Put an end to illegal drug use?
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
Ask the US how the War on Drugs is going? The fact is, people will use drugs regardless if they are illegal or not, punishment does not deter drug addicts.
Good question. I guess the first questions could be:
Do we focus on the demand side,the supply side, or both, and do we treat them the same way?
Do we try to regulate the drug trade gradually out of existence or do we try to criminalize it out of existence?
I don't know the answer for sure, but am willing to give it a shot in the dark:
Learn from countries that have a proven success rate in bringing the drug trade down. China comes to mind. After the opium trade imposed by the British so as to try to balance Britain's trade deficit with China, some estimate that the male addicted population was about 25%. It's probably a high estimate, but it does reveal that however high it was, it had clearly reached epidemic proportions. The fact that the British had won both Opium Wars over Chinese attempts at regulating opium, thus allowing the British to impose the trade of opium without restriction ensured that the epidemic could reach proportions no country would normally tolerate. A country that can find means of fighting such an epidemic effectively once it had regained national control over its own laws is certainly a country that would know a hell of a lot more than we would about how to deal with the drug trade effectively.
The Chinese had learnt their lesson well. You deal with it at the supply side. Anyone caught selling illegal drugs in China is sure to get the death penalty or, at the judge's discretion, life imprisonment. And they do not care one iota if you're a Chinese citizen or a foreigner. They will protect their population from such evil.
Are we prepared to learn from those who have real experience in this and who have in fact succeeded in bringing a trade of epidemic proportions under control?
Let's consider too that China's liberalization of the opium trade was not of its own choosing, but was imposed by military force. Are we prepared to be so stupid as to liberalize drugs on our own soil freely and willingly as China had done under foreign military force?
We've seen the epidemic that liberalization can cause by China's example. Are we prepared to submit to such an epidemic freely and willingly?
Let's learn from history and those who have the knowledge and experience.
Criminalize the sale of illegal drugs, with the death sentence or life imprisonment being applied as selling such drugs essentially amounts to slow murder
China doesn't deal with the addicts except as medical cases. It goes after the supply side, not the demand side, but it cracks down hard on the supply side. They have plenty of historical experience in such matters. Let's learn from the best in this matter.
The British had imposed what you're proposing on China, and it led to an epidemic. Are you sure you want to revisit that? Ask the Chinese, and I'm sure they'd think you're crazy. Their drug trade is more or less under control today, but over a century ago, it was rampant owing to British-imposed liberalization. Is that really the route you want to take? What makes you think things would be so much different in Canada than was the case in China? Are we somehow special and immune from such epidemics? Why would liberalization succeed in Canada where it had failed in China a century before?
Deal with the supply side and cut off tis head... literally if necessary.
Do we focus on the demand side,the supply side, or both, and do we treat them the same way?
Do we try to regulate the drug trade gradually out of existence or do we try to criminalize it out of existence?
I don't know the answer for sure, but am willing to give it a shot in the dark:
Learn from countries that have a proven success rate in bringing the drug trade down. China comes to mind. After the opium trade imposed by the British so as to try to balance Britain's trade deficit with China, some estimate that the male addicted population was about 25%. It's probably a high estimate, but it does reveal that however high it was, it had clearly reached epidemic proportions. The fact that the British had won both Opium Wars over Chinese attempts at regulating opium, thus allowing the British to impose the trade of opium without restriction ensured that the epidemic could reach proportions no country would normally tolerate. A country that can find means of fighting such an epidemic effectively once it had regained national control over its own laws is certainly a country that would know a hell of a lot more than we would about how to deal with the drug trade effectively.
The Chinese had learnt their lesson well. You deal with it at the supply side. Anyone caught selling illegal drugs in China is sure to get the death penalty or, at the judge's discretion, life imprisonment. And they do not care one iota if you're a Chinese citizen or a foreigner. They will protect their population from such evil.
Are we prepared to learn from those who have real experience in this and who have in fact succeeded in bringing a trade of epidemic proportions under control?
Let's consider too that China's liberalization of the opium trade was not of its own choosing, but was imposed by military force. Are we prepared to be so stupid as to liberalize drugs on our own soil freely and willingly as China had done under foreign military force?
We've seen the epidemic that liberalization can cause by China's example. Are we prepared to submit to such an epidemic freely and willingly?
Let's learn from history and those who have the knowledge and experience.
Criminalize the sale of illegal drugs, with the death sentence or life imprisonment being applied as selling such drugs essentially amounts to slow murder
China doesn't deal with the addicts except as medical cases. It goes after the supply side, not the demand side, but it cracks down hard on the supply side. They have plenty of historical experience in such matters. Let's learn from the best in this matter.
The British had imposed what you're proposing on China, and it led to an epidemic. Are you sure you want to revisit that? Ask the Chinese, and I'm sure they'd think you're crazy. Their drug trade is more or less under control today, but over a century ago, it was rampant owing to British-imposed liberalization. Is that really the route you want to take? What makes you think things would be so much different in Canada than was the case in China? Are we somehow special and immune from such epidemics? Why would liberalization succeed in Canada where it had failed in China a century before?
Deal with the supply side and cut off tis head... literally if necessary.
The US goes after the supply side quite harshly as well, dealing crack, coke, heroine etc can net you a very hefty prison sentence, it still does not deter buyers or sellers though.
China is hardly a nation to emulate, their legal system is far from transparent or even fair for that matter. The fact that you refer to them as the "best" in this matter is rather puzzling.
I think the problem in the US is tat they waste too much time fighting the demand side. I'd say the demand side ought to be treated as a medical issue, and the supply side as a criminal issue parallel to murder.
Ditto.
Wastes money on enforcment and denies the goverment (the people) tax revenue.
I'm not talking about China's whole legal system, but specifically with regards to drug policy. Let's not through the baby out with the bathwater.
The US also goes after the demand side, making addicts more fearful of seeking help. On the demand side it ought to be treated strictly as a medical issue. In other words, decriminalize the purchase of drugs, but criminalize the sale of it. For example, if you catch two people exchanging drugs for money, the seller ought to get nailed, while the buyer ought to receive medical treatment, against his will if necessary. But it ought to be treated strictly as a medical and not criminal case.
Have you lived in a cave the past 30 years? The US has some of the toughest drug laws in the world. Why do you think the US trains and supports the Columbian military in their fight against the drug cartels? Remember Pablo Escobar? Look in Jamaica right now, the drug lord there is wanted on drug charges in the US, the reason for the fighting is that the Jamaican government finally agreed to extradite him to the US>
Do you want to question me or lecture me? If there is no profit for the dealer, the dealer will go out of business - or into another one. Product gets retailed through an outlet similar to LCBO so it can be taxed and anyone selling without a licence is busted under the same circumstances that a bootlegger gets nailed. Cheaper (and taxed) product make it less likely that a user will get into crime to pay for the habit. I can't see it being any worse than legal booze.
Right. So a century ago when China was experiencing an opium epidemic, the best thing it could have done was to tax it?
A country with a drug epidemic will never be strong.
You cannot force treatment on someone, there is no magical cure to drug addiction. Sure, you can lock them up and wean them off the crap but you haven't dealt with the problem. The addict will be the one to make the decision when he/she wants to drop the junk.
A they should. However, in the US, as in Canada, the demand side is criminalized too, thus pushing both sides underground and making it more difficult to catch the criminals. If you decriminalized the demand side, then at least users would not fear the police; only sellers would. So at least the police would have to deal with the supply side only. With users not fearing the police, sellers can't trust users anymore, and then that makes things more difficult for them and the police could use this to their advantage ot try to draw a wedge between sellers and users.
If weed were available at liquor outlets I'd still grow my own. And if I lived in China I'd grow my TEN LEGAL PLANTS
Agreed. But by focusing on the supply side, you'll make it harder for him to get the junk, push the price up, and so make it less appealing for him. And once he's off of it for a short time, I'm sure most of them would want to put in the extra effort to stay clean and rebuild their lives. Essentially, on the criminal front at least, the police ought to leave users alone except for medical reasons, and focus entirely on the supply side. No supply, no user.
Of course their are. However, when we consider what it's like today compared to a century ago under liberalization, it's clear that they've done something right.
How informed were the Chinese a century ago?
.....how informed are they now compared to us?
That's another point I wanted to bring up. Some people assume that users would automatically stop buying via black market or growing their own if it was legalized, which I don't think is the case. The government doesn't exactly have a stellar product on their hands right now, which they sell to pharmacies etc.
They were informed enough to know that opium was dangerous enough to make it worth fighting two wars against the British over its trade. They lost both wars, and so the free opium trade continued to grow out of control under British-imposed liberalization. Once China had regained its sovereignty, bringing the opium epidemic under control was among its first priorities. I think a country that has managed to fight its way out of an opium epidemic knows a thing or two more about it than we do.