[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Home]

Re: deterrence



To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


Greetings,

Alice-

Well, there's no point plonking a scarecrow in the middle of a bank to deter bank-robbers since they have no significant reason to fear it.
The solution doesn't really have that much todo with the deterrent- it's to do with giving people reasons to fear the deterrent. Take the example of a cat: a water spray is a good way to deter cats from doing certain thing- but, it's not such a good deterrent against bank-robbers. But suppose that you brain-washed the bank-robbers into fearing water-sprays, THEN it would be a deterrent. Simple conditioning.
The trouble with all these things that are supposedly bad for you is that they're not actuall bad for you. Specifically, they are not bad for today's you. They might be seriously bad news for next year's you but, that isn't you now- and it's you now who's making decisions for you-tomorrow. People will let danger get closer even if it's a forseeable harm. What they need is to have a shock put into them- the instinct for preservation of 'you-today' is extremely strong; so, the best way to do this would be to indoctrinate people into strongly associating the you of today with the future-you.
This along with presenting alternative ways of dealing with life (alternative to drug use) combined with plenty of support might well help too. But then, I'm not just talking about medical centres and student unions having a councillor on hand (although that's a start). I'm talking about an extremely large-scale change in people's attitudes towards eachother. I'm not into the bible but "love thy neighbour" is a solid guide.


Respectfully,

Luis Johnstone

Alice Evans wrote:

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


** For Your Eyes Only **

right, it may not be a pre-emptive solution, it may not be the whole solution to the problem but i do think that there is a strong case to made for legalisation in that it would help those already involved with hardcore drugs. as for stopping those thinking about doing so, i guess there are two arguments,

deterrence, make the life of drugs so unbearably awfully that no one would want to do so. i think this fails because we evidently dont think about consequences much,

people drive those wretched 4*4s despite a mountain of evidence for global warming;
people have baths and use sprinklers, even though one hour of the latter is equivalent to the amount of water a family of 6 would use in a day even though we're facing major water shortages this summer;
people smoke, use sunbeds, drink and eat filthy-additive laden food when its very obvious these all have horrific consequences on one's health.

evidently, deterrence is a crap way to deter... (if you follow)
the criminal justice system recognises this and thus does not enforce harsher penalties to serve the purpose of deterrence alone, instead their is greater focus on learning skills etc.

so, you see, people pay little attention to how bad something could be, if they do it. so i dont think the argument against legalisation, in that it wouldnt deter is really applicable here.

?




Luis Johnstone <luisjohnstone@onetel.net> 07/22/05 3:41 PM >>>


To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


Greetings,

Alice-

I'm not sure that dealing with the problems people have once they become drug-addicts is going to solve the problem of people becoming drug-addicts in the first place.
In fact I would have thought that it would make such a 'life-style' (if I'm not being too crass to use that word) less unappealing than it already is.
I'm all for helping those who need help. However, we can plug all the holes on the bottom of the ship but, unless we deal with the termites we're eventually going to be overwhelmed- metaphorically speaking, of course, lol.
I'm not sure that helping 'druggies' to become better and safer 'druggies' is much of an improvement when compared to helping 'druggies' to get clean. Sure, it's a nice idea but, we shouldn't be satisfied with it and think that it's the answer to the problem.


Respectfully,

Luis Johnstone.

Alice Evans wrote:



To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


** For Your Eyes Only **

ok, druggies, (just joshing), in practical terms, how do u guys feel about legalisation?

the case for is that in the current climate drug users are often trapped in an ugly underworld of crime etc. but legalisation would allow for regulation, protecting those who are effectively forced into such patterns by current law. its analogous to the argument for legalising prostitution. in countries were prostitution is illegal the girl (im not being presumptuous and sexist, it just generally is), lacking state protection is forced to look to her pimp for protection, he then has ultimate control over her and she's buggered, no pun intended. she cant make claims against her pimp because to report any offence would first require that she admit to being a prostitute, in finland, any suspected prostitute immigrant is immediately deported, hence the government is effectively endorsing this subculture of violence, dependence, exploitation and abuse.

government run centres where heroin addicts could inject themselves would also provide clean places etc, no sharing filthy needles etc. and if it was dispensed by nurses then ppl could be weaned off. couple this with greater education etc. and bingo?

i guess the argument against is that it sends out the wrong message etc.

so, chaps, thoughts?



This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.



Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm









Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm


This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.



Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm







Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm