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."
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.
First of all, correlation does not equal causality, so it is highly questionable to attribute the decline of a particular vice (drug use) to government policies. Second, the surveys depend on self-reporting, which can be affected by a number of factors. MJ was much more openly accepted in 1979 vs the Drug War years, so that could account for some of the decline.
But let's set those aside and go with your premise.
What did President Jimmy Carter, who thought mj should be decriminalized (maybe even legalized?), do to stop the rise of drug use and start a multi-year decline?
Thanks muggs, for posting the graphs.
It no longer includes the legal costs and incarceration costs. It does include DEA enforcement costs.
"DEA, DOJ, DOD and HHS all have Drug Control Budgets too."
If you look at the ONDCP budget of $12 billion, you see that some of that money goes to the DEA, some to the DOJ, some to HHS, etc., depending on the program.
wELL, THEN LET'S ADD ALCOHOL ....
after all, it is a drug and causes lots of violence and problems.If we are going to start killing people for using drugs...come on, let's be fair and consistent. Let's really do it the Singapore way!
I agree...this thread is starting to sound like a totalitarian advocacy thread. Stalin and Hitler got a lot of things "Cleaned Up" too....uh, so we want to emulate Singapore now? Yuk. singapore? ha.
what? these two sentences don't make sense put together. You advocate "singapore" and are upset about indivdiual liberties.???
YUP>.
In 1979, drug use was almost triple its lowest point in the 90's. Returning to the 1979 level would be a 200% increase -- and drugs were illegal in 1979!
Imagine the increase if drugs were legal! My 50% is quite conservative.
You're excluding the possibility that the drug dealer is investing that $270? As far as you know, the drug dealer may be investing in the stock market. So it's a wash.
"People imprisoned add zero productivity to the economy"
That is true. But most of those in prison are there for drug dealing or drug trafficking. If drugs were legal, I don't see them getting a real job. In my opinion, they'd simply switch to smuggling guns or people or cigarettes, or whatever, and end up back in prison for that.
So that's also a wash.
I see the number of federal prisoners. Where's the state prisoners? We'll add them up and see if the total is 1.4 to 1.6 million as you claimed.
Your welcome.
Drugs were illegal in 1979, but enforcement was absurdly lax.
Tobacco use has declined significantly from then, with only a public health campaign and price increases to push it down.
I don't think anyone is advocating simply abolishing the prohibition on drugs. Folks are advocating changing the way we deal with them to the way we deal with tobacco and alcohol use: as a public health problem.
Increased use is a downside of such a policy, but there are lots of upsides:
1. removal of cash-flow to the 'black economy', including indirectly to terrorist groups,
2. the ability to tax trade in drugs, as we do trade in tobacco and alcohol,
3. legally enforcable quality control, and the consequent elimination or virtual elimination of user deaths due to overdose (mostly due to quality fluctuation) or toxins in the supply (cf. recent cases in the Philadelphia/Camden area), supposedly one of the notable harms of drug abuse, but really a consequence of the product being illegal,
4. savings on incarceration (no, they won't all go into gun-running, or other crimes--the money isn't there) and enforcement, even more than is needed to fund increased treatment and anti-drug public health campaigns,
5. decrease in crime to support habits: even with the posited increase in use, and taxes included in the price, removal of the premium charged for illegal trade would drop the price, making it easier for users to support habits without resort to crime, also use would no longer automatically associate the user with criminal elements, nor already place him or her on the wrong side of the law so that psychological resistance to further law-breaking is lessened,
6. improved access to treatment for addicts who want to quit--rightly or wrongly addicts fear to seek treatment for fear of arrest.
It should be pointed out that before drug prohibition, some notable, quite productive individuals were given to the use of 'recreational' drugs (Arthur Conan Doyle and Hector Berlioz come to mind), so the idea that all the 'new users' will ruin their lives is also false.
In 1979, drug use was almost triple its lowest point in the 90's. Returning to the 1979 level would be a 200% increase -- and drugs were illegal in 1979!
Do you realize how completely stupid what you wrote is? Mocking you: In 19 30 marijuana use was about 1% of what is today. Returning to the 1930 level would be 99% decrease -- and drugs marijuana was legal then. Imagine the decrease if marijuana were legal! Use would easily decrease by 50% -- and that's very conservative
You merely picked a date that had high drug usage and compared it to a date of low drug usage and then stated the increase as a percentage. Absolutely no causation whatsoever. And meaningless correlation which is irrelevant anyhow.
You are un-friggin-believable. Did you actually think you could pass that off as legitimate argument to support continuation of drug prohibition? Yes, you most certainly did. You are truly sick. Please RP, get back on your meds.
You're excluding the possibility that the drug dealer is investing that $270? As far as you know, the drug dealer may be investing in the stock market. So it's a wash.
I didn't forget to ponder that the drug deal might invest in the stock market. Your reading comprehension is inadequate. I wrote in the post your reply is to: People that work hard for their money are more responsible -- more productive -- with their money than drug dealers with their easy 1000% profits.
Small and mid level dealers for the most part don't invest in stocks because they get a minimum 20% return on money per month when it is invested in their drug dealing business -- probably closer to 100% per month return on investment. It is not a wash.
As far as you know... well, you have a poor grasp of the monetary effects of the illicit drug trade.
But most of those in prison are there for drug dealing or drug trafficking. If drugs were legal, I don't see them getting a real job. In my opinion, they'd simply switch to smuggling guns or people or cigarettes, or whatever, and end up back in prison for that.
Laws of supply and demand rule all markets. If there is little demand, there will be little supply. The reason there are so many more drug dealers than people trafficking in guns, people or tobacco in the United States is because there is huge demand for drugs but not the other three. If all the imprisoned drug dealers reverted to trafficking in the other three things the supply would be so overwhelming that prices would plummet and thus eliminate the easy high profits. They would get productive jobs. Which some or many of them had along with their drug-dealing side business.
It's not a wash. For all you know... well, you have a poor grasp of the fundamental principles of supply and demand.
Don't you get tired of opening your mouth -- typing responses -- only to remove all doubt.
Since you only count the illegal drugs as being "drug use", if we legalize them there won't be any more drug use.
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.