Jan. 11, 2007: Update from a reader
I noticed that I had used Dec. instead of Jan. Fixed.
Dec. 11, 2006: Drug War Odyssey
A reader has placed a reminder in the comments:
'Damage Done: The Drug War Odyssey' will re-run on Global TV in Canada on Wednesday, February 7th, 2007 at 10.p.m.
This is worth watching and discussing.
More information:
www.canada.com/globaltv/globalshows/
globalcurrents/damage_done/index.html
Damage Done: The Drug War Odyssey chronicles the efforts of several crusaders battling to clean up major cities where drugs and illegal narcotics are ...
www.canwestmediaworks.com/newsroom/
viewNews.asp?NewsroomID=484
posted by News Junkie Canada at Thursday, January 11, 2007
2 Comments:
Your entry rang a bell. Something I used to teach many years ago to kids in school.
There are three elements that one should concern oneself with when considering the drug war.
The first is "Production". Think about the very poor farmers who live in rural areas throughout the world and ask yourself if they give a damn about our problems? The clear answer is "no". All they care about is feeding their families and avoiding a visit from gun toting drug lords if they refuse to produce the product.
The second factor is "transportation". How drugs get to the consumer. The point to consider here is that no matter what we do to drug trafficers (China executes them on the spot) there is always somebody willing to jump in and take over. The profits are unbelievable.
The third factor is the "market". These are the consumers of the product we are trying to control.
Like a fire, which also requires three elements to burn (fuel, heat and air), interruption of any of the elements will stop the problem. Water on a fire removes the heat, foam blocks the air and so on.
The fire goes out.
If we look at the drug problem in that way we can see that we cannot influence the people who grow the product in any meaningful way. They've been trying for decades without success. Let's write that one off.
If we look at the second element we note that again it is futile to try and stop trafficers from bringing the product to market. There's far to much money to be made and again police have been trying for many years without success to put a stop to it.
That leaves us with the "market" itself. Can we influence that in any way? The answer is clear and it is a resounding "yes". We've been doing it for years with impaired drivers (another drug).
The answer in my view is to forget about the people who produce the product and the people who transport it. Hammer the "user" in the same way we do impaired drivers.
The highly visible, very stoned people who go out and commit all the crime we experience in order to sustain their habit.
Fine them, jail them, put them into forced treatment programs.
Do whatever it takes to destroy the market and the drug war can be won.
Sorry for the long comment (it's still "over simplistic I know) but your entry just seemed the right place to bring the information to the public's attention.
Have a great day.
Thanks for your reasoned response. I would like your views on the program.
I hate drugs, as a general statement of my position, but I do feel we must discuss all possible approaches. Again, I shall watch the special mentioned above in hope that, having some idea of what is coming, as I did not the last time when I saw the program, I may make notes on what is said and by whom, with a view to further exploration.
Re: "Fine them, jail them, put them into forced treatment programs."
I have no problem with that as an approach. My question is what do you do if what you recommend does not work? Does forced treatment work for a drug which affects the brain very negatively the first time it is tried? (It is methamphetamine, I think, which addicts people after one try. Is it possible?)
I simply do not know enough. I never want to be close enough to the problem to find out, but I do know good people whose lives have been adversely affected by drugs in relation to loved ones. It is so heart breaking.
I know that any approach which eliminates wide-ranging discussion for a problem (not limited to, but including this one) is a waste of time and foolhardy, in this case, in the face of the evident harm drugs are doing. There is so much money to be made and so many lives have been affected.
I also am acquainted with people who smoked marijuana years ago in college and who did not seem to be negatively impacted--at least, so it seems. I know that the current drug is different from what those college students smoked, more powerful and maybe more dangerous. I have read that currently the marijuana available affects the brain more than what was available in North America or Canada in the past, hence, is more dangerous. Is that true?
All I ask is for people to watch, listen, and see if there is something that will work for our young people, and for the families who care for and about them.
Post a Comment
<< Home