UK police chief: To reduce crime, we must end the war on drugs

Just saw this on the BBC website. I'm shocked on 2 counts. 1, that an ACTIVELY serving chief police officer has come out and said this, and 2, that the guy happens to run the force that's only the next county over from me.

 

Making drugs legal but controlling supply will still permit a violent black market to exist.

No it won't. So long as legal drugs are correctly priced. Forgive the rough figures but pharma diamorphine is about $5 a g. In my country street heroin is currently £40-£50 a g ($70-$80) for something cut about 70-80%.

Legalization with regulation.

 

Wow. This is good. Tremendously good.


Want more.

 

It could be legalized, regulated so that ppl are already on said drug can prove it, have a system that monitors any criminal aspect, have a card and be able to buy said drug. Also there could be a tier system, obviously its not exactly ideal for some pot smoker all of the sudden wanting to shoot smack, and real education would need to be taught, no more dare scare story bs. Im just rambling on, but there is so much that could be done. In the uk and esp over here.

 

Making drugs legal but controlling supply will still permit a violent black market to exist.

The government is not going to be able to stop people from altering their consciousness. It's not their choice and never has been. All they can decide is if they want access to be safe or dangerous -- that's it.

It is your choice to disregard the law and support a black market that rips you off. That must be better for you than going through the bother of not taking drugs.

 

^Interesting way to look at it.. Its legislatures choice to create and maintain laws that cause the black market and continue bullheadedly to stick to an approach that not only has utterly failed at all it goals, but has created problems far worse than the ones it has failed to solve. It must be better for legislature to pretend to save dignity by steadfastly sticking to failed policy while backing their "war" with emotional please because there are no logical ones left. It must be better for them to continue to get paid for waging a failed war that spews violence and ruins lives than going through the bother of coming up with a system that works.



AP/ January 11, 2012, 9:38 PM
"Mexican drug war toll: 47,500 killed in 5 years" > source <

 

^ I was not using "you must" as an empty accusation that goes unanswered, like your commentary toward the government. I am saying that wherever all this harm is coming from, it is not a big enough problem for you.
The crux is your argument is that the current situation is a problem. How big of a problem is it?

"Mexican drug war toll: 47,500 killed in 5 years"

1. Some people are going to break the law regardless of how logical the law is. Making things illegal does not fix what is wrong with them, but it does limit the extent of the damage.
If the harm can be reduced in some way that is good.
2. Could you imagine on one hand that a government is killing 47,500 for participating in harmless recreation and amusing itself with its wealth, while on the other hand also imagine a business selling heroin to people that is not corrupt?
3. Because of the illegal status of drugs, dealers are exposed to litigation. If you make drug sales legitimate, then one facet of the problem improves, but the trouble does not simply vanish. Things only work in your favor because of government regulation. The current regulation may not prevent all crimes against you, but it does prevent as much as it can.
4. For those who can stay within the confines of the law, things work out, so why in the world would a majority of voters want to expose themselves?
5. I am sure it sucks that you are willing to put up with all the negative consequences in order to use your drugs. So you must need them pretty bad. That sucks for you and that is why in school they teach you not to even get started on them. Some users get cleaned up and try to find a way to better their lives but drugs make it hard to deal with ordinary life. The government does not make money the same way that drug dealers make money, by burying their community.
6. Legitimate drugs are being abused just as rampantly. They are regulated for extremely justifiable reasons. That is another reason I can not see how you blame legislation. It has nothing to do with limited access or bad production. What is easier to understand is this justifes behavior by blaming it on someone else. As if the litter on the street justifies me tossing trash out the window.
7. Drugs are abused and addictions occur and they do cause significant harm. So for something that does nobody any foreseeable good, and does harm people, making it non-criminal does not cure the more serious problems.
8. Teaching children how to do it "safely" is going to increase use. They already teach children about drugs. The ones that are safe and the ones that are not.
9. Making drugs legal is going to increase use and this is going to increase the cost associated with drug use. The patterns and cost of drug use on a national level can be explained by the pattern of drug abuse we see on a personal level.

 

^
I am clean and I was an active addict. So I am not of this position out of some desire to do drugs legally.

I dont want children doing any drugs and there is nothing about legalizing drugs for someone over twenty one years of age that says we will teach children to do drugs "safely". Point 8 is such utter nonsense that I cant belive I even addressed it.

Have you thought about the different ways it could be legalized.. what makes you think there will be "drug Dealers" on any significant level at all and if you take the time to think outside of the box a little bit you will realize that the current street level dealing will disappear.. either have state run Drug stores or move the recreational drug use into the pharmacies as there is so much there already. If the dealers you are worried about still find a market (I dont know why they would as i dont go to a criminal to get my cigarettes) but if they still have a market and continue to deal then lock them up for dealing drugs with out a license.

Drugs are abused now and addiction occurs now.. just with the tax revenue of the a legal system we could provide the people affected with help with their addictions

what is a "legitimate" drug in your opinion?

You know what I dont think we are on compatible levels to debate this so I guess we shall have to agree to disagree and i can accept that.

 

^
I am clean and I was an active addict. So I am not of this position out of some desire to do drugs legally.

I dont want children doing any drugs and there is nothing about legalizing drugs for someone over twenty one years of age that says we will teach children to do drugs "safely". Point 8 is such utter nonsense that I cant belive I even addressed it.

As long as you are not in it for selfish reasons.
Sorry about 8 I am not the one saying such things, it was mentioned here and elsewhere.
[QUOTE='medicine cabinet';11891871]It could be legalized, regulated so that ppl are already on said drug can prove it, have a system that monitors any criminal aspect, have a card and be able to buy said drug. Also there could be a tier system, obviously its not exactly ideal for some pot smoker all of the sudden wanting to shoot smack, and real education would need to be taught, no more dare scare story bs. Im just rambling on, but there is so much that could be done. In the uk and esp over here.[/QUOTE]

^
Have you thought about the different ways it could be legalized.. what makes you think there will be "drug Dealers" on any significant level at all and if you take the time to think outside of the box a little bit you will realize that the current street level dealing will disappear.. either have state run Drug stores or move the recreational drug use into the pharmacies as there is so much there already. If the dealers you are worried about still find a market (I dont know why they would as i dont go to a criminal to get my cigarettes) but if they still have a market and continue to deal then lock them up for dealing drugs with out a license.
Drugs are abused now and addiction occurs now.. just with the tax revenue of the a legal system we could provide the people affected with help with their addictions
What is a "legitimate" drug in your opinion?
You know what I dont think we are on compatible levels to debate this so I guess we shall have to agree to disagree and i can accept that.

A. I have not thought about different ways of legalizing drugs.
B. There are a lot of theoretical scenarios to throw out there.
Why are the drug cartels going to let the pharmacy succeed and won't it become a violent affair.
You need to force the drug dealers out of the business and producing the product is not going to be free and it is going to need some kind of regulation to be an improvement over the current situation.
So I am saying it will still be an expense and drugs will still cost a lot and it will not necessarily be an easy task and not guaranteed to succeed. I am not sure about the details of the plan, but I believe if the government really wanted to they could pull this one off.
C. People will still not be able to get their supply because they are broke and there are still going to be problems, removing the cost of prison sentencing for offenders may be overestimated. The Federal Government uses the laws at its disposal but I wonder if all those people in prison would be there for dealing or committing other crimes and the high price we pay for this population are only related to drugs, not to drugs legal definition. In other words, decriminalizing possession would not remove 100% of these victims from the prison system. I would make a wild guess that at least a quarter would still be in prison if drugs were totally legal.
D. There may be some benefit to tax revenue but that would be kind of ironic. When you look at alcohol and tobacco, the cost to the nation is more than twice the tax revenue from sales and excise taxes. I suppose you would also throw income-tax on top of that, and my numbers are pretty rough, but to lend credence Obama has talked about doubling the cigarette tax, probably for this very reason.
Raising taxes may also cause the price to increase even more thant he taxes by themselves increase prices and overall high prices lower the rate of adolescent use, so it would be a win-win to make them expensive, well just look at the price of name-brand medication now. So I think foreigner is right on when he is saying it would not end the black market.

E. A legitimate drug is simply something legal under federal and state law.
:DI feel like this relationship could work.

 

I think cartels are formed out of need. If we were to legalize the drugs in some reasonable fashion then why wouldnt the nations that produce allot of the drugs and the producers of the drugs turn then into normal business people. They would no longer need armies of criminals to transport, protect and sell their product. wouldn't it be a reasonable assumption that they would either become legitimate business people or be bought out by corporations eager to get in on the new and proven market. Thier product is valuable, but there are allot of really valuable products being mined or produced in less stable areas of the world. Gold has been mined in ares like this, Oil is drilled in areas like this, granted we see problems such as blood diamonds in africa and such, but i think if the production and sales of substances were legalized they production places would be soon bought up by large corporations and would just turn into business as usual.

If they were legalized and the quality was controlled and assured and the supply was consistent then why would a large amount of people want to or choose to or need to purchase their drugs from a traditional dealer. I think we can look to alcohol for this, we dont see people choosing to buy to much illegal alcohol when it is readily available. Yes there are still some moonshine going on but I would venture a guess that this is such a small percentage of what goes on as to almost be a non factor. So if the market is gone because drug users can now get quality product from a legit source then i dont think the traditional dealer will niether have a supply for their product or much of a market to sell to.

As far as people not being able to afford their drugs still. I we were able to still keep a sense of free market in the supply side and only compassionately but closely regulate the consumption side then I think allot of the principals of a free market would still hold true and if there were many suppliers then natural market competition would drive the prices down. i would be in no way in favor of granting a company general patient rights over specific drugs as this would allow what goes on with medications these days, they are able to charge whatever they want and this would not benefit the addicts and users. but if there are many companies out there producing different drugs then i dont see why the price wouldn't turn out to be similar to coffee.. Obviously I dont think people will eve be able to go get a half kilo of relatively pure cocaine for the same price as coffee but why wouldn't the price of an acceptable cocaine habit fall to one similar to a tobacco users of a coffee drinkers.

With the amount estimated by the white house of the US yearly tab for illegal drugs being 100 billion then i think there will be amazing amounts of tax revenue generated. The problem with "sin taxes" is the money generated always is diverted from the original purpose it was intende to other ends. I will look at some of the data on this but I cant think off hand where it was ever used to help the people who paid the taxes. But I think in this case it would have to be written into a law that cant be broken to assure the help addicts need is there and WELL funded. There will also be allot of money left over that can go to the betterment of society.

You may be correct that a quarter of the people in prison would still be three if it was't for the legality of drugs.. but that would mean that 3/4 wouldnt be there.. also if we were to stop focusing on the drug war and put allot of this effort and money and talent into other programs then we may see good results. The world in general has terrible mental health programs, poor or expensive addiction programs, and poor foster children programs and these are some of the areas we should strengthen.

Also so many people have gotten caught in the legal system for drugs.. having a felony on a persons record is something that can crush them for life. I would like to see a pathway for people convicted of drug crimes to have their records sealed to the general public and employers. This would allow people who make it out of the drug game to be able to have a realy good life.. most users and addicts are great people so what is the point of having these people held down for life. IMO it causes allot of the recidivism in the current broken system and has a great cost for our societies. Also there is the concept that if a drug users is constantly treated like a criminal there is a chance that they may start to feel so low about themselves or form a resentment from the combination of the guilt they feel and the poor treatment may actually start to believe that they are a criminal and unfortunately be inclined to act that way.

The black market will always exist for drugs where a system is going to limit the amount a person can use.. there will always be people who want to use more and there will always be people who will risk providing it to them.. the best way i can think of curtailing this would be to have a license system that allows for individuals to get a certain amount of things a day and having drug use case workers who monitor use for problems. There would be requirements and levels or tiers to the license that could be used as punishment and motivation.. it would be imperative that the use of these strings be closely monitored as it would give strong power over addicts and could be abused easily.

Here are some of my thought on some of that and yes maybe this relationship can work

 

Double the cig tax? Wtf? I paid 7.08 for a pack of reds today. I remember when i could get 2 packs of camel lights for 5.

 

^ That does not seem so unrealistic... I tend to agree with most of what you are saying but I still doubt drug programs will see much money piling up. I would reckon that the drug tax to loss of income ratio to be, in most cases, not making a lot of money. It is a tough argument to make either way and a bit of a stretch in terms of morality, to bring up money when we are discussing an issue personal freedom and safety. Drug use may represent personal freedom. That is less likely to work against you, but this alone is not a complete argument.

There seems to be two larger ideas. The postive one is that reform will release law enforcement from a false burden. The reason this is relevant is that we have come to terms with drug use over the past 50+ years and have a better understanding so that now we can reform the laws. This reform will not eliminate, but decidely decrease issues related with drugs and it would be compassionate to the inevitable population of victims that crop up. The stigma will still exist, but sympathy would replace a lot of anger and frustration.
The other big idea, in a negative direction, is that an epidemic of drug use will destroy everything.

I think this debate could very easily define American political victories, if we can find people with enough heart to lead this country away from the cowardice of anger that has taken over the political system.

Unfortunately, I do not see this ending the international drug war or improving addiction programs, I think those things have their own course to follow, but if we begin seeing an improvments in health care ahead of us, it could be a good time to roll out drug reforms; taking an interest in marijuana reform and seeing that as a learning process, keeping an eye on the drug reform in Portugal, I think this is all we can ask anyone do.

 

[QUOTE='medicine cabinet';11894305]Double the cig tax? Wtf? I paid 7.08 for a pack of reds today. I remember when i could get 2 packs of camel lights for 5.[/QUOTE]
Hey, it is for the children you heartless mother.

 

I keep at it with the virginia killin sticks and ill be long gone anyways so screw the children.

 

Yep dealers and the entire selling chain of drugs cause a massive ripple effect, causing so much damage to society getting people hooked on highly addictive substances and the ripple impact on families etc. Take the profits away from crims, governments and hospitals should take responsibility and issue these drugs in a safer way which will block profits of crims.

 

^ I was not using "you must" as an empty accusation that goes unanswered, like your commentary toward the government. I am saying that wherever all this harm is coming from, it is not a big enough problem for you.
The crux is your argument is that the current situation is a problem. How big of a problem is it?

"Mexican drug war toll: 47,500 killed in 5 years"

1. Some people are going to break the law regardless of how logical the law is. Making things illegal does not fix what is wrong with them, but it does limit the extent of the damage.
If the harm can be reduced in some way that is good.

Making a substance which someone ingests in an attempt to escape reality/withdrawal, a substance which has been in demand for thousands of years (in the case of naturally occurring, plant-based constituents) illegal will open the floodgates to chaos in every way imaginable. There will be much death, destruction, competition, opposition, and so forth to get the substance in question to the hands of whoever wants it.

It was initially racial motivation (and not health concerns) which made certain drugs illegal. Afterwards, it was political. Every drug czar to have ever been appointed by the president of the United States had a background in law enforcement, and none in any type of science relevant to the topic at hand whatsoever. It's quite obvious when you read the following:

"Marijuana leads to homosexuality... and therefore to AIDS." - Carlton Turners (President Ronald Regan's Drug Czar)

2. Could you imagine on one hand that a government is killing 47,500 for participating in harmless recreation and amusing itself with its wealth, while on the other hand also imagine a business selling heroin to people that is not corrupt?

Other than Heroin, a drug developed by Bayer, the makers of Aspirin, which was sold OTC in pharmacies all over the US, nothing is left to the imagination when you substitute Heroin with an alcoholic beverage, or a pack of cigarettes.

More people in the US die each year from second-hand smoking than all street drug-related deaths combined.

3. Because of the illegal status of drugs, dealers are exposed to litigation. If you make drug sales legitimate, then one facet of the problem improves, but the trouble does not simply vanish. Things only work in your favor because of government regulation. The current regulation may not prevent all crimes against you, but it does prevent as much as it can.

You mean like it does for big pharma when they're found guilty of fraud? A slap on the wrist every time (an easily affordable fine), a just punishment for being responsible for the deaths of countless patients?

4. For those who can stay within the confines of the law, things work out, so why in the world would a majority of voters want to expose themselves?

Not everyone can idly stand by like a selfish conservative capitalist while their government is systematically kicking addicts to the curb while they're down on their backs, and in need of medical attention.

5. I am sure it sucks that you are willing to put up with all the negative consequences in order to use your drugs. So you must need them pretty bad. That sucks for you and that is why in school they teach you not to even get started on them. Some users get cleaned up and try to find a way to better their lives but drugs make it hard to deal with ordinary life. The government does not make money the same way that drug dealers make money, by burying their community.

Many addicts are victims of circumstance. They didn't ask to become physically dependent on some potent prescription painkiller after a life-changing accident. They didn't want to be abandoned by their doctor after complaining of severe full-like symptoms after running out of pain medication. They didn't know that their doctor would interpret their distress as the beginning of addiction (when in fact it was withdrawal from physical dependency - something completely different). Even though they had a right to be on pain meds, they were kicked out on their ass. When they couldn't take it anymore, they turned to the black market - some to heroin (which is converted to morphine in the body).

6. Legitimate drugs are being abused just as rampantly. They are regulated for extremely justifiable reasons. That is another reason I can not see how you blame legislation. It has nothing to do with limited access or bad production. What is easier to understand is this justifes behavior by blaming it on someone else. As if the litter on the street justifies me tossing trash out the window.

Big pharma is happy you vouch for them and their sometimes fraudulent research and clinical trials.

7. Drugs are abused and addictions occur and they do cause significant harm. So for something that does nobody any foreseeable good, and does harm people, making it non-criminal does not cure the more serious problems.

Please elaborate the more serious problems, because right now with the current drug policy, addicts are dying left and right because:

- The clandestinely manufactured street drugs they use are never pure, sometimes cut with a very dangerous adulterant, and they never know the exact dosage they are using.
- The needles they use are shared and therefore HIV, Hepatitis C, and so forth is adding to the carnage.
- The sky high prices they pay for a fix requires them to live a malnourished, dangerous lifestyle of prostitution, theft, drug trafficking, drug smuggling, etc.
- When an overdose does occur, any other person present never calls 911 because of fear of prosecution.

8. Teaching children how to do it "safely" is going to increase use. They already teach children about drugs. The ones that are safe and the ones that are not.

No drug use is 100% safe. None. Zero. There's always a risk involved.

9. Making drugs legal is going to increase use and this is going to increase the cost associated with drug use. The patterns and cost of drug use on a national level can be explained by the pattern of drug abuse we see on a personal level.

That may be true in the short term, but long term studies and statistics have shown that, for example, tobacco use has been in decline over the past decade.

Decriminalizing all drug use has had the same effect in Portugal.

Drug prohibition is not the answer, never was. It's proper education and tolerance with those who do have issues which will lead to a better outcome.

Addiction is an effect of human unhappiness and human suffering. When people are distressed, they want to sooth their distress. When people are in pain, they want to soothe their pain. So the real question is not "why the addiction" but "why the pain".

PS - If 47,000 Americans (the majority innocent bystanders) lost their lives due to drug cartel-related violence, you can be damn sure that drug laws would have been reformed long ago.

 

No drug use is 100% safe. None. Zero. There's always a risk involved.

I think we can consider standard atmosphere 100% safe.
I do not see how you can make parallels to drug policy in Portugal and tobacco use in the United States.
In Portugal you have moderate quantities of drugs being legal to possess but are otherwise illegal to produce and sell and are still confiscated by police and treatment is being highly encouraged.
Tobacco in the United States is produced and distributed lawfully and has always been legal to possess by a certain age group. Social etiquitte keeps tobacco smoke away from non-users.
I am not sure about all the laws in Portugal but here here is an interesting article: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...454eBfwBmc2K_Yg&bvm=bv.55980276,d.cWc&cad=rjt

 

whitehouse.gov is not a reliable source. The site is run by a neoliberal megalomaniacal prohibitionist puppet automaton that used to smoke weed and do blow and promise change but forgot where he came from shortly after he was elected. That is, if he wasn't altogether cryonized and swapped for an android in 2009.

 

I think we can consider standard atmosphere 100% safe.

There are potentially fatal contraindications for even the most commonly used drugs, such as over-the-counter painkillers (Tylenol), as well as something as seemingly benign as a cup of coffee. However remote, and for whatever reasons, there is always a chance, especially in this day and age that (as an example) ingestion of one tablet of acetaminophen may lead to death. And even one death out of over 7,000,000,000 worldwide is not 100%.

I do not see how you can make parallels to drug policy in Portugal and tobacco use in the United States.

I am trying to make an argument against any and all drug prohibition in general (because it does not work, and in the process it has created more problems than solved), and another argument for proper drug education and effective drug addiction and/or physical dependency treatments.

Furthermore, the reason I'm making this argument to begin with is because our drug policy is based on racist, religious and capitalistic ideologies - none of which should even remotely play a key role in the decision of something which is clearly a health issue.

Through racism in combination with politics (and not health concerns), certain psychotropic drugs were initially made illegal in America close to a century ago. Harry Anslinger, saw to that when he rallied Caucasian voters to outlaw specific psychotropic substances which were popular among minority groups such as "Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers."

Through religion in combination with politics (and again, not health concerns), the 18th Amendment of the United States Constitution brought alcohol prohibition to America, until the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th. Once again, this decision was not due to health concerns (or in this case, benefits if you will), but rather an enormous rise in violent crimes throughout the nation.

Just to give you a quick example of what I'm trying to say - In 1919, there was a certain homicide rate in the US; and in 1920, alcohol prohibition was instituted across the country, and the homicide rate rose each year until it peaked in 1933, which was the year in which the federal government repealed alcohol prohibition. By 1937, the homicide rate was back down to what it was in 1919.

Health concerns also didn't play a role in Richard Nixon's decision to declare war on drugs. IMO, "the crook" was an especially greedy republican and capitalist who misused the issue of drug addiction as a tool for garnishing as many votes as possible.

-------------------------------------------------------

Now, as I said in my previous post, after a decade of a radical shift in drug policy for Portugal, it has been proven that education, medical attention and treatment has been a much more effective strategy in reducing recreational drug use in Portugal. And I believe it would have the same effect in the US.

And although I may not be able to prove that to you, the opposite (increased use after a decade) cannot be proven either because, well, it's never been tried.

Why not try it though? Hasn't 40+ years of this war on drugs (and over $1 trillion in tax payer money spent trying to control the uncontrollable) been enough for everyone?

In Portugal you have moderate quantities of drugs being legal to possess but are otherwise illegal to produce and sell and are still confiscated by police and treatment is being highly encouraged.

Drug possession of any kind, in any amount is still not legal whatsoever in Portugal. All that has changed since 2001 has been in relation to punishment for possession. Whereas before 2001 it wasn't uncommon to receive a prison sentence for being found guilty of possession of common street drugs, it is now handled more like a health issue. That does not mean however that small amounts or "moderate quantities" are legal to possess.

Tobacco in the United States is produced and distributed lawfully and has always been legal to possess by a certain age group.

As it is and was in Portugal as well.

Social etiquitte keeps tobacco smoke away from non-users.

Tell that to approximately 30,000 or so non-smoking Americans who pass away each year from smoking-related illnesses.

 

I would agree about whitehouse.gov not being a reliable source. I do not think name-calling is required. That does not necessarily mean what they said is untrue and I would not pick CATO as a reliable source either.

Drug possession of any kind, in any amount is still not legal whatsoever in Portugal.

Decriminalize means to make something legal; so you can understand my confusion

http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/levine.alcohol.html (a note for myself more or less)

 

^^ Indeed, it sounds awkward. By the way, I apologize if I've been rude, or perhaps I come across like a smartass. I just wish our government(s) would seriously consider not robbing a non-violent individual of his freedom because the man decided to ingest/inject/inhale/snort/plug/etc. a psychoactive substance in an attempt to (for example) numb himself of severe emotional pain, stemming from a traumatic childhood experience.