tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post5309740884709733748..comments2023-09-20T11:15:28.673+01:00Comments on Transform Drug Policy Foundation Blog: Manufacturing the Drug Threatjanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15263261726046054614noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-62622092033991382502011-03-20T19:01:05.039+00:002011-03-20T19:01:05.039+00:00Danny,
I read this some time ago.
Interesting stu...Danny,<br />I read this some time ago. <br />Interesting stuff. I have seen the process of "elevating" things to security issues at close quarters when I was still working for the EU Commission. Assistance programmes for regions outside Europe deserve a closer look, they're full of "security" concerns, including areas like food and energy supply. Once you accept the methodology there is in fact no limit to what you can securitise as a policy:health, education?<br /><br />One security issue that is completely ignored is the failure of Western governments to recognise the corrosive effect of muddling along with drug policies which have failed to reduce demand for 50 years but have given organised crime a real role in government. How else would the world's drug users be supplied, and Europe alone is thought to have nearly 100 million of them (EMCDDA figures). Take out organised crime - and the drugs they supply - and the West End will look like Benghazi before you know it. So that is what Cameron - and his 26 EU colleagues - have in common with Putin: their dependence on organised crime to keep the system going. Quite a price to pay for keeping the UN conventions on the respirator.<br />I will be posting something more detailed on this soon. Carel Edwards http://opiumwars.skynetblogs.be/Carel Edwardsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-85225195093420579812011-03-05T14:23:28.216+00:002011-03-05T14:23:28.216+00:00Thank you Steve, I have been looking fir such refe...Thank you Steve, I have been looking fir such references but can only find the marginal case, not the general. Proximate causes, things that look big but are actually small. Every big counts. :-) When you have time could you please point me to a page number and say why it is the general case?<br /><br />@Danny, thanks for the Rat Park link. I like the analogy but I'm confused as to your view on it related to your campaign. Can you clarify on the link below when you get a chance please. Thanks<br /><br /><a href="http://gco2e.blogspot.com/2011/03/rat-park.html" rel="nofollow">Real Reform: Rat Park</a>Robin Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04648517992918303543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-65880919195572606442011-03-01T11:17:00.598+00:002011-03-01T11:17:00.598+00:00Id agree with that Gart - but I think its importan...Id agree with that Gart - but I think its important to say that 'legalisation' is a process, not a policy end point. Its more useful to talk about 'legalisation and regulation' - this makes it clear that regulation is the desired policy end point and distances the call from some of the free market libertarian positions on legalisation.Steve Rolleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11487781869462634203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-92171252757050217722011-03-01T11:10:01.872+00:002011-03-01T11:10:01.872+00:00The question is: which drug control regime can be ...The question is: which drug control regime can be proved to be more rational, efficient and effective: prohibition or legalisation.<br /><br />Factually (economically, socially and historically speaking), prohibition has shown to be a failed regime. <br /><br />By all meaningful standards, prohibition has not only failed to deal with the so-called drug problem, its failure has been compounded and magnified by the catastrophic effects of the so-called "unintended consequences" (an expression as cynical as "collateral damages") on producing and consuming countries, and on both users and society as a whole.<br /><br />The challenge for those of us who believe that legalisation is the answer, is to demonstrate that legalisation is a rational, efficient and effective regime.<br /><br />Gart Valenc<br />http://www.stopthewarondrugs.orgGarvalukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15208449413586269926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-23877280996880971732011-03-01T09:26:20.763+00:002011-03-01T09:26:20.763+00:00Transform have discussed the root causes of proble...Transform have discussed the root causes of problematic use at various points in 2009's 'Blueprint for Regulation' as well as in the discussion section of 2009's Cost benefit analysis paper (and elsewhere). I have also explored the issue of drug uasing motivations in more detail in a chapter for the recent Rioutledge 'politics of narcotic drugs' which we hope to publich as a stand alone briefing on the Transform site shortly.Steve Rolleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11487781869462634203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-37707698392550261462011-03-01T09:08:19.582+00:002011-03-01T09:08:19.582+00:00Jake, you will need to define what you mean by &qu...Jake, you will need to define what you mean by "desire to change consciousness" please before I can agree or disagree. Simple terms is poss'<br /><br />I also said that natural forces are not in our power to change. Yet social maladjustments are immediately remedied by free choice, if we still have it.<br /><br />Correct, there is no need to debate forever what observed fact and intuition tell us immediately. What I am asking for dialogue on is why the majority deny the above and toil with science and statistics for years to no avail? The root cause we tend to obscure deliberately.<br /><br />Beware here. I am a seasoned reform campaigner. Whenever I hear a reformer say we need "pragmatic policy" and then go on to sideline principles I am deeply concerned. It sounds like a signal of root cause avoidance? The slippery slope.<br /><br />I'm posting my research on the blueprint here. You may be interested in my layman view. Remembering the majority you are appealing to do not understand you yet so must be treated with grace and respect. Feel free to comment there too.<br /><br /><a href="http://gco2e.blogspot.com/2011/03/war-on-war-on-drugs.html" rel="nofollow">Real Reform: The war, on the war on drugs</a><br /><br />And generally here<br /><br />http://gco2e.blogspot.com/search/label/drugsRobin Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04648517992918303543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-68552437981681339172011-02-28T12:01:00.225+00:002011-02-28T12:01:00.225+00:00@Robin,
You are right in that we need to go to th...@Robin,<br /><br />You are right in that we need to go to the root of a problem to fix it, and I think that you finally agree that the root of this whole problem is Humans' desire to alter their consciousness. You also agree that we would "struggle to change" this desire - history has only proved it is impossible to stop this without devastating consequences of the brutal suppression required.<br /><br />However, I think with such a social change, when seeking the "remedy" the solution is not to spend forever debating and trying to find which root to understand more clearly when we know enough to improve now, but to enact a pragmatic policy (such as Transform's blueprint) that we know will be better and refine it over time, as this seems to be how all the best laws are implemented - through experience. Enact it under the precautionary principle with lots of scope for tweaking the policy as Transform suggest. As long as drugs never become a free-for-all (as they are pretty much now) and regulated sensibly the situation will always be better, with less social problems, than under prohibition. I think you also agree that the current system does not work but if not looking for "perfection" you are looking for something close to it. With politicians and people as they are, as you say, there will never be "perfection". So I urge you to maybe take a bit of a leap and accept that instead of trying to find the golden key we act fast and act now to improve the situation, accept that some people will still become addicted, then use evidence, fact and science to continuously improve and learn from our mistakes. I know you may find this scary, but even half measures such as decriminalisation have proved to be hugely beneficial (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080) and are by no means perfect.<br /><br />With respect, I have heard your argument before regarding root causes and have given it considerable thought in the past, so with that I urge you to consider Transform's Blueprint with great care (as you seem to be doing) and think about the damage being done NOW in the name of prohibition to MILLIONS of people around the world and accept that we may have to make changes that although not perfect, will be far better and with scope to be changed over time to get far closer to "perfection" than the prohibition dogma ever has or ever will.Jakenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-8553064386657666112011-02-28T10:24:05.273+00:002011-02-28T10:24:05.273+00:00Jake, thank you, things are much clearer for me no...Jake, thank you, things are much clearer for me now. I think I understand you.<br /><br />We seem to agree that 'harmful drug addiction' springs from 2 general Causes:<br /><br />1 Natural<br />2 Social<br /><br />We also seem to agree that there are 2 general areas where action must be taken:<br /><br />1 Dealing with the effects<br />2 Seeking root cause<br /><br />Yes I also agree, we should all now move on to more fertile ground.<br /><br />Yet my question is asking: when we are seeking remedy for a great social problem, which factors must we all understand more clearly, agree upon and put at the centre of our thoughts? :<br /><br />* The natural or the social. One we will struggle to change, the other we can actually change in the morning?<br /><br />* The causes or their effects? Things at the heart of injustice or their symptoms?<br /><br />I'm not proposing a council of perfection here. If we look across the panorama of history, we can see that 'Transformation' is made when we go to the root. Always. Yet we regress when we avoid it. Always.<br /><br />Please don't get me wrong. Dealing with the symptoms is mandatory and your struggle is as noble as any. I'm asking that, in harmony with that, we re-establish our understanding of root cause and keep that right at the front of our minds in all we do. And mean it.<br /><br />You have been very patient and helpful. Thank you. I will cease for now while I read the work kindly referenced here more deeply. I have got to page ix of the Blueprint and have already observed something very revealing. The nature of the funders. And specifically the primary goal of the Esmee Fairbairn Foundation:<br /><br /><i>to promote a greater understanding of economic and financial issues through education<br /><br />We also take initiatives ourselves where new thinking is required or where we believe there are important unexplored opportunities</i><br /><br />May I ask you to spend some time thinking with great care about my idea too? I'm not asking for you to agree with me. I only ask that you think about it. I'm proposing it is directly related to root cause.<br /><br /><a href="http://gco2e.blogspot.com/2010/12/why-do-your-earnings-never-rise.html" rel="nofollow">Real Reform: Why do your earnings never rise?</a><br /><br />I will be back.Robin Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04648517992918303543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-43534733206503243222011-02-27T16:29:45.490+00:002011-02-27T16:29:45.490+00:00It is very instructive to analyse how Robin almost...It is very instructive to analyse how Robin almost succeeded in derailing this discussion. I have often experienced a similar course in drug policy debates, and it seems to me that we need to be better aware of this. Robin's naive sounding question suggests that we should be able to answer it to his satisfaction, before being allowed to continue to think about better ways of regulating drugs.<br />I think we need to clearly say, in the early phase of a debate, that the question of how risky and/or how harmful drugs are and how big the risk is of becoming dependent, are important, but they are a different issue than how drugs can best be regulated. We need to think about how the harm to society and to individuals will be minimal. And here, I think we need to add: and also, that the pleasure and functionality of drug use will be optimal.Frederik Polak, Amsterdamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-7755172499840546732011-02-26T13:07:17.135+00:002011-02-26T13:07:17.135+00:00Getting back to the original subject. I'm stil...Getting back to the original subject. I'm still not convinced "securitisation" is a radical departure. If one cares to look at the motivations behind U.S. (or the UK and other major countries for that matter)foreign policies, it is difficult not to feel some sort of déja vu and conclude that it is just an update, and granted, a more sophisticated take, on an equally devasting, self-centered and highly ideologically charged old concept: the 'national security' doctrine.<br /><br />To see how this has played in the context of 'real politiks', <br /><a href="http://colombiareports.com/opinion/the-colombiamerican/14234-the-war-on-drug-gangs-finally-begins-but-is-it-too-late.html" rel="nofollow">this article</a> may prove quite educational.<br /><br />Gart Valenc<br />http://www.stopthewarondrugs.orgGarvalukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15208449413586269926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-88618983851063009062011-02-25T00:07:57.135+00:002011-02-25T00:07:57.135+00:00@Robin,
Of course harmful drug addiction is harmf...@Robin,<br /><br />Of course harmful drug addiction is harmful and I never inclined otherwise. What I was saying is that recreational use is largely not harmful and that the whole issue should be treated as a medical issue not a criminal one as it is currently.<br /><br />I think you misunderstood me, or maybe it was me who wasn't clear in my response, but we are a bit caught up in this 'natural causes' term. I was stating that the desire to take/try/experiment with drugs in the first place arises out of inbuilt natural causes. For drug use to progress to an addiction there is nearly always extenuating factor such as those I mentioned above i.e. lots of people can go to a casino and not become addicted to gambling. So yes it is 'human induced' in that be it social, economic or genetic factors that cause a minority of individuals to go from recreational users to habitual ones. The same 'natural causes' that cause some people to become addicted to gambling or overeating etc.<br /><br />So to your point - while we can spend forever dissecting the exact and specific causes of harmful drug addictions that is detracting from the issue slightly. We know enough to know that what we have not only makes harmful drug addiction worse but actively prevents said research. For example a Heroin addict, if given pharmaceutical quality diamorphine can sustain a happy and fulfilled (read relatively normal) life on it - does this still count as harmful? Yes, but no where in the same league as street Heroin..under the current prohibition policy heroin maintenance is limited to say the least, or outright refused in countries such as Russia. This is why ending the WoD is the primary importance, so in regard to harmful drug addictions we can start treating those effected as humans and patients. Once we do that we will see harmful addictions go down across the populace, and of those harmful ones, they will be less harmful. With all the money saved by not fighting the war on drugs (approx £17bn currently per year here alone) we can invest in all those things you crave.<br /><br />So there is absolutely no point in just researching the root causes of addiction whilst simultaneously perpetuating a huge factor that makes it far far worse.<br /><br />With respect, I think that to be able to move on you must accept that some people are and always will be susceptible to addictions, be it drugs, food, gambling etc. and we know this NOW. The best thing we can do whilst we discover the social, economic or genetic differences that lead to it, is approach it from a pragmatic viewpoint to reduce the harm. So our first duty should be to end the WoD to reduce harm, which in turn will allow the root causes to be found as just one of the benefits...Jakenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-73920369632717270692011-02-24T13:25:43.724+00:002011-02-24T13:25:43.724+00:00Thank you. I'm talking about harmful drug addi...Thank you. I'm talking about harmful drug addiction. Exclusively. <br /><br />Do you understand this? If yes please read on. If not we cannot proceed with certainty until you do. <br /><br />To clarify:<br /><br />Are you really saying that harmful drug addiction is not harmful?<br /><br />Are you then saying that harmful drug addiction springs from natural causes?<br /><br />Are you then saying that harmful drug addiction from natural causes is human induced?<br /><br />This is how your response reads. It was quite a surprise! I may misunderstand you though? My apologies for this.<br /><br />If I can humbly ask you to clarify we can get past this and I'd like to return to my central question :<br /><br />If we agree the WoD is futile, harmful drug addiction is harmful, is caused by unjust social institutions, is it not our first duty to the people to devote our enormous skill and industry to finding actual root cause of harmful drug addiction?<br /><br />Please clarify. I realise this requires patience. Yet we are seeking the truth are we not?Robin Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04648517992918303543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-43740356033382523932011-02-23T22:27:52.945+00:002011-02-23T22:27:52.945+00:00Beautifully put Jake. I am in awe of your patience...Beautifully put Jake. I am in awe of your patience.Peter Reynoldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02181779476005970939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-2567539292100133552011-02-23T20:25:17.596+00:002011-02-23T20:25:17.596+00:00@Robin,
Regarding the futility of the war of drug...@Robin,<br /><br />Regarding the futility of the war of drugs, there is no more real evidence required to show its harms. The harms it causes are far beyond what the actual drugs cause. Transform is calling for an Impact Assessment, to show government, in a non-biased and non-partisan (as much as it can be) just how ineffective prohibition has been compared to say, legal regulation.<br /><br />Regarding drug use, it does indeed spring from "natural causes", in that Humans (and other animals) like altering their consciousness via chemcials, whether they be plant based or synthesised in a lab. You say you have found deep spiritual awareness without drugs, but have you ever had a coffee to wake yourself up? That is a form of drug use. Drugs are not just used for spiritual awareness, they can be and are used in nearly every context of human life, to enhance, enlighten, escape or self medicate your life.<br /><br />The reason it has grown so out of proportion is that only certain drugs were declared 'evil' and after 40-100 years (drug dependant) of propaganda, lies and conflating drug harms with prohibition harms (i.e. confusing the violence of the illicit Cannabis market with Cannabis itself) people are scared of what they dont know, and those in power use this to capitalise on their own vested interests, whether it be appearing 'tough on crime' to get elected, continuing militarisation in foreign countries to enhance vested interests (I strongly recommend you read the other article I posted above) or to erode civil liberties that little bit further with each parliment.<br /><br />Yes, drugs can be harmful, but most people don't have problems with them (long or short term). But those that do more often than not have extenuating circumstances - pain relief, escapism from the reality of poverty, domestic abuse or mental illness etc. The minority of drug users- the most vulnerable, those most likely to misuse drugs, are treated as criminals rather than patients and all of us suffer - addicts not getting medical help, only a jail cell and the rest of us a criminal record.<br /><br />You seem to realise that the status-quo does not work, but I think you should realise that taking drugs is often an enjoyable and social experience with limited physical consequences of harm for the majority of the population. That is why there is always a demand for drugs and why there will always be a supply...Jakenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-27130669173469586182011-02-23T18:10:06.551+00:002011-02-23T18:10:06.551+00:00Danny
I will take a look at that thank you.
And ...Danny<br /><br />I will take a look at that thank you.<br /><br />And I will apologise to Peter and all. My question was provocative. I am asking why, now that we know the futility of the war, we need any more evidence. Its done. Why do we need infinite evidence? Why not now put all our skill and industry into finding root cause if we think its harming us. Some are saying harm is not bad for us though so that might be tricky. Nonetheless I have found deep spiritual awareness without them. Maybe I'm lucky<br /><br />You and Peter have a dilemma here though still.<br /><br />Peter is saying harmful drug use springs from natural causes. Fair enough. But that needs observed facts and self evidence. That is, why has it grown so enormously out of proportion alongside the power of society to produce wealth?<br /><br />And you seem to be saying that it springs from injustice. Well I agree with you and have plenty to support it that no sane person would struggle with.<br /><br />Would anyone like to resolve the above dilemma?<br /><br />Or hear my idea of root cause? Would anyone like to join me in forming a new innovative campaign? <br /><br />I'm happy to meet groups to talk to it. 07786078836 robinsmith3@gmail.comRobin Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04648517992918303543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-66804510061451482982011-02-22T18:50:14.698+00:002011-02-22T18:50:14.698+00:00Peter, calm down.
Robin said he's opposed to t...Peter, calm down.<br />Robin said he's opposed to the war on drugs. And I don't think you've attempted to answer his question regarding problematic use.<br /><br />Robin, Can I suggest you take a look at the work of Bruce Alexander - specifically Rat Park and his book 'Globalisation of Addiction'. <br /><br />It seems to me that the roots of problematic use lie in our sick world. There is strong evidence to show that the lower a nation's wellbeing, the higher the proportion of problematic users they have. <br />See also the UNICEF league tables of child wellbeing and the work of Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett in 'The Spirit Level'.<br /><br />Cheers<br />DannyDanny Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10139449664223847222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-43313561014423756792011-02-22T18:30:55.949+00:002011-02-22T18:30:55.949+00:00I have answered your question twice already Robin ...I have answered your question twice already Robin but I see that you are re-phrasing it now.<br /><br />"What compels people to harmful drug addiction in the first place?"<br /><br />This makes no sense. Nothing compels people to "harmful drug addiction" except the addiction itself.<br /><br />What "compels" people to drug use (for the third time now) is the natural human desire to alter one's consciousness.<br /><br />Now there may be other factors involved as well. The original motivation may be pleasure, experimentation, despair or self-destruction.<br /><br />You seem to be trying to divine some truth that really isn't there. The motivation for drug use is inherent in the human psyche. Whether it becomes problematic is a complex issue but the worst possible way to respond to it is with prohibition and criminal sanctions. Problematic drug use is essentially a health and social issue and that is where the solution will be found.<br /><br />I don't treat you as stupid. What concerns me is the moralising and judgemental attitude that you display.<br /><br />Any policy that fundamentally conflicts with human nature will fail and that is exactly what prohibition amounts to.Peter Reynoldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02181779476005970939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-51976847210992422822011-02-22T16:59:49.956+00:002011-02-22T16:59:49.956+00:00Peter
Are you OK? I am asking a simple question. ...Peter<br /><br />Are you OK? I am asking a simple question. I am not claiming anything yet. My motivation is to seek the truth. I am asking YOU. I am ignorant. You are an expert. What is it about this simple question that troubles you so much? Its an interesting psychology that I have to ask a 3rd time.<br /><br />So I am going to do an analysis of what you have said shortly and report back here but I want to understand where you are coming from first.<br /><br />Ahem... I am asking:<br /><br />We all understand the futility of the war on drugs.<br /><br />"Are we willing to look deeper and understand what compels people to harmful drug addiction in the first place? And does that thing spring from natural causes. Or unjust social institutions. Or both. And how and why exactly?"<br /><br />Peter.. are you willing and able to respond to this simple question?<br /><br />Treat me as stupid that is fine. I am merely looking for your expert response to the question.Robin Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04648517992918303543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-90275560454423163502011-02-22T13:40:13.206+00:002011-02-22T13:40:13.206+00:00@Robin
It's ridiculous question which betrays...@Robin<br /><br />It's ridiculous question which betrays a fundamental lack of understanding and, no offence intended, a lack of education. You should do some reading.<br /><br />Again you reveal your true motivation when you write "...it compels people to harm themselves by taking drugs".<br /><br />Do you really believe that?<br /><br />Nearly all human beings take drugs of one sort or another. The vast majority don't feel "compelled" and they don't "harm themselves".<br /><br />What planet are you on?<br /><br />Is it full of preppy faced, Home Office robots running round in demented circles speaking in Dalek voices: "Broken! Broken! You will be broken!"Peter Reynoldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02181779476005970939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-12929151977633538802011-02-22T10:45:50.894+00:002011-02-22T10:45:50.894+00:00I have a couple of points that I would like to mak...I have a couple of points that I would like to make.<br /> <br />‘Securitisation’ would certainly fit with a pattern of thinking that suggests ‘politics ends at the waters edge’. In other words, the normal rules of domestic politics do not apply to foreign policy and therefore a consensus is achieved on security issues as a whole. <br /> <br />If we are to accept that this is what is happening, the question for drug policy reform is; what are we going to do about it?<br /> <br />Now we could debate how effective the ‘Securitisation’ agenda is toward convincing the general public to keep funding the ‘war on drugs,’ but let us assume for a moment it does. The answer for a drug policy reform point of view would be to argue against the ‘securitisation of drugs’ on its own terms.<br /> <br />Allow me to explain: diplomatic, economic and military resources are finite. Even during the economic good times, we know this to be true. These resources are also designed to achieve certain objectives. By giving them tasks to achieve, to which they were not originally designed, (mission creep, if you like), we not only divert those resources from their original objective, but blunt their overall effectiveness.<br /> <br />To whit, asking the military to interdict drug traffic not only does this not increase the efficacy of the interdiction, but worse, means military assets are less able to perform the role that they should be performing; namely to engage hostile state and non-state actors. In fact you could go further and suggest that Western militaries have more than enough on their plate without the additional burden of fighting a war on drugs as well. (As a master graduate in Strategic Studies I know a little about this, and am very well aware of Buzan, Weaver et al).<br /> <br />Indeed you can argue the same is true in the domestic arena, and here I will be shorter: asking the police to fight a war on drugs diverts and weakens them from their primary role: preventing and investigating real crime such as murder, robbery, domestic violence, and rape and child abuse. For every cannabis user arrested, police time is taken away from investigating crime with real victims.<br /> <br />If the ‘Securitisation’ agenda truly has had the impact we suspect it has on the debate about illegal drugs, I would suggest we need to combat it on the grounds I have outlined above. This and continuing to present the evidence we have on prohibitions utter failure to reduce death, disease and addiction.Roryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01033013702698647522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-85503139613064770432011-02-21T18:41:19.731+00:002011-02-21T18:41:19.731+00:00Peter
You need to read what I have said again. Th...Peter<br /><br />You need to read what I have said again. This time with a little more care.<br /><br />I am not saying that at all. In fact I'm not saying anything. I am asking You what You think?<br /><br />I'm asking what is that force so powerful, that it compels people to harm themselves by taking drugs. In the first place. Even before the war on drugs has started. There is a reason for this. Just are we willing and able to explore it abduction accept our findings objectively. Get it?<br /><br />Nonetheless, whenever I am attacked for asking a simple question, I know I have hit the spot.<br /><br />So what is it about my asking a question has offended you so much.Robin Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04648517992918303543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-74140225827466415762011-02-21T14:37:33.441+00:002011-02-21T14:37:33.441+00:00Robin, an astonishingly naive question!
The desir...Robin, an astonishingly naive question!<br /><br />The desire to alter one's consciousness is a fundamental part of human nature. Even lesser species have been shown to self-medicate and seek relief, amusement and satisfaction from psychoactive plants.<br /><br />Your idea that the demand for drugs is "compelling the people into that vice and misery" is a moral judgement that has no basis in science at all. In fact it denies the reality of human nature.<br /><br />You do an excellent job of revealing the prohibitionist mindset. It's irrational, unscientific, self-defeating and based on some arrogant and completely unrealistic moral disapproval.Peter Reynoldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02181779476005970939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-23476558796347951152011-02-21T13:48:33.604+00:002011-02-21T13:48:33.604+00:00Agreed. The fear of something demands apparent and...Agreed. The fear of something demands apparent and irrational securitisation.<br /><br />But when are we going to ask what is compelling the demand for drugs in the first place. The root cause of that vice?<br /><br />Is the war on the war on drugs a more important question?<br /><br />If the war on the war on drugs was won perfectly using our ideas, and, the force that compels the taking and demand for drugs is revealed as underneath that, what will we do then?<br /><br />Will we finally start the war on that powerful force, that is compelling the people into that vice and misery?<br /><br />Will we then have the courage to ask that deeper question? We are done with the effects, the drug taking, the false war on that vice. <br /><br />What is at the root of drug taking?Robin Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04648517992918303543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-63896201843181602982011-02-18T12:43:29.513+00:002011-02-18T12:43:29.513+00:00See more comments over at DrugWarRant
http://www....See more comments over at DrugWarRant<br /><br />http://www.drugwarrant.com/2011/02/manufacturing-the-drug-threat/comment-page-1/Martin Powellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16428672192550235474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-67056539182511780602011-02-18T09:37:14.189+00:002011-02-18T09:37:14.189+00:00Organized crime is an exitential threat for states...Organized crime is an exitential threat for states and their authority in a region, the most efficient way to combat the threat would be to take a control of the the industries that OC profits from and which legitimise them as providers in the eyes of people who live in poor areas of Mexico, Columbia, Afghanistan etc.<br /><br />If we were truly interested in fighting this threat we'd attack the criminal economy instead of putting dope, guns and thugs on the table for media to take pictures of every now and then.yangnoreply@blogger.com