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."
Please show me where I said any such thing.
What alternatives have I presented? I've said that if we want to win the war on drugs the only solution I see to winning it is imposing severe penalties, to include the death penalty, for possession. So far I've been presented with the numbers of people who would have to be executed, I've been accused of being a muslim and being uncommitted to the war on drugs because I won't perform the executions myself. But only one person has suggested that I'm wrong and that continuing to fight the WOD in the way it goes now will eventually result in a win.
We don't have a war on being drunk. The US ended that long before I was born.
I don't have to do the executions for the government to make drug possession a crime punishable by death.
I've always found, "We've the lost drug war" a silly argument. Why is the fact that drugs are still used a reason for no longer trying to eliminate them? Since the founding of this nation, the government has lost the war on murder, and rape, and theft. We're not throwing in the towel on fighting those crimes. We need a more compelling reason to stop fighting the drug war.
And how do you propose we win the war on drugs? Your experience seems to be another example that I am right that the current WOD is unacceptable.
I suppose its a cost/benefit attitude. When the average joe starts to think about actually killing scores of poor schmucks that happen to use a little weed here and there, they lose the will. Or I should say, realize they never had the will in the first place. Yeah, I suppose you could go around whacking citizens left and right, but is the end worth the cost? Fewer people are listening to Pink Floyd? Cheech and Chong rentals are down? Doesn't sound worth it.
And how much more authority do we need to give the police and the government in this present WOD before you decide that we have a police state already?
So you'd rather continue the WOD as it is now? That ain't working.
Are you referring to the illegal immigration problem?
Those are the two choices? Drug War as it is now, or mass executions?
The crimes you listed are crimes against other people. Murder, rape and theft are part of what society has always said are crimes that cannot be tolerated in a civilization and it is universally agreed that those crimes won't be allowed.
Those who favor legalizing drugs and putting a stop to the growth of government that results from a War on its own citizens would argue that drug use is not a crime against other people.
Those who support keeping drugs legal will give you chapter and verse about people they've known or been related to who ruined their lives using drugs, and they will tell you that for the loved ones of those drug addicts, it was a crime against other people.
But the hurt you experience from seeing someone you love make bad decisions and ruin their own life is not the same as a property crime or a personal crime, and the comparrison is not justified.
OK. Do you support such a policy? If not, what policy do you think should be adopted?
And what is your answer to this:
1. If you compare the scope of heroin addiction in Iran and Singapore to the scope of the problem in the Netherlands, which do you think has a better handle on the heroin problem?
Suggest anything you like.
Why would they want to win a war that's making everyone rich?
Take the profit out of drugs themselves,both for the dealers and the police,and overall criminal activity would drop.
I worry less about a pothead grooving in his back yard than the hyped up supercops .
Just keep the employers' right to demand drug-free workers so the addicts get all the jobs illegals won't do.But if their habit doesn't cost $200 a day they won't have to rob,whore ,kill for it.
In the same way that the government ended prohibition, I think the government should end the WOD. Repeal the drug laws.
If you compare the scope of heroin addiction in Iran and Singapore to the scope of the problem in the Netherlands, which do you think has a better handle on the heroin problem?
I don't think the Netherlands has a very good drug policy. Even though drugs are largely decriminalized, the government still has massive regulation and ridiculous policies that seek to regulate behavior. I think governments should largely leave people alone.
"Call me an Islamofascist if you want, but my point remains: We are not doing anything in the WOD other than growing the government and eroding personal liberties and destroying private property rights.
"The current state of affairs is unacceptable to me.
"IF we are committed to winning the war on drugs, then we must find a better way to fight it. Executing people for possession is the only solution I see to winning the War on Drugs.
"If you've got a better way, maybe you could suggest that instead of calling me names.
To begin with, I DO NOT, support the ENTIRE WOD. Period!. It is a waste of resources, which has no benefit--other than to those who work within the system and have a vested interest in seeing it perpetuated.
While this is a cop-out, I (like so many others) do not have an easy solution (such as lock them all up and throw away the key; or as in your case, "let's just execute them) but somehow, somewhere, there HAS GOT TO BE A BETTER WAY
Though not a libertarian, I am somewhat in favor of "decriminalization" of cannabis for small (personal use) amounts.
And NO, I don't smoke. Tried it, long time ago, and all it did was make me goofy/sleepy, and will stick with that greatest abused (albeit legal) other drug, alcohol.
Last but not least, you need to go back and read my quote.
I did NOT accuse you of being an "ISLAMOFACIST." What I said, was your “solution” that we execute drug users was "ISLAMOFACIST-LIKE", which is apropos for someone like yourself with your views.
Islamofacist are those who are completely intolerant of anyone who offends their sense of order and religious convictions and laws, are willing to exact the ultimate punishment for offenses and infractions (in order to make an example and dissuade others from committing same) which are completely irrational when compared to social order and fabric of civilized societies.
As an aside, I'm certain you are cognizant of how well the death penalty (which by the way I support in these instances) has been a "deterant," and has "reduced" the rate of Homicides in this country?
CASE CLOSED!!!
Yep.
No, but you have to accept responsibility for the consequences of your actions. You are a citizen of a self governing nation. If you want your government to execute that 14 year old then it's your responsibility to make it happen. Don't expect the rest of us to do for you what you aren't willing to do for yourself.
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.