[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,

Cressida-

Of course drugs don't necessarily entail the stereotypical consequences of drug-abuse. But hey, I think there's a strong connection there.
No one is arguing that if we end drug abuse then there will be no more problems. What I might suggest is that those consequences which are the result of drug-abuse could be avoided if drug-abuse didn't occur. If a crack-addict stabs someone for their wallet then that's a drug-related crime. Does getting rid of the addict stop there being stabbings and robberies in general? NO. But, it might stop those which are preventable- and if some crimes are drug-abuse related then it seems reasonable to think that if a given person was not abusing-drugs then they wouldn't have committed that crime.
'If S hadn't been addicted then S wouldn't have done X'- isn't that a reasonable line of thinking?
-

I'm not sure what your point is regarding societies which ban drugs. Are you of the opinion that if drugs were legal then drug-related crime would decrease or something?
-

"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."

Drug-dealing is illegal- that's why the prisons are full of drug-dealers and users. Let's not pretend that these people are 'inside' for passing a few joints.
Both of the latter points could be addressed to any other group. Indeed, why not just let paedophiles stay out of jail due to the expense and low-probability of reforming the offender. Or is there a convenient line being drawn between causing children to suffer and causing adults to suffer? Perhaps the difference is that drug-users can (arguably) choose whether they allow themselves to be harmed, whereas children cannot. But, I don't find it persuasive at all.
But then, perhaps I'm being unfair in using such an emotive example:
What about loan-sharks? These people live to make money off the misfortune and weak-wills of people. Surely they deserve to go to prison since they certainly do harm people (even at their tacit consent by verbal agreement)? I don't think it's fair for us to think that a drug-addict tacitly offers their consent to being abused. Indeed, I might argue that they are unable to do so.
Once one is 'in bed' with a loan-shark one has a metaphorical gun pointed at ones head- you have to do things to make the shark happy or else he'll 'eat' you. In the same way, once one is addicted to drugs you have another kind of gun pointed at your head. Sure, an addict doesn't HAVE to take drugs or steal etc but, then no one really has to do anything. It's not an issue of what options we actually have open to us- it's about which options we know about and, most importantly, which ones we BELIEVE we can choose.
-

You talk about the legalisation of drugs:
I wonder if we ought to legalise guns and ordinance as well. I mean, if we legalised them then we'd automatically have a registration process (thus helping the police to trace weapons used in crimes) and we wouldn't have to worry about people using dodgy weapons that could backfire and blow their hands into pieces, or nail-bombs which were properly designed so they'd go off. But, then maybe you're right and we could legalise just the 'small' guns. I mean surely no harm will come of this.
Of course, I'm being unnecessarily facetious but, here's my point: the issue of 'abuse' doesn't really have a heck of alot to do with the object of the abuse (e.g. drugs or weapons). The real problem here is responsibility. Hey, if everyone could be responsible then we could legalise drugs and firearms tomorrow. But people aren't responsible- least of all when they are hooked on drugs.
Now, giving such people enough rope to hang themselves by holding them fully responsible for any crime they commit as the result of that drug-abuse is all fine and dandy but, the fact is that it doesn't seem to be doing the trick. There's no point in giving such people room to be responsible when they just aren't up to handling that responsibility. And, if they cannot take/ handle that responsibility then they shouldn't be taking drugs in the first place. Of course, there are many people who didn't mean to get hooked on drugs, and it is these people who the average bloke on the street needs protection from.
I say: If you want to take drugs then take them. If you want to get addicted then get addicted. But, take the responsibility for that choice. And I'm not talking about some wishy-washy notion of responsibility in which a person just 'recognises' that they acted freely. I'm talking about ACTIVE responsibility where a person ACTS responsibly by not only recognising their free choices but, also both recognising AND acting upon the obligation that this knowledge entails- namely, the obligation not to let your personal choices effect others.
It's simple: Don't choose to do that which will harm others.
I mean, how do you stop a bullet from harming another person? Simple: use the gun away from the effective-range of others.
In the case of addicts who, one 'might' argue, cannot help themselves:
How do you stop a gun that's being aimed in public from harming others? By not loading the gun. The moral is: if a person can't handle their liquor then they'd better not drink.
And there are those cases where people didn't intend to get addicted: sad cases indeed (as are they all). But kiddies, it doesn't matter if you intended to get hooked on crack or if you intended to get drunk- in either case it's clear that your intentions weren't enough to keep others safe from you. And that's why druggies who commit crimes and drug-dealers are in prison.
Heck, if drug-dealers, for example, didn't intend for their businesses to cause rising crime-levels it wouldn't make any difference. The fact is that when it comes to narcotics, drink etc people lose the ability to act with the best of intentions- and there's a BIG difference between HAVING good intentions and ACTING with good intentions. Anyone can have good intentions: drug-dealers, pimps, paedophiles, mass-murderers, they can all have good intentions. But, you know what, some of them just can't act with good intentions. They either believe that their intentions are actually directed at good or that they cannot help that their actions are not achieving that good. Now, I don't want to lump druggies into the same category as psychopaths and paedophiles since I think that druggies DO know that when they commit crimes, it is wrong. And so, we're back at Akrasia (weakness of the Will). If you have a weak Will then you cannot ACT responsibly.
Thus, if you're an ex-drunk you know that one swig of boose and you'll not be able to stop- you cannot ACT responsibly. And if you cannot act responsibly with regard to something (e.g. drugs, alcohol, firearms) then you shouldn't take them. But, let's be realistic about the reality of a kind of second-order responsibility. Sometimes one does not know that one cannot act responsibly until one tries to undertake that responsibility. Thus, the alcoholic didn't know he was going to become dependent upon drink until he/ she started drinking. But, by then the damage has already been done.
Do people need to be protected from addicts? Yes, sometimes.
Do people need to be protected from themselves? Yes, sometimes.

And that's how I want to finish this point because I don't like referring to people as 'addicts' and 'drunks' as if they already had some kind of disease.
-

Perhaps we should just legalise drugs and thereby 'pacify' these poverty-stricken areas you're talking about.
But then, in my book being poor is no justification for crime (and no, I'm not rich). Being poor might make crime and drug-use seem like easy options but that's not peculiar to poor people.
Indeed, it's at times like this that I think about those heart-wrenching foreign-aid adverts asking us to send our money to save the starving children of Africa. Now THEY are poor. If anyone has a reason to steal, fight, murder or whatever, it would be them.
Why should people in this country steal or commit crime? If you are unemployed you get a flat/ room given to you and your rent etc paid for you. Plus you get money to live on and travelling expenses to find work (I know this from experience). Of course there are people who earn little money but they are certainly much better off than people in other countries. Let's not excuse criminals.

Respectfully,

Luis Johnstone.



cgau4809@mail.usyd.edu.au wrote:

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







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