Don't questin the work of the lord. Sorry just wanted to get the image source saved.
Posted on 06/18/2006 9:22:25 AM PDT by SittinYonder
SCOTLAND'S drugs tsar has sparked a furious row by openly declaring that the war on drugs is "long lost".
Tom Wood, a former deputy chief constable, is the first senior law enforcement figure publicly to admit drug traffickers will never be defeated.
Wood said no nation could ever eradicate illegal drugs and added that it was time for enforcement to lose its number one priority and be placed behind education and deterrence.
But his remarks have been condemned by Graeme Pearson, director of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency (SCDEA), who said he "strongly disagreed" with Wood.
The row has erupted as concern mounts about the apparent inability of police, Customs and other agencies to stem the flow of illegal drugs. It was reported yesterday that an eight-year-old Scottish school pupil had received treatment for drug addiction.
And despite decades of drug enforcement costing millions of pounds, Scotland has one of the worst drug problems in Europe, with an estimated 50,000 addicts. At least half a million Scots are believed to have smoked cannabis and 200,000 are believed to have taken cocaine.
Wood holds the influential post of chairman of the Scottish Association of Alcohol and Drug Action Teams, a body which advises the Executive on future policy. The fact that Wood and Pearson are at loggerheads over the war on drugs is severely embarrassing for ministers.
Wood said: "I spent much of my police career fighting the drugs war and there was no one keener than me to fight it. But latterly I have become more and more convinced that it was never a war we could win.
"We can never as a nation be drug-free. No nation can, so we must accept that. So the message has to be more sophisticated than 'just say no' because that simple message doesn't work.
"For young people who have already said 'yes', who live in families and communities where everybody says 'yes', we have to recognise that the battle is long lost."
He added: "Throughout the last three decades, enforcement has been given top priority, followed by treatment and rehabilitation, with education and deterrence a distant third.
"In order to make a difference in the long term, education and deterrence have to go to the top of the pile. We have to have the courage and commitment to admit that we have not tackled the problem successfully in the past. We have to win the arguments and persuade young people that drugs are best avoided."
Wood said he "took his hat off" to the SCDEA and added that it was essential to carry on targeting dealers. He stressed he was not advocating the decriminalisation or legalisation of any drugs.
"It's about our priorities and our thinking," said Wood. "Clearly, at some stage, there could be resource implications, but the first thing we have to do is realise we can't win any battles by continuing to put enforcement first."
But Pearson, director of the SCDEA, said he "fundamentally disagreed" that the war on drugs was lost.
"I strongly disagree when he says that the war on drugs in Scotland is lost. The Scottish Executive Drug Action Plan acknowledged that tackling drug misuse is a complex problem, demanding many responses. It is explicit within the strategy that to effectively tackle drug misuse, the various pillars of the plan cannot operate in isolation."
Alistair Ramsay, former director of Scotland Against Drugs, said: "We must never lose sight of the fact that enforcement of drug law is a very powerful prevention for many people and, if anything, drug law should be made more robust.
"The current fixation with treatment and rehabilitation on behalf of the Executive has really got to stop."
And Scottish Conservative justice spokeswoman Margaret Mitchell said: "I accept Wood's sincerity, but this is a very dangerous message to go out. I would never say that we have lost the war on drugs. Things are dire, but we should never throw up the white flag."
But Wood's view was backed by David Liddell, director of the Scottish Drugs Forum, who said: "We have never used the term 'drugs war' and it's right to move away from that sort of approach. For every £1 spent on treatment, £9-£18 is saved, including in criminal justice. The balance has been skewed towards more punitive aspects."
And John Arthur, manager of the drugs advice organisation Crew 2000, said: "I think Tom Wood is right. This is something our organisation has been arguing for for a long time and it is good to see this is now coming into the mainstream."
Among the ideas now backed by Wood is less reliance on giving methadone as a substitute to heroin addicts.
He says other substitutes should be considered, as well as the possibility of prescribing heroin itself or abstinence programmes.
One new method being examined by experts is neuro-electric therapy, which sends electrical pulses through the brain. One addict with a five-year habit, Barry Philips, 24, from Kilmarnock, said the treatment enabled him to come off heroin in only five days.
Wood said: "We need to look at the other options. Other substitutes are used in other countries. They even prescribe heroin in Switzerland and there is a pilot in Germany, with pilots also mooted in England and, more recently, Scotland. We need to have a fully informed debate."
A Scottish Executive spokesman said: "We have a very clear policy on drugs, which is to balance the need to tackle supply and challenge demand. They have to go hand in hand and we make no apology for that."
Yep. It moved things around a bit but the equilibrium is the same as it has been since I was old enough to pay attention. The War on Drugs does not factor into casual drug use at all except indirectly as second-order consequences. Drugs are still widely available and people still use them. The War on Drugs simply does not enter the calculus when people decide to use drugs. Casual drug users tend to worry far more about the health and social effects than whether or not the government approves. On the other hand, social factors unrelated to the WoD have been shown to have an impact on drug use. And the WoD has taken a pretty serious toll on US society itself.
The problem is that many people (and the government) conflate reducing drug availability with reducing drug use, which are two very different issues and with the former having no obvious positive impact on the latter and the government fixating on the former. Reducing drug availability is fine, but lets not pretend that it is generating the desired result -- we need to be doing something else to reduce drug use. Unfortunately, we only have finite resources, so less effective programs will need to be eliminated to free up resources for more effective programs.
Yep. It moved things around a bit but the equilibrium is the same as it has been since I was old enough to pay attention.
That constant, meanwhile how many tax dollars have been wasted and how many lives have been diminished or ruined as result of drug prohibition? The cost is huge. Sixty billion dollars a year that the government spends isn't even half the cost when you factor in the crime and violence of the black market that drug prohibition facilitated. Not to mention the opportunity cost of people being imprisoned rather than working productive jobs and money wasted on fines and lawyer fees rather than being invested in various markets where capital gains are often compunded.
Not to mention the several million who regularly consume demon Scotch . . .
Do I see a parallel with at least one other undeclared, unwinnable "war?"
Actually oddly enough that first step would go a very long way to accomplish the last two!
Why buy horse and blow, when you can grow?
But there goes the multigazillion govt sponsored pork gravy depts, not to mention the $$$$ mega industry of the illicit trade!
So it comes down to Free vegetable matter VS. govt subsidized prohibition.
Follow the money, it aint gonna change till we change the govt! Fortunately we have regular revolutions available to us!
If only we could elect the right lizards!!!
Don't questin the work of the lord. Sorry just wanted to get the image source saved.
Do I see a parallel with at least one other undeclared, unwinnable "war?"
The term "war" is usually a convenient, though imperfect, metaphor for any number of fights that must/should be fought. Unfortunately, many of these conflicts have no definitive ending, but that does not mean we shouldn't fight them.
Explain how a person home alone smoking marijuana manages to get arrested.
I see you are still playing your childish game of it's not illegal to
smoke marijuana, but only illegal to posses marijuana or distribute
marijuana. Glad to see you agree that it should be legal to smoke and
possess marijuana in a person's own home.
W-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-k-e and B-a-a-a-a-a-a-k-e!
No. I don't do drugs. I'm just here fighting the good fight -- liberty and justice for all.
It was more of a pronouncement than a question.
Well, then you're talking about measuring drug use, you're talking about measuring compliance with regulations.
I have to grant you there's no shortage of opportunists who are willing to employ politically destructive means in pursuit of their pet social projects.
If you started paying attention about 15 years ago, yeah, drug use has been relatively flat. But drug use dropped 60% from its high in 1979, leading me to believe that it could go right back to where it was not that long ago.
"and the government fixating on the former"
They're not. About half the federal ONDCP budget goes towards anti-drug advertising, drug education, and drug treatment programs -- the "demand" side.
"The War on Drugs simply does not enter the calculus when people decide to use drugs."
Certainly with some people, that's obvious.
But I do not agree that legalization would not result in increased use. Given the fact that legalization, today, implies societal acceptance and given the fact that the price of drugs would drop dramatically, I believe existing users would use more, we'd see an increase in the number of adult users, and we'd see a doubling of teen use.
We've seen a slight increase in the number of users in the last five years, and I believe it's due to a relaxation of our state criminal drugs laws (decriminalization) and the recent trend of states recognizing medical marijuana.
"On the other hand, social factors unrelated to the WoD have been shown to have an impact on drug use."
I agree. That's certainly part of it. And what kind of message would society be sending if it says that recreational drugs, illegal for almost a century, are now legal? You're asking me to believe that people would simply shrug their shoulders and go on with their lives? I do not believe that, and I find it hard to believe that you do.
A pittance compared to the savings society realizes from all the people not doing drugs because drugs are illegal.
"Sixty billion dollars a year that the government spends"
Oh please. Google up the federal ONDCP budget for crying out loud. It's about $12 billion, iirc. The states spend about the same. Where did you get your $60 billion -- drugsaregood.com?
And, only the pathetically stupid still believe them.
IF the government ACTUALLY cared about drugs and people, you think they would look at the MILLIONS of CHILDREN who are drugged everyday in school to help "control" them.
One would be an idiot not to see that arresting adults for using drugs while simultaneously forcing millions of children to TAKE drugs to "fit in" - is NOT a drug policy - it is a control mechanism.
Meanwhile, one of ther most dangerous drugs in the world - alcohol - is allowed to advertise on TV.
Anybody who buys into the governments propaganda is an idiot
Really? How did they know, in 1991, that the prison population in 2003 would be 2,019,234?
The article claims that 450,000 of those 2,019,234 are there because of a drug crime. That's 22%. Not half. Not 70-80%.
If you have a number that's different, provide me with a link as I courteously provided you with one. Without a link, I'm not interested.
"Measured how?
Availability of drugs."
Well, if nobody's using them, who cares? According to the laws of supply and demand, if availability is up and the price is down, what does that tell you about demand?
"Rising incarceration levels without a reduction in seizures."
The two are totally unrelated. To me, a rising incarceration level is not a sign of "total failure" -- more a sign of increased enforcement of the existing laws.
"Can you show me any drug war victory?"
Yeah. Overall drug use dropped 60% from its high in 1979 and has remained relatively flat for the last 15 years. That's how I measure success. It's that simple.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.