|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
grahamcito
Joined: 11 Sep 2004
Posts: 90
Location: Guadalajara
|
 Posted: Fri May 05, 2006 6:31 pm Post subject: decriminalisation |
 |
|
| M@tt wrote: |
| you can't "prove" that it will or won't until you go ahead and do it, and then watch what happens. |
The UK went ahead and did it, kind of. Back in 2001, one borough of London decriminalised marijuana.
What happened? Lots of smokers descended on that borough, thinking that decriminalisation meant legalisation. People were openly lighting up joints in the street and in bars, etc, until staff told them not to.
Maybe if a decent awareness campaign had been run in tandem, this problem could have been overcome. But that didn�t happen - everyone panicked, there was a media outcry, the measure was revoked and the police chief responsible soon lost his job.
This all suggests that consumption per se might not necessarily increase, but a) drugs tourism is a real possibility; b) the scope for misunderstanding the law and getting in trouble as a result increases dramatically (or maybe �gets really high�). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
delacosta
Joined: 14 Apr 2004
Posts: 325
Location: zipolte beach
|
| Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well actully it has been proven. THe most obvious example is when Prohibition was ended. All this did was remove the gansters from the liquor trade and the violence and corruption associated with it (some of them of course moved comfortably into government...).
Sorry I don't have time to post sources right now but do a search and you'll find that countries that have decriminalized drug use have found a major improvement in addicts lives and as well as a reduction in crime and health costs. Canda is involved in such a trial right now in Vancouver and Montreal, where addicts are prescribed heroin.
Of course that involves a change of mind frame that involves seeing addicts as people with problems rather than ciminals. I can see how some people would prefer the latter option, because to adimit that a large part of your own society is sick would entail the uncomfortable act of looking at all of society. It's easier to point fingers and blame and throw away the uncomfortable elements, hell they could even be used for free labour. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
delacosta
Joined: 14 Apr 2004
Posts: 325
Location: zipolte beach
|
| Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh, and if one is not moved on compassionate grounds at least on econmic grounds it is much cheaper to remove criminality from the equation. I beleive John Mcain has been proposing this argument for some time now. Afghanistan's entire opium crop could have been bought for less money last year than what the US spent in its war on drugs in Afghanistan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
delacosta
Joined: 14 Apr 2004
Posts: 325
Location: zipolte beach
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
corporatehuman
Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 198
Location: Mexico City
|
| Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| delacosta wrote: |
Well actully it has been proven. THe most obvious example is when Prohibition was ended. All this did was remove the gansters from the liquor trade and the violence and corruption associated with it (some of them of course moved comfortably into government...).
Sorry I don't have time to post sources right now but do a search and you'll find that countries that have decriminalized drug use have found a major improvement in addicts lives and as well as a reduction in crime and health costs. Canda is involved in such a trial right now in Vancouver and Montreal, where addicts are prescribed heroin.
Of course that involves a change of mind frame that involves seeing addicts as people with problems rather than ciminals. I can see how some people would prefer the latter option, because to adimit that a large part of your own society is sick would entail the uncomfortable act of looking at all of society. It's easier to point fingers and blame and throw away the uncomfortable elements, hell they could even be used for free labour. |
You make a lot of great points Delacosta and I couldn't agree with you more. Recently in the Philadelphia area there's been this laced Heroin traveling around that has killed over thirty people. Incidents like this, simply would not happen if it was legalized and regulated.
The irony about the Drug War, at least in America, is that it has never worked, and yet, there is no attempt to explore other options. Its good to see Mexico examining the issue, and realizing that drug addicts are not the problem! But the people dealing them drugs! Why??? Because drug dealers have no concern for the welfare of their customers, how can they! They have to get rid of product because to have it jeopardizes them, and their customer can actually send them to jail if they aren't careful. If it was regulated, at least we could control the drug addicts supply, maybe even wean them off!! The law the Mexican government is passing...is limited in its scope. But it is a beginning!
One thing Delacosta, and this is so often the problem with drug addicts...if they run out of money (which is pretty easy for an addict to do) they end up becoming criminals to support their habit! And commit crimes. The eternal problem of addiction.
That's why PREVENTIVE measures are so important! Like not sending drug addicts to jail so they can become disillusioned, do more drugs, and hang out with REAL criminals!
- Chris |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guy Courchesne
Joined: 10 Mar 2003
Posts: 9650
Location: Mexico City
|
| Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
All good points. Now, if Mexico would propose something similar, maybe I could agree and support such legislation. Unfortunately, Mexico isn't even trying. Solely removing the criminal aspect of possession is an exercise in hand washing.
| Quote: |
| If it was regulated, at least we could control the drug addicts supply, maybe even wean them off!! |
I wonder if they thought the same thing during the days of Prohibition.
One doesn't need to go very far to find examples of failures when government decides that to remove the criminal element of a banned activity, it must take over the market itself. Always the noblest intentions.
Consider alcoholism. Certainly treatable, and certainly a substance once controlled by organized crime. Would you say there is less alcoholism now than during Prohibition?
Consider gambling, at least in Canada. Long an illegal activity, the government in many provinces decided it would be okay to set up casinos. Better to let the government run it to keep the mafia out. There are studies to show (from memory, so no links, sorry) that personal bankruptcies have increased in neighbourhoods immediately surrounding casinos, due to gambling.
Let's look at why that is. How does one get hold of their very first line of coke or their very first armful of heroin? Friends, I'll bet, usually, who know someone who knows someone who sells in that dark alley round the corner. All told, not that easy to get since being a criminal activity, there is an element of risk for everyone - the seller and the user. The relationship is an important element of addiction.
Now, if the government takes that over, and it's not illegal, but regulated, there's little to no risk. So the person who thought it was just too risky now sees that risk gone. So why not try it, whether I get it through the government (like alcohol or gambling) or on the street because I don't have to fear arrest?
No, regulating such things is wrong unless you've got a balanced plan for long term reduction and elimination altogther. The only benefit I can find is a removal of the violence by organized crime if you cut them out. But, that violence does serve a purpose. Screw the bookie and you lose an arm. Hard lesson, but if you don't stop gambling, you lose your life. Problem solved. Get addicted to coke, slide down the path, and death awaits you there too. Again, problem solved.
Sounds harsh, but I tell you it's a deterent. If you take it away by legalizing or regulating, you most certainly increase consumption. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brianrex
Joined: 13 Jan 2006
Posts: 11
Location: Vancouver BC
|
| Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Here in Vancouver, the front line workers wish for the old days of heroin and cocaine abuse, as I imagine they do in Mexico. Crystal Meth is the scourge nowadays. I say take the profit out of it and give the addicts the help they need, as many times as they need it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
