Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
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."
Who's figures are you using to make that determination?
It is interesting that we have such a bad drug out there (nicotine), legally being used and taxed and yet we can't even consider that possible approach for the drugs that make many people a living on both sides of the trenches.
I am also not sure I have a real comment about putting all "users" to death that would enhance the discussion.
A pittance compared to the savings society realizes from all the people not doing drugs because drugs are illegal.
Even if that were true it's irrelevant.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
You can't seriously think that drugs don't get sold and used in Singapore.
But they seem to have done well in their war against toliet seats left unflushed in public restrooms.
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/01/15/singapore.executions.reut/
About 400 people have been hanged in Singapore since 1991, mostly for drug trafficking, giving the wealthy city-state of four million people possibly the highest execution rate in the world relative to its population, Amnesty said.
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.
But drug addiction was still a problem, Amnesty said, adding that there was "no convincing evidence" high execution rates had curbed drug use in Singapore.
It cited Singapore Central Narcotics Bureau statistics showing 3,393 people arrested for drug offences in 2002 and the number of new drug abusers up 16 percent from 2001. Use of methamphetamines, or "ice," also showed a significant increase.
Well, good. Now all the libertarians and druggies who want to decriminalize drug use can move to Scotland.
It is true and it is relevant. If you're going to cite the cost of the WOD, then it's very relevant to also point out the savings of the WOD.
National Survey on Drug Use and Health -- the same source that NORML and everyone else uses.
Why do you ask?
It is true and it is relevant.
The reason the vast majority of people don't do recreational drugs is because they are harmful. A tiny minority abstain because they are illegal.
If you're going to cite the cost of the WOD, then it's very relevant to also point out the savings of the WOD.
The savings are already set forth and compounding. The WOD drains away from that. I pointed out some of the lost opportunity costs (lost savings) from the WOD in post 182. You assert that the set amount of savings is due to people not doing drugs. There may be a correlation but certainly not a causation. Again, that is not being honest. You cite none of the savings caused by the WOD.
Perhaps you mean when a drug dealer is arrested it stops him from being on the street where he may kill an innocent person -- saving the person's life means they can continue producing, saving and injecting capital back into the market -- that happens to be in the middle of a drug-turf battle, gun-fight. A turf war that wouldn't exist if not for drug prohibition facilitating a black market for illicit drugs with 1000% profits to be made. Take one drug dealer of the streets and it's a job opportunity for ten other wana-be drug dealers to step in and take his place.
LOL.
I wonder how we'd do with a drug kaiser?
The entire report, or just the parts that deal with illicit drugs?
Why do you ask?
I'm trying to figure out what kind of methodology you're using to determine what criteria you will accept and what you reject.
I'm saying the WOD, all aspects of it -- interdiction, enforcement, education, advertising, etc. -- keep people off drugs. It either keeps them from starting or "encourages" them to quit.
Without the WOD, I'm saying that we would have a 50% increase (at a minimum) in the number of users. That's 10 million additional people on drugs. Keeping them off drugs represents a savings in overall economic productivity, savings in medical expenses, savings in insurance costs (for everyone), less drug-associated crime and those costs, etc.
For the seond time, we're discussing the War on Drugs. Not the war on alcohol or the war on aspirin or the war on tobacco, or the war on unfenced swimming pools. Got it yet?
Therefore, guess which part of the report I'm referring to.
Then legalizing mj will result in a substantial and immediate reduction in drug use.
LOL!
Without the WOD, I'm saying that we would have a 50% increase (at a minimum) in the number of users. That's 10 million additional people on drugs. Keeping them off drugs represents a savings in overall economic productivity, savings in medical expenses, savings in insurance costs (for everyone), less drug-associated crime and those costs, etc.
Even if recreational drug use increased 50%, which I think your assumption is wrong, the following is put forth as if it did.
Drug related crime is for the vast majority of the time a result of drug-prohibition. Many people would be more productive if they didn't do hard drugs. Marijuana use out paces other illicit drugs -- save for alcohol which is far more harmful than marijuana -- by are large margin. It's the illicit drug of choice. At a $100 a gram for cocaine and $300 an ounce for marijuana being ten to twenty times the price if they were legal, the cost savings you claim are more than off set. $270 an ounce is going to a drug dealer instead of into the stock market or other place where it could be compounding. People that work hard for their money are more responsible -- more productive -- with their money than drug dealers with their easy 1000% profits.
That said, each person's life is theirs to live as they see fit. Their productivity is first and foremost for their benefit -- not the benefit of society. Communism is the opposite.
People imprisoned add zero productivity to the economy and certainly do not benefit themselves because they do not participate in a free market. No cash flows through them. Lawyer fees to pay for criminal trials of non-violent offenses enrich lawyers, and fees and fines enrich the courts and government. Neither of which pass cash into the economy anywhere even remotely close to the efficiency individuals do. It's mostly consumed by government for government.
BTW, I disagree with your assumption that if drug prohibition was ended along with the WOD that recreational drug use would increase by 50%. I'd be surprised if it increased even 10%. - -
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition -- LEAP. Their member ship is strictly persons that are or have careers in the justice system and fought the war on drugs. Judges, prosecutors, LEOS, DEA, etc.
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.