Re: deterrence

[cgau4809@mail.usyd.edu.au]

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



Hi all,

I actually work in HIV and hepatitis research, so I have a bit to say on
the matter, and so I don't get over excited and muddle it up, I will
present it as simply as I can.

I really don't think drugs are bad. If I envisioned a perfect (or, at
least, better) society, then I would not necessarily want it to be a place
without drugs (or without MOST drugs). What I would want, however, is that
it would be a place without drug abuse and the other bad things that are
associated with drug use and abuse (such as increased poverty and crime,
increased risk of catching terrible diseases, people leaving themselves
open to exploitation, death etc.). But in my utopia (and I hope in most
peoples) I would not want those bad things that often increase in areas
where drug use is high IRRESPECTIVE of their relationship to drug use.

Crime is bad. Desperation and poverty are bad. Feeling you have to escape
the world to the extent that you badly damage yourself is bad. Catching
preventable diseases that destroy your life is bad. Dieing or "ODing"
because you ingested something that wasn't what it claimed to be is bad. I
could go on for several pages, but the point is that these things are to be
avoided within themselves. These things are not the necessary consequences
of drugs, and drug use without these things, I don't think, is a problem
that needs to be publicly regulated. I know that that could be contended,
but lets just say for the sake of argument, that we think that those
things listed above, which are just some of many problems associated with
drugs, are bad, and we want to stop them, while drug use without these
factors would not be such a terrible thing, at least not so terrible that
it had to be banned (just for the sake of argument...).

It is questionable whether banning DRUGS is a way to get rid of all the
aforementioned things (which are what really bad about drug use). Why do
we link drug use to crime and illness, for instance? Because in our
societies, which have banned drugs, these problems are still cause for
concern. Therefore I think it is the bad possible side effects of using
drugs, rather than drug use itself which needs to be of concern. Just
because one legalized drugs, even if this meant that they did not have a
moral objection to drug use, doesn't mean that they do not have a moral
objection to the bad things that sometimes come with drug use and abuse.

As, I think, Alice stated earlier, there are also bad things that come with
making drugs illegal, and from a practical point of view, these include the
fact that the majority of incarcerated persons (at least in Australian
prisons, but I would guess it would be similar for the UK) are there for
drug crimes. Apart from the cost of keeping them there, there is also the
issue that upon leaving prison people often turn out worse then when they
went in, and this is particularly the case for minor (i.e. drug related)
criminals.

How to deal with the issues, however, is not that simple. From a practical
point of view, I think that decriminalizing possession of small amounts of
drugs (or having the penalty being something rehabilitative such as forced
rehab and/or community service) would be a good place to start. Making
lesser drugs legal (i.e. marijuana, possibly ecstasy etc. - this is also
open to debate) would also just be sensible for all the reasons that Alice
has already stated, I think the most important being quality control (which
is the primary problem associated with ecstasy and speed, for instance).

I am not, however, saying this from the point of view of someone who wants
to minimalize government intervention. I don't think some drugs should be
legalized because the government shouldn't be telling us what to do, but
because banning them does more harm than good, and is unnecessary. I do
think that because there is a drug (and alcohol) problem the government
should be taking more of an active role, but this will only work if it is
not drugs themselves that are targeted, but the problems that come with
drug abuse. Anyone want to guess why it is overwhelmingly poorer areas
that have higher numbers of drug and alcohol abusers and the associated
list of problems that come with them? If it is boredom, unemployment, loss
of identity, depression that leads to drug use, isn't it possible that it
is these things, not the drugs themselves (although, of course, they
help), that are also causing higher rates of petty crime, abuse to the
point of illness, unclean or unsensible drug, and more generally,
lifestyle habits?

If a government were able to strike at the heart of these more fundamental
problems, then I think there would be less and less of a need to have a
ban on drugs, as drug use would lead to a lot less damage.

Cheers,

Cressida



Quoting Luis Johnstone <luisjohnstone@onetel.net>:

> 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
>




----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


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