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."
Some want the federal government to butt out and let each state decide the issue. Some wish to legalize only marijuana -- some only medical marijuana. Some wish to decriminalize only marijuana. Some wish to legalize all "soft" drugs. Some wish to legalize all drugs.
Sometimes it's hard to pin people down on their true position. For example, you appear to desire some sensible approach to the drug issue. You list the benefits to be gained.
But in order for those things you mention to happen, we'd have to legalize and regulate all drugs (as we do with alcohol and tobacco), including hard drugs and prescription drugs. Even then there'd be a problem with underage use (eg., currently, 30% of marijuana user are underage -- my guess is that percentage would increase with legalization -- and we'd still have to deal with that problem).
Yes, we would remove cash-flow to the 'black economy' -- probably the largest benefit of legalization. Would the gangs and dealers go away? After alcohol Prohibition, they simply went into the drug business -- where would they go this time?
I say it's very possible that they would go into the drug export business. The pipelines exist -- all they'd have to do is reverse the flow. The United States would be a drug lord's Mecca, attracting them like flies to grow, manufacture, then export our legal drugs to countries where their use remains illegal.
Unless, of course, your scenario includes world-wide legalization of all drugs. Would that happen?
The gangs will also hang around to sell drugs to minors, to sell any drug not readily available under your plan (eg., if heroin is available only under doctors orders or only to registered users), and to sell tax-free drugs if the taxes get too high (as they're doing now with cigarettes).
But, you are correct, the bulk of their money and profits would be eliminated.
"the ability to tax trade in drugs, as we do trade in tobacco and alcohol"
Certainly if the plan is to have companies manufacture these recreational drugs ("Houston Heroin -- Real Flower Power") and distribute them though retail outlets, taxes can be imposed and collected. I'm sure your drug program would be sold to the American public emphasizing this aspect (Remember the State Lottery? Proceeds to the public schools? Cigarette taxes to fund anti-smoking programs and health costs? "Sin" taxes on alcohol? Yeah, stick 'em good, the heathens. Let them pay through the nose.)
Taxes will be collected at every level: federal, state, county, city, and local. Every level of government will want a piece of the action. It's for the children, doncha know. And who's going to complain? A better question -- who cares if they complain?
Drug prices should go down. But will they? Drug users have already demonstrated that they're willing to pay a gazillion dollars an ounce for their recreation. The drug manufacturer will want to charge enough to cover potential future liability (like tobacco, I can imagine a creative lawyer going after a marijuana manufacturer). Add profit taking along the way and taxes and we could be very close to where we are today.
An example. In California, medical marijuana is legal. Go to the doctor, get a "recommendation" because your back hurts or you have a toothache, and get your Acapulco Gold at a co-op. All legal. What would you expect to pay for your marijuana? How about $480. an ounce? And that's tax-free! Geez Louise, it's cheaper on the street!
And that's assuming the taxes are collected. Under your plan, will people be allowed to manufacture their own methamphetamine? Crack cocaine? Grow their own marijuana? How will we collect taxes on all those people? I suppose we could eliminate the DEA and move those people over to the federal BATF. Will they collect state and local taxes too? Looks to me like the feds will still be poking around in our business, huh?
"legally enforcable quality control"
True. Assuming the addict can get the quality and quantity of his drug at a cheaper price than what he'd get on the street, and that he doesn't have to jump through regulation hoops or publicize his name, yeah, that is certainly a plus. If he does OD, though, I assume we'll be there with free health care to take care of him? I'd sleep better knowing that.
"savings on incarceration"
I sincerely doubt that, though, on the surface it would seem that we would.
Right now, 20-25% of those in prison are there on drug related charges -- mostly drug dealing and trafficking. But the drug legalization argument is that these are non-violent offenders and they should be let go to make room for the real criminals. Right? Well, where's the savings? It costs the same amount to lock up a rapist as it does a drug dealer.
Unless you really believe that, with drug legalization, we will close 20-25% of prisons, fire 20-25% of prison guards, shut down some courtrooms, fire some judges and prosecutors, etc. That could happen, I suppose.
"decrease in crime to support habits"
If the price drops, yes, that's possible. A drug user with no money and no income is still going to prostitute or steal to get the money they need. If it's less money they need, perhaps they'll commit less crime. Maybe they'll commit the same amount of crime and do more drugs. I honestly don't know. But the theory sounds good.
"improved access to treatment for addicts who want to quit--rightly or wrongly addicts fear to seek treatment for fear of arrest."
NA stands for Narcotics Anonymous, a free anonymous program that works for those who want to quit. They're in the telephone book in every city. I have yet to hear or read any story ever where the cops hung around outside of an NA meeting hoping to arrest a drug user. (Though I have heard of cops hanging around outside of bars hoping to arrest a DUI. That's mean.)
But, if a person really didn't want to quit their drug use (and who does?), that is a great excuse.
"so the idea that all the 'new users' will ruin their lives is also false"
Hey, go for it. We can always use another Arthur Conan Doyle or Hector Berlioz. Or another Barry Bonds or a Steve Howe. We'll see how many we'll get.
I appreciate your well thought out post. I don't mean my response to be negative or a put-down, I just wanted to point out the other side of the argument.
It is a fact that drug use was higher at one time. Sigificantly higher. The laws were the same, and what brought it down was enforcement and an attitude change. You're proposing the elimination of enforcement and a relaxation of our attitude about drugs -- legalization, unlike decriminalization, sends the message that drug use isn't so bad.
Given that, my point is that with those factors removed -- the factors that were responsible for the decline -- we could easily go back to where we were in 1979. A 200% increase.
That makes my 50% estimate look reasonable. That was my point.
Now, if your point is that, with legalization, drug use will drop 99% (to where is was when drugs used to be legal), fine.
So, on the one hand, I say that with legalization, drug use could increase from 6% of the population to 9%. You say it could decrease 99%. Who's off their meds?
You may want to be less cryptical in your response. Otherwise, you sound foolish with a statement like that hanging there unsupported.
Eventually they spend it or invest it and the money reappears in the economy. It is a wash.
"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."
It would happen in those three areas, huh? Why hasn't that happened with drugs? Talk about a poor grasp of the fundamentals!
Your quick wit, your logical mind, your utter genius ... I'm simply in awe. I sit at your feet and learn.
I doubt it. You haven't figured out that the carefully selected limitations you place on what you will and won't consider as relevant will come back to bite you.
Zon: And meaningless correlation which is irrelevant anyhow.
It is a fact that drug use was higher at one time.
I never said nor implied otherwise. You used the correlation of high usage to low usage -- comparing one to the other. Correlation is not causation. I even mocked you for trying to pass of correlation as causation.
You've shown nothing to verify causation is enforcement. At best you've shown correlation. I think the decrease in illicit drug use from 1979 is not casue by increased law enforcement...
When Lt. Jack Cole of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition ( LEAP) gives presentations at colleges he asks the audience, "How many of you don't do drugs because they're against the law?", seldom does even one person raise their hand.
So, on the one hand, I say that with legalization, drug use could increase from 6% of the population to 9%. You say it could decrease 99%. Who's off their meds?
I told you I was mocking you -- Do you realize how completely stupid what you wrote is? Mocking you:...236 -- when I wrote the absurd 99% decrease. I used correlation to mock you. You've made a futile attempt to assert that I intended it to be causation rather than me mocking your correlation.
- -
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.
Eventually they spend it or invest it and the money reappears in the economy. It is a wash.
Half right.. Aside from the largest payments that go to the drug cartels where they spend the money in Central America, South America and the poppy producing countries. Also, aside from the drug money the government confiscates and spends on fighting the WOD failure.
It [over supply] would happen in those three areas, huh?
The demand for drugs is so high that for every drug dealer arrested there's ten wanabe drug dealers prepared to jump in and take over. For them, arresting a drug dealer is a job opportunity. The demand for drug dealers is nearly full. The demand for prostitutes, low cost tobacco dealers and illicit gun dealers/traffickers is nearly full.
Why hasn't that happened with drugs?
To some extent it has as seen by lower prices. Government creates the set up and facilitation of black market tobacco, prostitution, guns and drugs. The government does that by imposition of taxes, violations of the second amendment and prohibition against certain liberties.
- -
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.
"Policies adopted to battle the use and sale of drugs have led to marked increases in arrest rates, in the likelihood of going to prison, and in the length of sentences for drug offenders. Between 1980 and 1997, the number of annual drug arrests tripled to a high of 1,584,000. The rate of drug arrests per 100,000 residents rose from 288 to 661. The rate of commitment to state prison per drug arrest quintupled between 1980 and 1990, rising from 19 prison commitments per 1,000 arrests to 103 per 1,000. The estimated time served by drug offenders in state prisons increased a full year between 1987 and 1996; federal drug sentences doubled."
-- hrw.org
Now, you tell me why it wasn't enforcement. And let's not forget the other half of what I mentioned -- the attitude changes in the 80's, the "Just Say No" campaign, the D.A.R.E. program and others.
Drug legalization wipes out all of that. Legalization would lead to increased usage, and that means increased harm to others.
"Policies adopted to battle the use and sale of drugs have led to marked increases in arrest rates, in the likelihood of going to prison, and in the length of sentences for drug offenders. Between 1980 and 1997, the number of annual drug arrests tripled to a high of 1,584,000. The rate of drug arrests per 100,000 residents rose from 288 to 661. The rate of commitment to state prison per drug arrest quintupled between 1980 and 1990, rising from 19 prison commitments per 1,000 arrests to 103 per 1,000. The estimated time served by drug offenders in state prisons increased a full year between 1987 and 1996; federal drug sentences doubled."
-- hrw.org
The DEA was created in 1973. In 1989 Bush Sr. declared a new war on drugs. Of course when government ramps up force to target the illicit drug "industry" arrests are going to increase. That shows no causation of reduced drug use. It shows increased drug arrests. After all, that was the intent.
Now, you tell me why it wasn't enforcement.
Typical of you to invert the burden of proof. A negative cannot be proven. It is you that must prove your claim.
And let's not forget the other half of what I mentioned -- the attitude changes in the 80's, the "Just Say No" campaign, the D.A.R.E. program and others. Drug legalization wipes out all of that.
No. Let's not forget them. Those education campaigns may well have educated persons to chose not to do drugs. After all, that was the intent.
Drug legalization wipes out all of that.
I see you think it's the government responsibility to educate children and adults. I see you think the free market is incapable of educating children and adults. Also, repealing drug-prohibition laws does not equate to repealing drug-education campaigns.
tacticalogic, was spot on target, writing: "You haven't figured out that the carefully selected limitations you place on what you will and won't consider as relevant will come back to bite you." 246
- -
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.
I also think the penalty for attempted suicide should be death. </sarcasm>
But seriously, I think the penalty for conviction as a drug trafficer or dealer should be death, but for users I think five years in a "convicted drug users only" prison would augment it nicely.
Either that, or we should treat drugs like we treat alcohol. I do not see any successful middle ground here.
At least then we'd quit giving ammunition to the wantonly ignorant who insist that alcohol isn't a drug.
Per Thomas Jefferson: "Government should never pass a law it is unable or unwilling to enforce."
Secure the borders, period. No tolerance. Use the military if needed. Shoot down or sink any craft entering America without authorization and identification, and that is unwilling to submit to search.
Decriminalize marijuana: No current marijuana importers could compete with Safeway, etc. and it's local American citizen growers. It would be hasta luego to latino drug businesses and all the crime and illegal immigration conflict they create. We could reap huge taxes, reduce border pressure, redirect law enforcement to other crimes, enrich American farmers, entice alcohol drinkers and sometime drivers to a safer and healthier alternative.
Anybody that wants to smoke weed now is doing it, there would be no increase in users and we could end weed's stupid anti-authority social mystique and, I believe, reduce the users.
Declare the cultivation of poppies and cocaine as a hostile and aggressive act against America and declare a real shootin' war if needed to stop it. There would be no political question of that war's direct benefit to America.
Declare drug and alcohol abuse as primarily a health problem. Create a lot more drug courts that offer treatment diversion, criminal process deferment, and family reconciliation.
Family is the only thing powerful enough to overcome the lure of hard drugs and alcohol. All treatment should be family/loved-one based. Methadone needs to be phased out in favor of Suboxone.
Third offense DWI in ten years, in any state, you go to jail for a year, no good time.
Doctors convicted of over or improper prescriptions, lose their license, at least temporarily.
Bottom line: border interdiction, destroy the economic incentives and don't declare war on your own people.
I give you a link with hard statistics. Those statistics show that annual drug arrests tripled. They show that the rate of commitment to state prison quintupled. They show that time served by drug offenders in state prisons increased. During that same period drug use dropped 60% and you're calling it a mere coincidence!!!!
Look. I'm done with you on this thread. You're a lightweight. You've got your opinions with nothing, nothing to back them up.
Other than your stupid little LEAP advertisement that, quite frankly, should not be allowed on this forum -- unless they're paying for it.
Amen and good points. The WOD has turned law enforcement into a business. Property confiscation money goes into increased salaries and bigger departments. There are endless weekend, all-expense and salary-paid, resort seminars for law enforceement to see the latest tricks in busting pot growers and sellers. Pot is as plentiful and cheaper and stronger than ever.
All indicators of reduced demand.
Or increased supply.
As long as the demand stays down, I could care less about supply. Let it rot in the warehouses (or wherever they keep drugs).
I give you a link with hard statistics. Those statistics show that annual drug arrests tripled. They show that the rate of commitment to state prison quintupled. They show that time served by drug offenders in state prisons increased. During that same period drug use dropped 60% and you're calling it a mere coincidence!!!!
I called it a correlation because that is what it is. You own words refute yourself. You're too ignorant to see that when you wrote them so I pointed out your refutes. That's why you're hi-tailing out of the dicussion.
Look. I'm done with you on this thread. You're a lightweight. You've got your opinions with nothing, nothing to back them up.
A simple repost of what you just responded to blows you out of the water. The only addition is the one following paragraph. Those that follow it are a repost of 250.
When Lt. Jack Cole of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition ( LEAP) gives presentations at colleges he asks the audience, "How many of you don't do drugs because they're against the law?", seldom does even one person raise their hand.
Begin 250 repost: (robertpaulsen's quotes in italics -- Zon regular text)
"Policies adopted to battle the use and sale of drugs have led to marked increases in arrest rates, in the likelihood of going to prison, and in the length of sentences for drug offenders. Between 1980 and 1997, the number of annual drug arrests tripled to a high of 1,584,000. The rate of drug arrests per 100,000 residents rose from 288 to 661. The rate of commitment to state prison per drug arrest quintupled between 1980 and 1990, rising from 19 prison commitments per 1,000 arrests to 103 per 1,000. The estimated time served by drug offenders in state prisons increased a full year between 1987 and 1996; federal drug sentences doubled."
-- hrw.org
The DEA was created in 1973. In 1989 Bush Sr. declared a new war on drugs. Of course when government ramps up force to target the illicit drug "industry" arrests are going to increase. That shows no causation of reduced drug use. It shows increased drug arrests. After all, that was the intent.
Now, you tell me why it wasn't enforcement.
Typical of you to invert the burden of proof. A negative cannot be proven. It is you that must prove your claim.
And let's not forget the other half of what I mentioned -- the attitude changes in the 80's, the "Just Say No" campaign, the D.A.R.E. program and others. Drug legalization wipes out all of that.
No. Let's not forget them. Those education campaigns may well have educated persons to chose not to do drugs. After all, that was the intent.
Drug legalization wipes out all of that.
I see you think it's the government responsibility to educate children and adults. I see you think the free market is incapable of educating children and adults. Also, repealing drug-prohibition laws does not equate to repealing drug-education campaigns.
tacticalogic, was spot on target, writing: "You haven't figured out that the carefully selected limitations you place on what you will and won't consider as relevant will come back to bite you." 246
- -
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. A non-profit organization.
You haven't demonstrated that the demand for pot has gone down, though. That's just an unsupported assertion.
It's just as likely that demand has skyrocketed, and supply has more than kept pace.
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.