Drugs are a bigger threat than terrorism, says expert [UK]

erosion

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Oct 16, 2003
Messages
3,182
Drugs are a bigger threat than terrorism, says expert
The Herald
April 1, 2007


They are, many believe, the statistics that say most about today's Scotland.

Fully 50,000 of this country's children are growing up in homes where there are drugs. Perhaps 100,000 more know an aunt, a brother or another close relative who is addicted.

These children are thought to be seven times more likely than the national average to develop a habit, a generational time bomb waiting to happen. Drugs are now so familiar it feels as if they have always been here. They haven't.
advertisement

Less than 40 years ago, just as London and the South-east of England experienced the first wave of heroin, Scotland was effectively given the all-clear in a government report.

Professor Neil McKeganey of Glasgow University, Scotland's foremost authority on how narcotics are invading everyday life, said: "At the time that report was written the numbers of heroin addicts contacting drug treatment services in Scotland could be counted in double figures.

"Fast-forward 40 years and we find ourselves counting our drug users in the tens of thousands with around 12,000 starting drug abuse treatment every year.

"Scotland's heroin problem took off in the late eighties and in little more than 20 years has accelerated to twice the rate of the heroin problem in England. When you see something moving that fast you had better ask where it is heading. In the case of our drug problem the answer is pretty chilling."

The authorities believe they have started to keep the drugs industry under control. The overall number of known heroin users has been pegged back a few thousand in recent years and stands at 51,000.

Prof McKeganey, however, raises a more terrifying spectre: what happens if heroin use continues to rise at its historic trend of doubling every decade.

Heroin - and increasingly cocaine and new, stronger strains of cannabis - are already breaking out of the underworld. Many of the young men behind the bulk of violent crime are the children of the first great heroin epidemic in Scotland in the late 1980s.

In some parts of Scotland having a mother who is a addicted is no longer enough to warrant a child having his or her own social worker.

Prof McKeganey, however, warns it is not just children who are suffering. Any increase in the drugs industry will now start to eat into the very fabric of our society, our economy and politics, he believes.

He said: "There are millions of pounds being made each year from trade in illegal drugs in Scotland.

"The money from that trade often leaves Scotland to pass through numerous banking systems in other countries before returning as investments in legal enterprises.

"As this sequence unfolds we face the prospect at some point of being unable to distinguish between the legal and the illegal economy.

"At that point the drugs trade will have truly won respectability and permanence.

"What you might ask comes after the successful economics of the drugs trade? The answer is politics."

That, Prof McKeganey believes, makes drugs a bigger threat to Scotland than international terrorism.

Link
 
Good to see drug prohibition has been as successful a policy in Scotland as it has in the rest of the world...
 
Yeah, cause terrorism is such a big fucking threat, especially in Scotland. Gotta protect those foggy moors from suicide bombers.
 
Transcendence said:
Yeah, cause terrorism is such a big fucking threat, especially in Scotland. Gotta protect those foggy moors from suicide bombers.

ever heard of the IRA, dumb motherfucker?
 
wet noodle said:
ever heard of the IRA, dumb motherfucker?

language!!!
If you are going to use immoderate language and call people mute parental fornicators then get your facts right
which IRA attacks in scotland are you thinking about? I think you will findthere have never been any IRA attacks in scotland...because the ra regard england not scotland or wales as the enemy.
loyalists on the other (red) hand have carried out murders in glasgow and feuds in the west of scotland.
 
If drugs are a bigger threat than terrorism...

Oh... wait... I misspoke... without drugs there wouldn't be terrorism. I forgot.



(On the other hand... without the drug laws, the hippies may have been able to form together and stop the Vietnam war. Without the drug laws - maybe more people would be experimenting with drugs and THINKING for themselves, instead of watching TV and being blindsided with false information...)
 
My penis is a bigger threat to the UK than terrorism, and that shit is a minor fucking threat!

And If I hear ONE, just ONE more reference to stronger strains of marijuana turning our youth into mentals, deviants, muggers and gang-rapists, I am going to have A FUCKING STROKE.


On the saner side, yes, heroin is a huge threat to scotland, so why not legalise it so the poor wee baws don't have to rob each other for the cash for it. Or even better, sort out the fucking inner cities so the kids have something better to do than nail skag, rob grannies and sniff glue?

No that would be too hard, so let's just blame the FUCKING chemicals for existing in the first place and jam everyone who uses them into jail until they're so institutionalised that all they know is the fucking brown and the fucking crime that got them there in the FIRST FUCKING PLACE.

Dear god the world is making me angry today.

But yes, it is a sad state of affairs, the author really does make a lot of sense. It is unfortunate that people are falling into the cycle of addiction and poverty. The root causes of it are the abolishment of UK factory/mining/semi-skilled labour industries, the rise of the council tower block (shove the fuckers somewhere where they're only a menace to each other, what what!) and the increasing lack of anything for the youth to do except crime/drugs/generally being a nuisance to society. Spend your 20 billion pounds on sorting out the mess you have created, dear government, rather than investing in the gigantic national phallus that is the Trident 2 missile system, I beg of you. In fact I reckon that 20 billion quid would do the fucking job quite nicely. But the problem is, nobody cares except the people these problems effect, and few of them have the means to do anything about them.

I despair.
 
Last edited:
Drugs are more of a threat than terrorism.

Terrorism in the western world is fucking rare as fuck.
 
No... no having strokes...

Just find out who's saying that stuff and challenge them to an open debate in public...

It's way more productive. :D
 
9mmCensor said:
Drugs are more of a threat than terrorism.

Terrorism in the western world is fucking rare as fuck.



But what kind of threats ARE drugs?

Ambiguous threats to the established government?

How is that a bad thing?

Drugs surely aren't creating a broken society. The drug LAWS may be... but we've known those haven't been right for a while...
 
Kalash said:
But what kind of threats ARE drugs?

Ambiguous threats to the established government?

How is that a bad thing?

Drugs surely aren't creating a broken society. The drug LAWS may be... but we've known those haven't been right for a while...
Drug deaths > Terrorism deaths per annum in western countries.

And if you include tobacco and alcohol its even higher.
 
9mmCensor said:
Drug deaths > Terrorism deaths per annum in western countries.

And if you include tobacco and alcohol its even higher.



Again - I'm hesitant to blame the drugs...

I blame ignorance and the laws for promoting that ignorance.

NM is the only state where you won't be prosecuted if you call 911 for a drug related emergency.

Seriously... if you over do it, you're on your own.
That's not a fault of the drugs.

As for people overusing drugs - again, I think there's a link to ignorance induced by the drug laws.

If drugs were legal, counseling was provided for addicts, and real information about the risks and benefits of drugs was available to the general public, drug deaths would be reduced dramatically.

I do see your point though - DRUGS ARE MORE DANGEROUS THAT TERRORISM.

Period.

Kinda makes you think... (and really... talk about SPIN in the media...)
Making terrorism legal isn't going to help anyone.
Making drugs legal? Cleaning up the supply (so you know what you're getting), and providing drug warnings during a purchase?
I think it would definitely help.
 
Just a minor detail:

With either wisdom or foolishness, drugs are taken by people who choose to ingest them.

Terrorism is almost always perpetrated against unwilling victims, often women and children, who have no say in whatever grotesque form of mutilation or murder terrorists decide to subject them to.

In fact, a more rational connection between drugs and terrorism can be made whenever the CIA decides to fund one of its pet projects by financing terrorists in other countries with illegal drug proceeds acquired in the US.
 
Speaking of funding terrorists...

In the USA, smuggling nuclear weapons to a nation that knowingly/actively supports terrorism carries an equal sentence to 800 pills of ecstasy.

That, in my opinion, is simply amazing.
 
^^^^ Only amazing on the surface. Once you look past that you see the inflated sentences for drug "crimes" exist to keep the snitch network in place.

As Uncle Fester, meth cook extraordinaire, once said--the feds couldn't catch a cockroach crawling across a kitchen table without snitches.

Since drug laws attempt to control behavior that doesn't result in "victims," enforcing them is extremely difficult--as it should be since the laws are unjust to begin with.

So the only way to create the illusion that enforcement is possible is to threaten small-time players with punishment totally out of proportion to their "crimes." From there it's a fairly simple matter of getting names, putting the small-fries into informant "programs", etc. in exchange for a sentence more fitting the "crime."

Pretty neat, huh? We'll go easy on you if you throw your loyalty out the window.
 
By terrorism i take it they are referring to al quaeda(excuse my spelling)......?
To me they are 1 in the same...al quada and Afghanastan is 1 of the biggest growers and suppliers of opium and heroin in the world.To me it makes complete sense for al quaeda (or terrorists) to flood the world markets with high grade heroin,because it will not only fuck up more people than a bomb would but unlike a bomb that they would have to pay for,with heroin they are the 1s making the money as well.....! win /win situation

and how is al quaeda flooding U.S markets with heroin any different to the U.S doing the same thing in the 80s etc when the CIA were starting wars in S.E Asia just so they could gain control over the supply of Heroin???(which they made billions from and caused mass addiction in their own country)

in my opinion the CIA and U.S are the biggest threat to world peace and the biggest bunch of terrorists of the lot...!
 
tobala said:
Pretty neat, huh? We'll go easy on you if you throw your loyalty out the window.


The problem is, I don't want to go easy on them.

I got a call from the ACLU today... I requested they represent me and fight the constitutionality of the drug laws.

(Slim to none chance on that...)

They said I should hear from them within 3 weeks.

Meanwhile, my lawyer is telling me, "Cooperate and get a good plea..."

And I'm sitting here thinking he's smoking crack before he talks to me...

79-97 months is what I'm looking at... for something ridiculously small (MDMA only) and I find out that smuggling nuclear weapons to Al-Queda would have gotten me less time?

Lets just say I'm not impressed.

Do the 18th and 23rd amendments mean nothing?
PROHIBITION IS NOT A RIGHT AFFORDED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

States can prohibit whatever they please.
The federal government cannot.

The loophole in the commerce clause permitting the existence of the drug laws was closed in Lopez v. US in 1995.
It invalidated the Federal Government's right to implement these laws.

MDMA was emergency scheduled by the DEA (illegally).
They were taken to court twice, ruled against twice, and twice over turned the judges' decisions.
No legislation was ever passed making MDMA illegal.

No legislation, no laws.
No laws, no crime.


And you want me to cooperate and PLEA!??!

My lawyer is definitely on crack. Or something...
 
illusion25 said:


Really... thought this is STILL a bit of a misconception...

Illegal drugs weren't around...

Of course... the DRUGS were... the laws weren't...

So the presence of illegal drugs IS new - but only because of the new laws. (Though I think I'm taking this completely out of context and applying it to the USA...)
 
Top