Australia seizes drugs worth $500m from Hong Kong ring reports on the seizure of an enormous amount of "ice" (yaa baa), heroin and other drugs in Sydney recently (2012). It says that the Australian police investigated for one year with the help of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency to capture the drug gang, who imported the drugs hidden in terracotta pottery.
When I first read this on the BBC News, I thought it was more evidence that making drugs illegal is a total failure. The police are saying that it's a success, but they are wrong. Drugs have been illegal for decades, and if amounts this large are still being imported for sale, then that seems to me to prove that the current drug policy is a 100% failure. What sort of people repeat exactly the same mistake knowing that it does not work? Idiots do this. And the policy of making some popular drugs illegal is idiotic because it's obviously a total failure. Drug dealers continue to go a lot of trouble to produce, export and import drugs because there is a very high demand from consumers for their products. That means that ordinary, normal people in Australia, and Thailand, and every other country, use drugs and want to use drugs.
These people, a lot of people in every country, obviously think that the laws against them enjoying their life without harming other people are unjust, so they ignore the law. The result is corruption of police, judges and politicians. The result is higher drug prices and profits for mafia groups. The result is more crime to pay for drugs. The result is more addicts with problems. Every result of the "War on Drugs" is bad for citizens and bad for society. So why are some drugs that ordinary, normal citizens want to use illegal? I've given some reasons why they should not illegal, but I can't think of any good reason why marijuana, heroin, or yaa baa should be illegal to buy and use. Can you think of any good reason?
And in the meantime, the "War on Drugs" will continue to be a very expensive failure that harms society. This does not seem rational to me.
__________
References
I posted this response to a recent news report for a couple of reasons.
ReplyDelete1. Look at the reference list entry.
What is the same as for "Something Tasty to Chew on"?
What is different? Why is it different?
2. Like "Something Tasty to Chew on", there are the same three parts in this blog post.
What are these three parts?
How long is each part?
Short analysis of 2nd example of response writing
DeleteThe three parts of this blog post are, again:
1. an introduction to my source = two sentences. This time, the source is an article on the BBC News website.
2. a two sentence summary of my source = two sentences. Again, the first sentence states the topic of the article, and the second tells us my version of the main idea.
3. and finally, my response to the ideas in the source. This time, my response is three paragraphs. As expected, it is much longer than the rest of this response writing.
_____________________
And there is a References section after the piece of writing to refer readers correctly to the original source on the BBC News website. Some readers might want to check that my summary is correct, or simply to get more details.
Also interesting is "Terractta Pots Warehouse Raided Over Drugs Smuggling" in this morning's Nation that the massive drug shipment seized in Australia came from Thailand, in an operation run from Hong Kong (2012). The drug trade is clearly a major international business, and with 500 million dollars to be made from happy and willing customers, is it surprising?
ReplyDeleteReferences
Terractta pots warehouse raided over drugs smuggling. ()2012, August 4). The Nation. Retrieved August 4, 2012 from http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Terractta-pots-warehouse-raided-over-drugs-smuggli-30187646.html
And showing that Peru, like Australia, Thailand and the US, continues to follow a drug policy that is as immoral as it is harmful to society and citizens is Peru burns record 50-tonne marijuana haul (2012).
ReplyDeleteReference
Peru burns record 50-tonne marijuana haul, (2012, August 3). BBC News. Retrieved August 5, 2012 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-19121456
I agree with you that this is failure for illegal drug's policy. But I think in some drug like heroine, amphetamine should still be strictly illegal. I have no reason to make it legal, because it will be easy to use and buy more than the present. On the other hand, some drug should be legal for medical purpose, only more strict prescription by the doctor or the vet only. I have to said like this because sedative agent and analgesic drug is illegal. So that it's so hard to find and use it, though they are good for use. For example Ketamine is very good sedative agent for animal especially cat. But now it's so hard to find this drug in the market. If I want to use , I will have to contact the livestock development. I need the Thai government to making more flexible drug policy.
ReplyDeleteThank you Mo,
DeleteIf a policy is a proven failure, isn't it more sensible to try a different policy that might work?
Mo and I disagree. She thinks some drugs, such as heroin and amphetamines, should be illegal, but I think that it would better for society and citizens if they were all legal but controlled, like the drug alcohol. Mo also gives a popular reason for disagreeing with me. Is that reason right? How can we decide on the answer to this question?
Which solution do you support to the serious drug problems that affect many countries? Why?
I think all drugs should be legal for adults because that would: save public money, increase tax income, reduce corruption, make treatment easier, use police more effectively, reduce drug violence and crime, and it would not increase the number of addicts or drug problems. Legalising drugs is also more morally just than the current policy.
But please tell us if you disagree with me. Argument and disagreement are the best ways to improve our ideas, which is why academics always disagree and argue with each other.
In short, I think drug should be strict illegal but drug which is use for medication purpose.
ReplyDeleteBecause in my opinion, it's not 100% success if the drug is legal. If someone addicted so it's so hard to control wanting drug. They will need more and more. And if drug is legal, it will easy to buy. Truly, the behavior of politician is hard to change. Political corruption will increasing , because they want to have more and more money from selling drug and cheating the government income. Additionally, it will increasing people to addict.
The solution, for my view, teach the young generation about dangerous of drug. Maybe using violence picture, VDO and cartoon is brought to teach them since they is young. And Finding out the truth is why people use drug and sell it. I already have this question; they feel unhappy with his life and drug is make them happy and richer. But I think they forget the ending of the story that finally they will lose everything and absolutely their life.
Mo's idea is that making drugs such as heroin and yaa baa legal would lead to more drug use and more addicts. (Have I understood correctly?)
DeleteIs this right? Yes or No?
What do we need to decide whether this idea, which I am sure is very common, is right or wrong?
You can probably infer my answer to this important Yes/No question. But what do you want me to do to persuade you? What must I do? Or what must you and Mo do to persuade me to change my mind about the Yes/No question? (I'm assuming, but not inferring, that most people agree with Mo and think that I'm wrong.)
An excellent discussion is developing. Thank you Mo.
Yes Peter, you understood correctly.
DeleteAfter my claim in class that the facts strongly show making drugs legal does not lead to the commonly assumed increase in drug use, I think I need to provide some solid evidence.
ReplyDeleteFirst, in the US, the Mafia came to power and corrupted the police, courts and politicians when alcohol was made illegal from 1920 - 1933. People thought that the drug alcohol was causing serious social problems, and this was certainly true, so they decided to make alcohol (beer, wine, whisky, etc) illegal, like heroin, yaa baa and other drugs. The result was the rise to power of the mafia, violence, and corruption. Did alcohol use decrease in the US when it was illegal? The of Harvard researcher Jeffrey Miron are that alcohol use did not decrease when it was made illegal. In fact, there was a slight increase in alcohol use when it was an illegal drug (1999). The assumption that making alcohol illegal would reduce the drug use was false. Criminalisation only led to massive social problems in the US.
References
Miron, A. (1999, May). The effect of alcohol prohibition on alcohol consumption. In Social Science Research Network. National Bureau of Economic Research working paper No. W7130. Abstract retrieved July 16, 2012, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=10963 [The full 41 page report is available from http://www.nber.org/papers/w7130.pdf ]
Second are the examples of countries which have more recently decided to try something different to the obviously failing "solution" of making some drugs illegal.
DeleteIn the Netherlands, when marijuana use was decriminalised in the 1990s, did more people, especially young people start to use this popular drug? No.
In fact, official statistics based on “research among school-goers shows cannabis use declined slightly between 1996 and 2003, and stabilised in 2005” (Trimbos Institute, 2007, p. 25).
The evidence clearly shows that making a drug legal does not lead to an increase in use or addicts, but has many benefits: less corruption, easier treatment, enormous savings on public expense, and a higher tax revenue so that more money can be spent on effective education campaigns and treatment for addicts who want help.
References
Trimbos Institute. (2007). The National Drug Monitor Annual Report 2006 (19-06-2007). Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction. The Trimbos Institute. Retrieved August 7, 2012 from http://www.trimbos.nl/~/media/Files/Gratis%20downloads/AF0837%20NDM_Annual_Report_compleet.ashx
Finally, the case of Portugal is an excellent example of what really happens to the number of drug users when drugs are legalized. In 2001, Portugal decriminalised all drugs for personal use.
DeleteThe results have been amazing. Portugal's government reported in 2011 that making all drugs legal has resulted in a very large decrease in the number of addicts and associated drug use problems - by about 50%! ("Portugal drug law, 2011; Kain, 2011). This decrease in drug use, addiction and associated social problems continues the trend that was obvious five years after the experiment began (Vastag, 2009).
The Observations section of the Wikipedia entry also provides a useful summary of the benefits to society and citizens that have come from legalizing all drugs in Portugal ("Drug Policy of Portugal", 2012).
References
Drug policy of Portugal. (2012, August 7). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 13:07, August 7, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drug_policy_of_Portugal&oldid=506154714
Kain, E. (2011, July 5). Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal. Forbes. Retrieved August , 2012 from http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/
Portugal drug law show results ten years on, experts say. (2011, July 1) AFP. Retrieved August 7, 2012 from http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g9C6x99EnFVdFuXw_B8pvDRzLqcA?docId=CNG.e740b6d0077ba8c28f6d1dd931c6f679.5e1
Vastag, B. (2009, April 7). 5 Years After: Portugal's Drug Decriminalization Policy Shows Positive Results. Scientific American. Retrieved August 7, 2012 from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization
If anyone still thinks that the popular assumption that making drugs legal would lead to an increase in drug use and addiction, you are very welcome to present some evidence. I could not find any when I looked.
DeleteTHis is nice example of how academic discussions go: people get an idea, others disagree, and both sides look for solid support. Out of the argument, comes a better and stronger understanding on both sides.
In this case, I have to wonder: why do so many officials want to keep drugs illegal?
The only reason I can think of is that it makes corruption easy and the dishonest officials want to keep making money from society. The only people who benefit from laws against drugs are mafia groups and corrupt officials.
Can anyone think of any good reason why some drugs should be illegal for adults who want to have fun with wine, heroin, beer, marijuana, cigars, ecstasy, whisky or whatever?
If all drugs are legal, I wonder how can they be controlled? I'm saying this because I used to buy alcohol when I was under 18 years old and my friends could buy cigarettes when they were only 16 years old. Cigarettes and alcohols are controlled by the law and they are supposed to be only for adults but young people can still provide them. Therefore,if all drugs are legal,it is not going to be easy to control. Moreover, some drugs (such as heroin) are too dangerous when people take overdose of them as we have heard that many celebrities did and they died.How can they control the amount of the usage? What is more,I don't think this will decrease corruption as people will try to pay officials in order to sale drugs more than they are allowed. Finally, many people may suffer from their effects and the government will need money to help these people which the expense of the treat might be higher than the tax they get from drug trade.
DeletePang,
DeleteThank you. Your personal examples support my idea. Even though the drug sales were illegal, that did not stop you doing what you wanted. In exactly the same way, making drugs illegal does not stop people doing what they want and what they believe to be morally OK.
When drugs such as heroin are legal, the dose is in fact easier to control because they are bought from reliable sources so that the exact strength is known, unlike now, when addicts have no idea what the mafia gangs are putting in their illegal products. Legalisation makes quality control possible, and as the statistics for Portugal show, that results in less overdoses. Legal is safer for users.
Why would business people pay police when they can already do something legally? And since less people, including police, are likely to think it's OK to sell to children, it will be much harder to bribe police, and the small sales and income will not be worth the risk. Again, teh actual facts in countries such as the US, the Netherlands and Portugal do not seem to support your assumptions.
Finally, the facts show very clearly that governments who legalise drugs such as Portugal save an enormous amount of public money which can be far more usefully spend helping citizens and solving drug problems through effective campaigns and social programs.
I know they are a bit long and difficult, but if you read the sources I've cited, the facts and statistics related there answer all of your very reasonable concerns.
Pang's ideas were excellent response writing, but as I've explained in my previous comment, I don't think they give any good, practical reason to make some dangerous drugs illegal, such as heroin and yaa baa.
DeleteBut it is actually much worse: not only are current laws a very expensive failure, they are seriously unjust.
An adult has a right to decide how they live and enjoy their lives provided that she does not harm other people against their will. Drug users, whether using wine, heroin, whisky, yaa baa, cigarettes, or whatever addictive drug they prefer, do not normally harm others. Of course, if they do harm or threaten other people, such as when people drink wine with dinner and then drive a car, they must be punished, but simply getting drunk on wine or high on marijuana does not normally harm or endanger any other person, so there is no moral justice in making such drug use illegal.
But I am very happy for you to argue against my ideas if you think I'm wrong. It's good practice for what academics do all the time.
An international poll on The Economist, "Should drugs like cocaine and heroin be legalised?", is returning a result that both surprises and encourages me: it appears that much of the world, or at least a lot of the better educated people all around the world (the readers of this highly respected international weekly tend to be university graduates and professionals), do now understand that a better solution to drug problems is to legalise all drugs.
ReplyDeleteReference
Should drugs like cocaine and heroin be legalised? (2012, August 15). The Economist. Retrieved August 26, 2012 from http://www.economist.com/what-the-world-thinks/should-drugs-be-legalised