not hurting any one else.

Because there is less policing cost, less cost on the courts, medical and insurance this should open up more funds for treatment for the addicts. Remove the crime element, provide more help options it becomes a win win situation for every one.

[nath]

Originally posted by Athens:
The second article I wrote for my site, another issue that im sure fits right in for debate.

http://brian.is.a.rootboy.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6

War on Drugs

I think the issue with drugs is a medical issue and not a criminal issue. Laws that prohibit drugs are what creates the criminal element in drugs which affects every one else. I don’t believe in laws that protect people from themselves. I think laws should be to protect people from others. If a adult wants to stick a needle in there arm and inject a harmful drug, the state has no right to say otherwise.

People choose to do drugs for many different reasons. Drugs being illegal doesn’t stop people from using. The money spent on fighting drugs could be better used in solving the root causes of drug use, rehabilitation and providing medical drug relief then trying to fight its use.

The criminal element that comes from drugs are not the drugs themselves, but the limited access to the drugs and high prices of the drugs. Because it is illegal there is great risk in providing the product and great costs to smuggle and distribute the product. Because of this cost users who are hooked have to support the addiction with crime. Drugs being illegal cause more problems for society on a whole then just allowing users to use and providing the drugs as part of a medical program.

For example here are two situations with two drastically different approaches which have very different outcomes for society.

Example one follows today’s attitudes towards drugs and drug use. John who is already addicted to Heroin needs his daily fix. Each fix costs him $50.00 so it’s a habit that costs him around 1550 a month. In order to support this addiction which is the only thing in his life that matters, his next fix, he has to break into cars and houses to steal what ever he can and sell it at a local pawn shop. In this current situation money is being spent on police to try and control the illegal drug use. Money is being spent by the insurance companies to pay for the stolen goods. Money is being spent on medical help for people that get hurt. Now if John is arrested then more money is being spent on the courts and then money spent on jail. Over all a costly way to deal with what should be a medical problem not a criminal problem

Example two is a more radical way of dealing with the problem. John needs his fix, he has already been given a prescription by his doctor who recognizes he has a addiction so he is allotted one fix per day. So he goes to the Safe Injection clinic and is given his allotted one fix. The fix is still his only priority in life as in the other example but what’s different is he’s not committing crimes to get his fix and the dealer in example one has no business and no profit because the drugs are freely available to people like John at a clinic. This removes the theft element and the smuggling element. Police that where needed to deal with properties and drug related crimes can concentrate on other priorities. Mean while because John is in a safe environment to inject there is less chance of a overdose, bad drugs killing him and a place he can seek help when he really wants it. Insurance rates for every one decrease because the number of property crimes lower. John is still hurting himself, but now he’s not hurting any one else.

Because there is less policing cost, less cost on the courts, medical and insurance this should open up more funds for treatment for the addicts. Remove the crime element, provide more help options it becomes a win win situation for every one.

It's a debate we're having publicly in the UK at the moment. I expect Scotland to move forward with heroin prescription in the next year or so, they tend to have more pragmatic law-making than we do...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3702428.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3592877.stm]

[Athens]

its more complicated here because of US pressure. Some US (noticed im not saying yanks, trying to be friendlier) politicians don't seem to have enough issues at home that they want to poke around in ours.

[nath]

Originally posted by Athens:
its more complicated here because of US pressure. Some US (noticed im not saying yanks, trying to be friendlier) politicians don't seem to have enough issues at home that they want to poke around in ours.

Do you mean politicians portraying drugs as a moral issue? That's become much less prevalent over here, I've been really surprised at how quickly. In particular, the Conservative Party has become extremely pragmatic, which has taken much of the heat out of the issue (they used to be the main 'drugs are teh evil' halfwits in the UK).

They just need to take the same route on half a dozen other issues and they might get my vote

[Athens]

Originally posted by nath:
Do you mean politicians portraying drugs as a moral issue? That's become much less prevalent over here, I've been really surprised at how quickly. In particular, the Conservative Party has become extremely pragmatic, which has taken much of the heat out of the issue (they used to be the main 'drugs are teh evil' halfwits in the UK).

They just need to take the same route on half a dozen other issues and they might get my vote

No politicians thinking it will make it easier for drugs to enter the US.

[Sherwin]

Find the heroin users and cold turkey the lot of them in a specialist jail/clinic. They'll come out clean and thank you for it.

[nath]

Originally posted by Athens:
No politicians thinking it will make it easier for drugs to enter the US.

That would be a bizarre concern considering what lies to the south (Colombia, Mexico, Jamaica, etc, etc)

[nath]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Find the heroin users and cold turkey the lot of them in a specialist jail/clinic. They'll come out clean and thank you for it.

You've just stated current policy in the UK. Heroin is a Class A illegal substance. People are jailed for possession and are not allowed to take heroin in prison (cold turkey). And it doesn't work.

They'll find a way to get drugs into the system, increase the spread of HIV and hepatitis due to use of shared needles, get released due to overcrowding/end of sentence and promptly continue to commit crime to feed a habit than can easily be lawfully controlled. At which point rinse and repeat.

Do you have any other ideas?

[Athens]

Originally posted by nath:
You've just stated current policy in the UK. Heroin is a Class A illegal substance. People are jailed for possession and are not allowed to take heroin in prison (cold turkey). And it doesn't work.

They'll find a way to get drugs into the system, increase the spread of HIV and hepatitis due to use of shared needles, get released due to overcrowding/end of sentence and promptly continue to commit crime to feed a habit than can easily be lawfully controlled. At which point rinse and repeat.

Do you have any other ideas?

Thats how it works here too and the same outcome. Would like to add those that go in, usally learn new tricks, and better and smarter ways to commit the crime. Some even end up in orginized crime rings when in the slammer. I think people going to jail for self harm is stupid. Jail should be for those that are to dangerous to live in regular society. Murderes, Rapist.

[f1000]

I believe that both the use and sale of narcotics (without medical reasons) should be kept illegal. The courts' responses to users and sellers, though, should be different. Users are victims and should be treated as nuisances, and not as violent predators. Sellers on the other hand should be summarily executed and their parents (if the sellers are minors) imprisoned.

To say that harsh laws don't work is plain BS. Singapore has some of the strictest drug laws in the world (including death for dealers), and yet it has far lower crime of all types than does Canada, Europe, or the U.S. This is nothing short of spectacular, seeing as how Singapore is a multiethnic metropolis on par with New York. Note the following news excerpt:

WORLD EXECUTION CAPITAL

Singapore executes more of its citizens than any other country. Some 400 people have been hanged since 1991, mostly for drug trafficking offences. Amnesty Internatonal describe the figure as "shockingly high" and say the practice is "shrouded in secrecy". In terms of executions per capita, Singapore's ratio is higher than Saudi Arabia, China and Sierra Leone, Amnesty said.

Drug laws

There were an average of 13.57 executions carried out per one million of the population between between 1994 and 1999, three times higher than the next country on the list, Saudi Arabia. Amnesty has called on the government to abolish the death penalty by issuing a moratorium on all executions and commuting all death sentences to prison terms. Singapore's drug laws are among the world's harshest. Anyone aged 18 or over convicted of carrying more than 15 grams of heroin faces mandatory execution by hanging.

What the article doesn't mention is Singapore's absurdly low rape and murder rates. Violent crime is practically non-existent in Singapore:

Murder Rate, 2001 (per 100,000 people):

New Orleans, La. 44
St. Louis, Mo. 42.2
Detroit, Mich. 41.3
Washington, DC 40.4
Baltimore, Md. 38.7

Singapore 0.77


Rape Rate, 2001 (per 100,000 people):

Cleveland, Ohio 130.2
Minneapolis, Minn. 103.2
Cincinnati, Ohio 97.3
Atlanta, Ga. 86
Columbus, Ohio 84.5

Singapore 2.8


Maybe executing drug dealers DOES stop all other types of violent crimes.

[nath]

Originally posted by f1000:
I believe that both the use and sale of narcotics (without medical reasons) should be kept illegal. The courts' responses to users and sellers, though, should be different. Users are victims and should be treated as nuisances, and not as violent predators. Sellers on the other hand should be summarily executed and their parents (if the sellers are minors) imprisoned.

To say that harsh laws don't work is plain BS. Singapore has some of the strictest drug laws in the world (including death for dealers), and yet it has far lower crime of all types than does Canada, Europe, or the U.S. This is nothing short of spectacular, seeing as how Singapore is a multiethnic metropolis on par with New York. Note the following news excerpt:


What the article doesn't mention is Singapore's absurdly low rape and murder rates. Violent crime is practically non-existent in Singapore:

Murder Rate, 2001 (per 100,000 people):

New Orleans, La. 44
St. Louis, Mo. 42.2
Detroit, Mich. 41.3
Washington, DC 40.4
Baltimore, Md. 38.7

Singapore 0.77


Rape Rate, 2001 (per 100,000 people):

Cleveland, Ohio 130.2
Minneapolis, Minn. 103.2
Cincinnati, Ohio 97.3
Atlanta, Ga. 86
Columbus, Ohio 84.5

Singapore 2.8


Maybe executing drug dealers DOES stop all other types of violent crimes.

Out of interest, does Singapore also apply the death sentence to crimes such as rape and murder?

[f1000]

Originally posted by nath:
Out of interest, does Singapore also apply the death sentence to crimes such as rape and murder?

You bet, but since both rape and murder are rare, the majority of the executions are for drug-related offenses.

[Athens]

Originally posted by nath:
Out of interest, does Singapore also apply the death sentence to crimes such as rape and murder?

It might relate, many murders in Vancouver are realated to drugs, gangs killing other gangs, people on drugs getting into disputes with friends, I can see the murder rate being directly affected. The rap I dont see how it would relate as much though. And something I guess I missed in the Article I wrote, dealers should be treated harsher. Not death but 5 years jail. 2nd offence 25 years.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by nath:
You've just stated current policy in the UK. Heroin is a Class A illegal substance. People are jailed for possession and are not allowed to take heroin in prison (cold turkey). And it doesn't work.

They'll find a way to get drugs into the system, increase the spread of HIV and hepatitis due to use of shared needles, get released due to overcrowding/end of sentence and promptly continue to commit crime to feed a habit than can easily be lawfully controlled. At which point rinse and repeat.

Do you have any other ideas?

It might be current policy, but it sure ain't current practice.

If they're not allowed to take heroin in prison, how can they actually get heroin in prison? They wouldn't if the prisons were being run properly. It's no good saying that they'll always find a way - how hard can it be to keep drugs out of a building which has only one entrance? How 'bout druggie prisons are totally isolated, with visitors only allowed to contact prisoners via a US style perspex screen and intercom combination? How 'bout any screw found guilty of supplying drugs to his wards gets 10 years for dealing?
There's ways and means. It can't be that hard.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Athens:
Thats how it works here too and the same outcome. Would like to add those that go in, usally learn new tricks, and better and smarter ways to commit the crime. Some even end up in orginized crime rings when in the slammer.

Only if you allow the prisoners to interact with each other.

[nath]

Originally posted by f1000:
You bet, but since both rape and murder are rare, the majority of the executions are for drug-related offenses.

So...murder, rape and drug offences can all be punished by the death penalty, but the deterrent only works for rape and murder?



Yep, sounds like the case for "harsh laws not working" in drug enforcement is rock solid!



Seriously though, I see where you're heading with this, but would maintain that the cultural differences in this case are substantial enough to make it a less than reliable case study. For the same reason I try not to use the Dutch experiment as an example of why the UK should legalise controlled substances, even though the vast majority of the surrounding countries have bigger hard drug problems than the Netherlands.

[Athens]

For me the question is this, how does some one harming themselves hurt me. It dosent. So if they are addicted so be it, treat it as a medical problem and provide it.

The second question I ask myself, what affects me more, some druggy having his drugs provided to him or trying to ban drugs all together which allows for criminals to profit to fund other criminal activities and druggies doing anything they can to get there next fix which includes breaking into houses which affects my insurance and every one elses insurance costs, the chance of getting robbed which affects me, the chance of my car being stolen which affects me, the chance my house will be broken into which affects me.

One must wonder how much of the terrorists funds come from drug money. I say take the profit out of it, take the cost out of it, that eleminates much of the problems that directly affect me and saves police resources to other areas.

I cant sim it up any more then that.

[f1000]

Originally posted by nath:
So...murder, rape and drug offences can all be punished by the death penalty, but the deterrent only works for rape and murder?



Yep, sounds like the case for "harsh laws not working" in drug enforcement is rock solid!

I don't understand. As I mentioned above, nearly all crimes are much lower in Singapore than in the West, and that includes drug use and selling. I only pointed out rape and murder because these are the most heinous crimes.

[nath]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
It might be current policy, but it sure ain't current practice.

If they're not allowed to take heroin in prison, how can they actually get heroin in prison? They wouldn't if the prisons were being run properly. It's no good saying that they'll always find a way - how hard can it be to keep drugs out of a building which has only one entrance? How 'bout druggie prisons are totally isolated, with visitors only allowed to contact prisoners via a US style perspex screen and intercom combination? How 'bout any screw found guilty of supplying drugs to his wards gets 10 years for dealing?
There's ways and means. It can't be that hard.

Of course not. All you have to do is imprison every hard drug user in the UK (12% of the population according to the latest figures) in solitary confinement.

I look forward to your costings!

[f1000]

Originally posted by nath:
Seriously though, I see where you're heading with this, but would maintain that the cultural differences in this case are substantial enough to make it a less than reliable case study. For the same reason I try not to use the Dutch experiment as an example of why the UK should legalise controlled substances, even though the vast majority of the surrounding countries have bigger hard drug problems than the Netherlands.

I agree that there are many variables that should be taken into account. It's possible that Singapore can exist as a benevolent police state only because free thinking (but more criminal) people in neigboring countries and the West provide it with products, ideas, etc. and oversight. China in general was a pretty repressive society for centuries, and yet it was the more liberal European civilizations that went on to conquer most of the globe. If an asteroid were about to fall on the Earth, I have no doubt that it will be a consortium of Western crime-ridden but more technologically advanced countries that saves the world (if that's even possible).

Perhaps increased crime is the price we choose to pay for rapid progress.

[Athens]

Originally posted by f1000:
I don't understand. As I mentioned above, nearly all crimes are much lower in Singapore than in the West, and that includes drug use and selling. I only pointed out rape and murder because these are the most heinous crimes.

how accurate is the crime reporting? Last year Surrey (Suburb of Vancouver) got into stink over its reporting and the fact the mayor had asked the police to use loop holes to lower the numbers as best they could. I imgaine the crime rates are higher in Canada and the US then whats in the stats, crimes that arnt reported, those that are but fudged.

[f1000]

Originally posted by Athens:
how accurate is the crime reporting? Last year Surrey (Suburb of Vancouver) got into stink over its reporting and the fact the mayor had asked the police to use loop holes to lower the numbers as best they could. I imgaine the crime rates are higher in Canada and the US then whats in the stats, crimes that arnt reported, those that are but fudged.

Well, you can always question stats, but Singapore is widely regarded as a very fair and open society. Most visitors do perceive it to be remarkably clean and safe, and the Wall Street Journal / Heritage Foundation ranks the city as number 2 in the world in terms of Economic Freedom,

http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...%20Release.doc

http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...ndex/index.cfm

[nath]

Originally posted by f1000:
I agree that there are many variables that should be taken into account. It's possible that Singapore can exist as a functioning entity because free thinking (but more criminal) people in the West provide it with products, ideas, etc. to keep Singapore's police state humming. China in general was a pretty repressive society for centuries, and yet it was the more liberal European civilizations that went on to conquer most of the globe. If an asteroid were about to fall on the Earth, I have no doubt that it will be a consortium of Western crime-ridden countries that saves the world (it that's even possible).

Perhaps crime is the price we choose to pay for rapid progress.

Well exactly. But that's the point about drug abuse - you take away the black market, and most of the crime 'magically' disappears too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3592877.stm

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by nath:
Of course not. All you have to do is imprison every hard drug user in the UK (12% of the population according to the latest figures) in solitary confinement.

Not all at once, obviously.

Originally posted by nath:
I look forward to your costings!

Once prisons are built or redesigned (just stop payment to the EU for a month), putting peeps in solitary will be way cheaper than the current model - which is about £1,400 per prisoner per week IIRC.

If you don't let the prisoners out of their cells, you don't need as many screws to keep them under control. Heck, keeping me in a room with all the luxuries would cost you less than that £1,400 per week. Exercise? Treadmills.

[nath]

Originally posted by f1000:
Well, you can always question stats, but Singapore is widely regarded as a very fair and open society.

Originally posted by f1000:
Singapore executes more of its citizens than any other country. Amnesty Internatonal describe the figure as "shockingly high" and say the practice is "shrouded in secrecy". In terms of executions per capita, Singapore's ratio is higher than Saudi Arabia, China and Sierra Leone, Amnesty said.

There were an average of 13.57 executions carried out per one million of the population between between 1994 and 1999, three times higher than the next country on the list, Saudi Arabia. Amnesty has called on the government to abolish the death penalty by issuing a moratorium on all executions and commuting all death sentences to prison terms.

Something wrong with this picture....

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by nath:
Well exactly. But that's the point about drug abuse - you take away the black market, and most of the crime 'magically' disappears too.

Nonsense. If that were true, the UK wouldn't have a massive tobacco smuggling problem, would it?

[nath]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Not all at once, obviously.

Once prisons are built or redesigned (just stop payment to the EU for a month),

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Exercise? Treadmills.

Oh dear. Here's where the sane discussion must depart I'm afraid. Good luck with your ideas though.

[nath]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Nonsense. If that were true, the UK wouldn't have a massive tobacco smuggling problem, would it?

Um...no. That's due to massively inflated tax on that particular product, compared to our nearest neighbours. Pharmaceutical heroin is as cheap as chips.

[Athens]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Nonsense. If that were true, the UK wouldn't have a massive tobacco smuggling problem, would it?

Let me guess, smokes are expensive in the UK?

[f1000]

Originally posted by nath:
Something wrong with this picture....

Singapore executes about 1.3 criminals per 100,000 citizens annually. This supposedly high execution rate is more than compensated for by the resulting low 0.77 murder rate (compared to the 44 for New Orleans).

Total violent deaths in 2001 (per 100,000):
Singapore = 1.3 + 0.77 = 2.1
New Orleans = 0 + 44 = 44

I'd say Singapore looks to be the more humane civilization.

I don't consider being holed up in a tenement afraid to go outside because of drug pushers as being free.

[nath]

Originally posted by Athens:
Let me guess, smokes are expensive in the UK?

About 4x as much as in Spain or France.

(OT)
I used to buy over the internet from a company that set up exclusively for that purpose in the Channel Isles. The fifth or sixth time I did it...no parcel. Couple of days later I get a letter from Her Madge's Customs saying that they're confiscating my fags (in direct contradiction of EEC free trade agreements!) and, should I like them back, I am welcome to contact my solicitor.

Basically, "We are the government. Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough."

[nath]

Originally posted by f1000:
I don't consider being holed up in a tenement afraid to go outside because of drug pushers as being free.

I agree with you entirely, which is why I think we should take them out of the equation. That's exactly what free heroin for addicts would do.

Originally posted by f1000:
Singapore executes about 1.3 criminals per 100,000 citizens annually. This supposedly high execution rate is more than compensated for by the resulting low 0.77 murder rate (compared to the 44 for New Orleans).

That's fine, but remember that many countries (my own included) have serious drug problems without the corresponding murder rates that the US suffers from. We are looking for a way to prevent the harm that drugs cause. The War on Drugs cannot possibly be judged to have been anything but a failure as far as that aim is concerned.

Have the read the article I linked to? Do you really have no opinion on it?

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by nath:
Oh dear. Here's where the sane discussion must depart I'm afraid.

Umm... OK... If you think that those ideas are any less sane than the current model, sure.

Originally posted by nath:
Um...no. That's due to massively inflated tax on that particular product, compared to our nearest neighbours. Pharmaceutical heroin is as cheap as chips.

'Coz of course, the government is gonna sell heroin to the end user without any tax on it.

[f1000]

Originally posted by nath:
I agree with you entirely, which is why I think we should take them out of the equation. That's exactly what free heroin for addicts would do.

I don't disagree with free drugs if it can be shown that providing such won't legitimize and increase drug use among the general population. More importantly, providing free drugs should only be a stopgap measure to a long term cure. Non-drug users shouldn't be taxed to keep addicts doped up in perpetuity, especially if addicts remain non-functional elements of society.

[nath]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Umm... OK... If you think that those ideas are any less sane than the current model, sure.

Leaving the EU will not improve our drugs legislation. However it will seriously weaken our ability to coordinate with other national agencies in the prosecution of traffickers, etc.

Originally posted by Sherwin:
'Coz of course, the government is gonna sell heroin to the end user without any tax on it.

Who said anything about selling? Not me. I did mention prescription, to those ill enough to need it.

[Athens]

Originally posted by f1000:
Singapore executes about 1.3 criminals per 100,000 citizens annually. This supposedly high execution rate is more than compensated for by the resulting low 0.77 murder rate (compared to the 44 for New Orleans).

Total violent deaths in 2001 (per 100,000):
Singapore = 1.3 + 0.77 = 2.1
New Orleans = 0 + 44 = 44

I'd say Singapore looks to be the more humane civilization.

I don't consider being holed up in a tenement afraid to go outside because of drug pushers as being free.

I don't agree with the death penalty, mistakes can and do happen and it cant be reversed. Whats Singapores laws about guns?

[Athens]

Originally posted by f1000:
I don't disagree with free drugs if it can be shown that providing such won't legitimize and increase drug use among the general population. More importantly, providing free drugs should only be a stopgap measure to a long term cure. Non-drug users shouldn't be taxed to keep addicts doped up in perpetuity, especially if addicts remain non-functional elements of society.

Thats why it has to be treated as a medical condition, only a doctor could give it to addicts who are actually addicts. No one is talking about making it a over the country product like Smokes BUT I think Pot should be treated like smokes and over the counter as the only exception. Of course I live in a city where 50% of the population has tried, currently smokes pot

[nath]

Originally posted by f1000:
I don't disagree with free drugs if it can be shown that providing such won't legitimize and increase drug use among the general population. More importantly, providing free drugs should only be a stopgap measure to a long term cure. Non-drug users shouldn't be taxed to keep addicts doped up in perpetuity, especially if addicts remain non-functional elements of society.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by f1000:
Well, you can always question stats, but Singapore is widely regarded as a very fair and open society. Most visitors do perceive it to be remarkably clean and safe, and the Wall Street Journal / Heritage Foundation ranks the city as number 2 in the world in terms of Economic Freedom,

http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...%20Release.doc

http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...ndex/index.cfm

Ah. Economic freedom. aka freedom for corporations. What about political freedom, and freedom for individuals?

The prime minister is chosen by parliament, not the electorate at large. Only one party ever manages to get more than one or two candidates elected: the ruling People's Action Party, which has strolled easily to victory in every election since independence. When the prime minister announces his retirement, the party elders choose a successor, and then reveal him to the voters, as they recently did with the younger Lee.

The PAP has been successful in demolishing alternative focuses of opposition activity. Labour unions were brought to heel in the 1960s through tough legislation. Professional groupings also follow the party line, which helps to deter lawyers and others from entering politics on the side of the opposition. A disciplinarian approach by university authorities has likewise deterred academics from becoming too closely involved in the political process. The PAP's response to the 1987 "Marxist conspiracy" marked the end of involvement in politics by the organised churches. As already noted, however, race may again be emerging as a focus for dissent.

The opportunities for extra-parliamentary protest are limited. This is most clearly demonstrated by the fate of the [Social Democratic Party, the main "opposition"] secretary-general, Chee Soon Juan, who has been repeatedly fined and (briefly) jailed for speaking in public without a permit.

Source: The Economist


And as for the use of the Internet:

SINGAPORE, July 11 (UPI) -- The Singapore government has launched a
plan to police the Internet for unacceptable political and religious
discussions, officials in the tightly-controlled island city-state said
Thursday.
The program, which takes effect Monday, calls for any groups or
individuals who post pages on the World Wide Web with political or
religious content to register with the Singapore Broadcasting Authority.
A team of government monitors is already scanning the Internet daily
for any sites dealing with these topics, an SBA spokesman told United
Press International.
``We have a dedicated unit which is monitoring the 'Net for web pages
carrying political or religious discussions,'' SBA management executive
Ahmad Shuhaimi said. ``Currently there are about 10 people doing it --
they are required to search the Internet for two or three hours daily.''
``If we find any unregistered groups discussing these issues they
will be monitored and informed that they need to register,'' he
explained, adding the watchdogs had checked the Internet for several
months in preparation for the new regulations.
The new regulatory plan, called the Class Licensing Scheme, also
requires Internet service providers and ``content providers'' -- those
who regularly post material -- to turn over to authorities any relevant
information on persons or groups who violate the rules. The Class
Licensing Scheme ``will focus on content which may undermine public
morals, political stability and religious harmony of Singapore,'' the
Singapore Broadcasting Authority said in a written statement released
Thursday.

Source: UPI article via Electronic Freedom Foundation

Yep, sounds like a real charming place. But hey, if that kind of authoritarianism is your cup of tea, you're more than welcome to it. Just don't try to impose it here, thanks.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by nath:
Leaving the EU will not improve our drugs legislation. However it will seriously weaken our ability to coordinate with other national agencies in the prosecution of traffickers, etc.

I didn't mention leaving the EU. I mentioned not paying them for a while. Can you not read?

While I agree with the concept of leaving the EU (and don't give me any BS about leaving it weakening our ability to co-ordinate trafficker intel - we've done it via InterPol before the EU existed and hey, we're on an island with defined and easily defendable borders - should the political will be there), the post was nothing to do with leaving. It was to address the questions which you would have raised over where the money was going to come from to build such prisons - it's there if we need it and have the political will to do it, as Brown has just shown by writing off the developing world's debt.

Originally posted by nath:
Who said anything about selling? Not me. I did mention prescription, to those ill enough to need it.

Riiight... Like the current prescriptions for everything else which are a fiver a pop? Or are you saying that they'll be free and my tax Sterling will be used to support the habit? You really believe that our beloved government wouldn't find a way to put tax on it?
Are our already overburdened doctors going to be spending loads of extra time with these people and are our nice, family-friendly pharmacists going to have loads of junkies polluting their atmospheres?

Originally posted by athens:
BUT I think Pot should be treated like smokes and over the counter as the only exception. Of course I live in a city where 50% of the population has tried, currently smokes pot

Ever seen how bad someone is at driving when they've done a few spliffs? Ever seen a reliable roadside test for smoke/drive?

[nath]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Yep, sounds like a real charming place. But hey, if that kind of authoritarianism is your cup of tea, you're more than welcome to it. Just don't try to impose it here, thanks.

++

[f1000]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Yep, sounds like a real charming place. But hey, if that kind of authoritarianism is your cup of tea, you're more than welcome to it. Just don't try to impose it here, thanks.

I guess you weren't a fan of NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, then.

Like it or not, Big Brother, in the form of the Dept of Homeland Security, already watches over us closer than ever before.

In any case, weren't you supposed to be in Canada by now?

[nath]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
I didn't mention leaving the EU. I mentioned not paying them for a while. Can you not read?

Now if you're going to start working yourself up into a state I will have to refer you to the picture of Kilroy again. Take a deep breath.

Originally posted by Sherwin:
While I agree with the concept of leaving the EU (and don't give me any BS about leaving it weakening our ability to co-ordinate trafficker intel - we've done it via InterPol before the EU existed and hey, we're on an island with defined and easily defendable borders - should the political will be there), the post was nothing to do with leaving. It was to address the questions which you would have raised over where the money was going to come from to build such prisons - it's there if we need it and have the political will to do it, as Brown has just shown by writing off the developing world's debt.

I don't think you've really grasped how stupid this idea is. 12% of the population. Think about that. Around 7 million people. That you want to imprison - although 'not all at once', ha ha.

It could never work because of the money, but also because of the people. Do you honestly think this 12% of the British population are junkies lying in alleyways? I can't believe you're that naive. They are our lawyers, our journalists, politicians, dustmen and hairdressers. The use of illegal drugs is now a majority activity in the UK and people will not vote for laws that criminalise their friends and children further. If there was the slightest hint that they would, then the Conservative Party would have made it policy years ago.

I realise it must be horrible being so out of sync with the prevalent political winds in your own country and I am sorry for you.

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Riiight... Like the current prescriptions for everything else which are a fiver a pop? Or are you saying that they'll be free and my tax Sterling will be used to support the habit? You really believe that our beloved government wouldn't find a way to put tax on it?
Are our already overburdened doctors going to be spending loads of extra time with these people and are our nice, family-friendly pharmacists going to have loads of junkies polluting their atmospheres?

A prescription charge may be appropriate once the initial problem is under control. In any case, the money saved immediately from prison and crime would dwarf any cost to the tax payer.

I've got to be honest and say that it doesn't really appear that you have any real knowledge of heroin addiction or the way it is handled at the moment. Our over-burdened doctors and nice family-friendly pharmacists already deal with all of the UK's registered heroin addicts in the distribution of methadone. Haven't you noticed them?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Find the heroin users and cold turkey the lot of them in a specialist jail/clinic. They'll come out clean and thank you for it.

Then go back out and get on it again.

Ever been to a methadone clinic?


Most people I know or knew that were major druggies weren't that way because they were doing it because it was "fun"

Most had underlining psych issues they were self medicating. And they didn't even know it.

Most people while detoxing will also SWEAR they will never do it again. And they mean it. Because detoxing isn't fun. But as soon as they start feeling a bit better, than Monkey starts screaming.

I never messed with Heroin or used any IV drugs. But I have been addicted to opiates before. I been through the methadone thing, and detoxed myself. The latter was no fun. And I didn't have it that bad.

It's been years since I've done anything like that, but the desire for them is still there. It's like a old girlfriend that you still love, and care for, but can never see.

If you have never touched them, don't.

[nath]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Then go back out and get on it again.

Ever been to a methadone clinic?

[Mithras]

Originally posted by f1000:
I guess you weren't a fan of NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, then.

Actually I'm a bit of a "Giuliani Democrat." I'm all for aggressive 'civil order' policing.

But I draw the line somewhere well short of arresting opposition politicians. And requiring all political and religious web pages to register with the government for approval. What about you?

I do agree with you, though, that there is a choice involved -- between enhanced "individual freedom", and overall security. Whether having greater rates of violent crime, or having the state put people to death for relatively minor infractions is worse -- that's a judgment call, and I recognize that you and others might prefer a Singapore-like system.

And in other spheres I do prefer overall welfare trumping individual "freedoms" -- I would, as you suggest, support a single payer healthcare system.

It is interesting and complicated. In any case though, I rather doubt that imposing the death penalty for drug infractions would bring about a Singapore-like level of crime in this country. There are too many other economic, social, and political things going on for it to work that way.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by nath:
Now if you're going to start working yourself up into a state I will have to refer you to the picture of Kilroy again. Take a deep breath.

I ain't worked up. Trust me on that.

Originally posted by nath:
I don't think you've really grasped how stupid this idea is. 12% of the population. Think about that. Around 7 million people. That you want to imprison - although 'not all at once', ha ha.

It could never work because of the money, but also because of the people. Do you honestly think this 12% of the British population are junkies lying in alleyways? I can't believe you're that naive. They are our lawyers, our journalists, politicians, dustmen and hairdressers. The use of illegal drugs is now a majority activity in the UK and people will not vote for laws that criminalise their friends and children further.

Now, are you talking hard drugs users or tokers? Where are your figures from? This thread is about hard drugs. 12% of the population are hard drug users? BS.

Let's assume your figures are correct though. 12% of the population are hard drug users? Think we might have a bit of a problem? Think we might have to change the way we're dealing with the problem (and no, giving more meth out isn't a change in the way we deal with it)?

Originally posted by nath:
I've got to be honest and say that it doesn't really appear that you have any real knowledge of heroin addiction or the way it is handled at the moment. Our over-burdened doctors and nice family-friendly pharmacists already deal with all of the UK's registered heroin addicts in the distribution of methadone. Haven't you noticed them?

The small amount of meth distribution around here is handled by a specialist unit at the main hospital - who couldn't handle any more workload if they tried. All the nice doctors and pharmacists can't carry the stuff as they'd be burgled every night.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Then go back out and get on it again.

Ever been to a methadone clinic?

Yep. Kind of hard to hang in the rock music biz without having to take someone to pickup their meth every now and then.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Most people while detoxing will also SWEAR they will never do it again. And they mean it. Because detoxing isn't fun. But as soon as they start feeling a bit better, than Monkey starts screaming.

This is exactly why they need forced detox in a secure facility until they're completely clean (and I mean clean of the psych need too). Doing it themselves, as you know, usually doesn't work.

[Zimphire]

They will never be clean. The Psych dependence will always be there.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
They will never be clean. The Psych dependence will always be there.

So what's stopping you from dropping meth right now?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
So what's stopping you from dropping meth right now?

That's a whole other topic. And I don't want this derailed.

I have help.