The war on drugs rages on. From drug dens in the city I dwell - Edinburgh, to cocaine stashes in Columbia. Drugs truly are everywhere in the modern world. There are of course many types of drugs and many differing ways in which they take hold of your mind. In certain places drugs are legal and in other places only certain drugs are legal. In a lot of countries drugs are banned completely. It is a topic which certainly divides opinion. Should we legalise drugs or should we keep things the way they are in Britain and keep them illegal?When I was younger I was always extremely paranoid about ever letting on to anyone that I had ever tried drugs due to the stigma, but now a little older and wiser I don't care about that. However, although at times in the past I have gone over the top before in my experimentation, I have learned my lessons from it. Now when I say that I don't mean I took drugs all the time or was in any way shape or form an addict. I just mean much like alcohol, I took a little bit too much of something to the temporary detriment to both my mind and trainers. Those against drugs would say I flirted with danger and those that are for decriminalization would say it has ensured I wont make the same mistakes again. I agree with the second opinion as it is my opinion that everything in moderation is fine. Alcohol is the obvious comparison to make with drugs in so many ways and it baffles me how so many people can be fine with booze but hate things like marijuana or ecstasy. Especially when we have figures from how much alcohol costs the NHS in Britain every year.
The United States, probably the pioneer in the war on drugs, has used it's military and political might to attack drugs for years. I read an interesting fact that sums up their views on it. In 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), was ordered by congress to ensure that funding for scientific research was stopped to prevent giving the impression that this was being redirected from anti-trafficking stings into medical care and support for drug addicts or into anything that gives argument to legalisation of drugs or for medical use. The ONDCP spent $14 billion on anti-cannabis advertisements aimed at the youth of America and then a further $43 million to find out if it worked. It didn't, and in fact the research showed that the kids would be more likely to take cannabis after seeing the ads than if they hadn't seen them. The evidence was of course suppressed and the ads continued to run despite the findings. In 2007, the USA also estimated that drug use cost the U.S society $193 billion in lost productivity, health care and criminal justice. Back in the United Kingdom illegal drugs costs us about £16 billion a year according to the charity Transform. They estimated that it would cost about £5.6 billion a a year to regulate them. Taxpayers take notice.In 1920's America prohibition did little to abolish booze. What that did was give gangsters like Al Capone a booming, lucrative empire and encouraged bootleggers from all over to try and earn their dollars worth. Although it made for many great films, the police wasted vast amounts of time and money on attacking the bootleggers and violence was widespread. The fact that the illegality of booze caused the mob to take up it's distribution meant that this violence was forever going back and forward and now that it is legal, we don't need to have off licences shooting up each others stores to eliminate the competition all over the US. I'm not disputing the health risks of alcohol, everything in moderation, I'm just stating that it was the banning of it in the roaring 20's that was a problem. Just like the health risks of drugs. I'm not disputing the health risks with certain drugs. Many of them have been exaggerated of course but I once again state that everything in moderation! I mean often with drugs, it's the mixing of unknown substances with the actual drug that kills. If you are regulating it then this can be eliminated. Lives would be saved.
I think what is staggering at the moment is that we have an example for everyone to see not any more than a couple of hours away in Portugal. They have legalised the personal use of drugs in Portugal since 2001 and the evidence points to this working. You can still be fined and it can cause you an administrative headache but addicts are always advised to seek help rather than always being forced. This method has definitely made a big difference. Portugal's main problem you see was the needle using drug users. There was an ever increasing amount of people using heroin and it was a plague on Portuguese society so they turned to the legalisation of drugs for personal usage. I can almost hear the gasps from over the Atlantic when they read of this if they didn't know it. In fact there are over 25 other Countries who have taken a similar stance to Portugal. Britain doesn't want it so Westminster wouldn't want our population waking up to the fact we don't have to follow their outdated methods and ideas on drugs. So what did this change do to Portugal then?
Dr João Goulão, the architect of Portugal's decriminalisation policy states that it has allowed "the stigma of drug addiction to fall, to let people speak clearly and to seek professional help without fear." Some facts are also important to soak in. Firstly levels of drug use in Portugal are below the European average. Drug use has also declined in those aged 15-24 and although lifetime drug use has increased, that is considered to be the least accurate measurement of a Country's drug use situation. Rates of the past-year and past-month drug use have decreased and this measurement is seen as the most accurate indicator of evolving drug use trends. Why aren't we at least considering this data and implementing something different to what we do now. Look even further a field and in Afghanistan. Sir William Patey, the former UK ambassador to Afghanistan came out in favour of legalising the trade in opium poppies (from which heroin is derived). It is clearly impossible to stop Afghan farmers from growing and exporting opium he claimed and he went on to say "if we cannot deal effectively with supply" the only alternative is to "limit the demand for illicit drugs by making a licit supply of them available from a legally-regulated market". At least reducing drug wars in narcotics producing nations. How many times do we need further reminders and facts that regulation can only be achieved through something being legal. With opium production I'm far more sceptical as to why they haven't made that legal which I'll scratch the surface about later, but the core idea Patey has is good. How the hell can anyone expect to control a black market though. It is medieval thinking because drugs will never be eliminated we have to accept that, so let us find a permanent solution for once in Britain. Yes there will still be those smuggling huge supplies but that can be far easier to track than over stretching a police force to deal with drug crimes all over the place.
The real problem with the drug laws and the way that we look at drugs in Britain is that the people in power have a reason for keeping things the way they are. There are smart guys in parliament, being advised and shown examples of how things could be better for people all the time, but they choose to ignore it. If you believe the Liberal Democrats claims that the Tories have suppressed a recent report, (that there is no evidence that a tough stance on drugs and on addicts, means a reduction in drug use and crime), then that proves right away how undemocratic and murky our government is. I don't often choose to listen to politicians but I know that the Lib Dems are very much for a reform on drugs. I wouldn't rely on them though. This is something the public will need to demand for which is difficult as the public are still fed horror stories about drugs from Cameron and pals. Don't think these same guys like Osborne haven't take or don't do drugs. Don't be naive. These guys aren't squeaky clean.
Going back to Afghanistan, I ask you to think long and hard about something. Who has control now of the opium producing poppy fields in that country? If we went in to these countries to eliminate the bad guys which we all got spoon fed, then why is the biggest supply of heroin still coming from Western Coalition controlled Afghanistan. Scholar, Oliver Villar, a man dedicated to unravelling the drugs link to government's explains it better if you click here. The US military has openly admitted to having seized control of these poppy fields. Production has risen since then. Too many coincidences I fear. A direct link can be made from the banks making money from the illicit drugs trade and we are all aware by now, how the banks control the puppets in government. I think it is important that we really delve into why the rulers of the world refuse to legalize drugs when it is clearly being shown that it actually decreases addiction and crime in the countries that have implemented it. Wake up people and look into this for yourselves.
Surely a human aspect comes into it too. Do we really want to just turn our backs on addicts because we perceive them as too weak willed to stop themselves from injecting. By stopping the vast spending on fighting drugs through prison sentences and fighting the trafficking then why don't we look to tackle the root of the problem. The social situations of addicts. There is a huge indicator that those people who have grown up in poorer more deprived areas are the ones who are going to end up "junkies". Spend money on making sure these people are looked after through things such as the option of paid rehabilitation, and why not like Portugal, ensure that we get these people employment. That is a mere sample of perhaps a way to solve the not so complex riddle, but there are minds greater than mine with plans ready to be implemented that we must give audience to. In Portugal they are able to pay part of an addicts wages and get companies to take these people on to work for them. This is because the funds are being spent wisely and they have more Euros to spend rather than on treating these PEOPLE as criminals. Addiction is a disease and let us remember that. Hell, there are actually proven scientific facts that show that cannabis has healing qualities. How can we neglect this data. Also, I was speaking to a friend recently that I hadn't seen in years. He was always very shy in public but not this time. His aura had changed. He appeared confident and at ease with himself. I asked him about it over a pint as we caught up. He told me he had recently done ecstasy for the first time and it opened his eyes, taking away his inhibitions. He never got them back and it has made him feel better in himself. In truth another friend shared a similar kind of view about an experience on MDMA. We both got talking and although it isn't the plan to say to shy people with confidence issues to take drugs, what we concurred is that there are certain aspects in drugs that we clearly don't understand well enough in science. Either this or the data is not forthcoming or common knowledge. Therefore there may well be qualities in some class A's able to help people medicinally. Why rule it out. Why not look into conundrums like this? This is what I want to see money being spent on when it comes to drugs. Helping addicts, scientific research and encouraging employers to take reformed addicts on to work. Lets get this planet changed.
Sources:
http://www.theweek.co.uk/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
http://johannhari.com/
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/
Dr João Goulão, the architect of Portugal's decriminalisation policy states that it has allowed "the stigma of drug addiction to fall, to let people speak clearly and to seek professional help without fear." Some facts are also important to soak in. Firstly levels of drug use in Portugal are below the European average. Drug use has also declined in those aged 15-24 and although lifetime drug use has increased, that is considered to be the least accurate measurement of a Country's drug use situation. Rates of the past-year and past-month drug use have decreased and this measurement is seen as the most accurate indicator of evolving drug use trends. Why aren't we at least considering this data and implementing something different to what we do now. Look even further a field and in Afghanistan. Sir William Patey, the former UK ambassador to Afghanistan came out in favour of legalising the trade in opium poppies (from which heroin is derived). It is clearly impossible to stop Afghan farmers from growing and exporting opium he claimed and he went on to say "if we cannot deal effectively with supply" the only alternative is to "limit the demand for illicit drugs by making a licit supply of them available from a legally-regulated market". At least reducing drug wars in narcotics producing nations. How many times do we need further reminders and facts that regulation can only be achieved through something being legal. With opium production I'm far more sceptical as to why they haven't made that legal which I'll scratch the surface about later, but the core idea Patey has is good. How the hell can anyone expect to control a black market though. It is medieval thinking because drugs will never be eliminated we have to accept that, so let us find a permanent solution for once in Britain. Yes there will still be those smuggling huge supplies but that can be far easier to track than over stretching a police force to deal with drug crimes all over the place.
The real problem with the drug laws and the way that we look at drugs in Britain is that the people in power have a reason for keeping things the way they are. There are smart guys in parliament, being advised and shown examples of how things could be better for people all the time, but they choose to ignore it. If you believe the Liberal Democrats claims that the Tories have suppressed a recent report, (that there is no evidence that a tough stance on drugs and on addicts, means a reduction in drug use and crime), then that proves right away how undemocratic and murky our government is. I don't often choose to listen to politicians but I know that the Lib Dems are very much for a reform on drugs. I wouldn't rely on them though. This is something the public will need to demand for which is difficult as the public are still fed horror stories about drugs from Cameron and pals. Don't think these same guys like Osborne haven't take or don't do drugs. Don't be naive. These guys aren't squeaky clean.
Going back to Afghanistan, I ask you to think long and hard about something. Who has control now of the opium producing poppy fields in that country? If we went in to these countries to eliminate the bad guys which we all got spoon fed, then why is the biggest supply of heroin still coming from Western Coalition controlled Afghanistan. Scholar, Oliver Villar, a man dedicated to unravelling the drugs link to government's explains it better if you click here. The US military has openly admitted to having seized control of these poppy fields. Production has risen since then. Too many coincidences I fear. A direct link can be made from the banks making money from the illicit drugs trade and we are all aware by now, how the banks control the puppets in government. I think it is important that we really delve into why the rulers of the world refuse to legalize drugs when it is clearly being shown that it actually decreases addiction and crime in the countries that have implemented it. Wake up people and look into this for yourselves.
Surely a human aspect comes into it too. Do we really want to just turn our backs on addicts because we perceive them as too weak willed to stop themselves from injecting. By stopping the vast spending on fighting drugs through prison sentences and fighting the trafficking then why don't we look to tackle the root of the problem. The social situations of addicts. There is a huge indicator that those people who have grown up in poorer more deprived areas are the ones who are going to end up "junkies". Spend money on making sure these people are looked after through things such as the option of paid rehabilitation, and why not like Portugal, ensure that we get these people employment. That is a mere sample of perhaps a way to solve the not so complex riddle, but there are minds greater than mine with plans ready to be implemented that we must give audience to. In Portugal they are able to pay part of an addicts wages and get companies to take these people on to work for them. This is because the funds are being spent wisely and they have more Euros to spend rather than on treating these PEOPLE as criminals. Addiction is a disease and let us remember that. Hell, there are actually proven scientific facts that show that cannabis has healing qualities. How can we neglect this data. Also, I was speaking to a friend recently that I hadn't seen in years. He was always very shy in public but not this time. His aura had changed. He appeared confident and at ease with himself. I asked him about it over a pint as we caught up. He told me he had recently done ecstasy for the first time and it opened his eyes, taking away his inhibitions. He never got them back and it has made him feel better in himself. In truth another friend shared a similar kind of view about an experience on MDMA. We both got talking and although it isn't the plan to say to shy people with confidence issues to take drugs, what we concurred is that there are certain aspects in drugs that we clearly don't understand well enough in science. Either this or the data is not forthcoming or common knowledge. Therefore there may well be qualities in some class A's able to help people medicinally. Why rule it out. Why not look into conundrums like this? This is what I want to see money being spent on when it comes to drugs. Helping addicts, scientific research and encouraging employers to take reformed addicts on to work. Lets get this planet changed.
BY EM
http://www.theweek.co.uk/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
http://johannhari.com/
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting on Equality Matters.