To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org
Hi,
I don't have a lot of time to discuss all the points that Luis raised, so I
will just focus on one for the moment:
"> 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."
Firstly, I wanted to point out that my point about poverty being related to
drug use and other crime was not meant to be an argument to legalize drugs.
Quite to the contrary - what I was trying to say is that we: 1.have a
problem with the consequences of drug use and abuse; so we: 2. Go to the
source of the problem and attack drugs by a mixture of laws making them
illegal and programs to educate, warn and rehabilitate. I don't think that
this is unreasonable. What I was trying to say, however, is that there is a
clear, and relatively undisputed third layer which is: 3. There is a clear
link between poverty and some kinds of drug abuse and other social
problems that stem from that abuse. So - why don't we follow in the same
vein as the "drugs=crime, so lets tackle drugs" to say "poverty and
unemployment=drugs and crime, so lets tackle poverty and unemployment".
Now, am the first to agree that this could not be done by legalising drugs
- in fact I think that the legal status of drugs makes no difference to
what is an ingrained social problem. But that is why I brought it up,
because I think that if a society actually tried to solve this problem
then we could have a proper discussion about whether legalising drugs
would be the way to go.
Luis argues:
"the
issue of 'abuse' doesn't really have a heck of a lot 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."
And in this way I completely agree, but what I am trying to say is wouldn't
it actually be better if there was a way of making people more responsible,
rather than just banning things, and hoping they comply? If such a large
proportion of people in developed countries (don't worry, I'll get to
comparative poverty in a second) were not living in poor conditions, were
not suffering from the boredom of unemployment, actually had pride in
something important to them, such as culture, community, identity etc.,
for WHATEVER reason, then I really do think that drug abuse (probably as
well as other kinds of petty crime) would be not so much of a problem,
irrespective of the legal status of drugs.
I did enjoy your line "lets not excuse criminals [because of poverty]". You
argue 1. That poor people in the UK have it pretty good, and do not have to
go without not only the necessities, but the things that give meaning to
ones life; and 2. That poor people in developed countries really aren't
that poor anyway, compared to the third world.
On 1. I have to say that, while I live in Australia, so do not have as good
a knowledge of economic relations in the UK as you guys do, my family does
come from a very poor English background, have having lived in the UK for
3 months at the beginning of this year, I did see a lot of poverty and,
not even so much unemployment, but kids with nothing to do. Like you,
Luis, I am also not rich, but I am certainly not poor either. I have not
grown up in as household where people have struggled to put food on the
table, or buy new clothing, nor have I grown up in a community where many
people are out of work and encouragement and enthusiasm for pursuits that
give people something important to work towards.
I am not excusing criminals for being poor - but I am asking why we have
laws in the first place, because "punishing wrongdoers" I think, seems a
bit antiquated, and I think that reducing the amount of crime committed is
actually what most people want the law to do. Poor people (sorry to
generalise like this) may not have an excuse for, say, breaking into
someone's house for drug money, but, even if I were not to go so far as to
say that it were more understandable, that still doesn't mean that there is
not a problem that links poverty to these sorts of crimes, that if poverty
was attacked in the first place, rather than criminals being attacked
after the event, then things would be a lot better for everyone. You
cannot deny that there is a clear link between poverty and increased petty
crime, for instance, so even if it were just to protect your personal
interests, wouldn't you still want to reduce poverty, thereby reducing
petty crime?
You speak of starving Africans as the real poor people in the world, and
"If anyone has a reason to steal, fight, murder or whatever, it would be
them." This, I think, makes your argument appear inconsistent. You will
excuse people for committing crimes, you say yourself that these include
murder and fighting, so not the 'stealing a loaf of bread to feed your
starving family' kind of thing, which I really do think is excusable, if
they are poor, but only if they are REALLY poor. This is exactly excusing
criminals - as you are saying that not necessity, but bad circumstances
(even if they have to be really bad) can excuse terrible criminal actions.
I do not agree, not for the third world, and not for the first. But I do
think that there is nothing wrong with wanting to help people out of
situations that drive them to criminal activity - this is not excusing
them, but saying that it would be better, for everyone, if these people
did not live like this.
As for the claim that people in Britain (or other developed countries) are
not poor because there are people out there who are poorer, they are not
poor because they are not starving to death like some, I think this is a
ridiculous argument. Things needn't be considered bad ONLY for comparative
reasons - if everyone in the world lived as the poor of the West did, so
the starving Africans were suddenly a lot better off and the rich were
suddenly a lot worse off, therefore leaving nothing to use for comparative
purposes, I think we could still conclude that they were poor and life was
hard for them. Life may be better as a poor Westerner for people who were
once starving Africans, but that doesn't mean that life would be good - it
doesn't mean that they would not be poor. To me, you claim is akin to
saying that someone who has lost a limb shouldn't be complaining because
there are people out there who have lost all their limbs and are covered
in terrible burn scars. The loss of a limb is a terrible thing that a
person has all right to be upset about, just as living in a
poverty-stricken community is, even if things could be worse.
To finish up on this point, I will make reference to a case which is very
similar, although its special nature can be, and is, widely disputed, and
that is Aboriginal people in Australia. In Australia the majority of the
(now, comparatively, very small) Aboriginal population lives in poverty.
Excluding the Aborigines who live in rural districts, urban Aboriginal
populations are often identified by the fact that they come with high
levels of poverty, crime, drug abuse, unemployment. Now, in one sense,
these people have exactly the same opportunities as all other Australians
- equal opportunity when it comes to employment, education, public health
care, public housing, welfare benefits - so why do they insist on living
in a way that is not only bad for them, but bad for us too because it
leads to more crime etc.? There are many people who think that this is
their problem, they choose not look for work, so why should we either 1.
put our money and efforts into making life better for them and 2. try to
help them out when they commit crimes (with prison education programs, or
a newly introduced (and very successful on a small scale) program that
takes some Aboriginal inmates out to be taught about their culture and
traditions) - isn't that just excusing them for what they have done, or
how they choose to live just because they are poor or Aboriginal or both?
Now, I think that we actually have a responsibility to, say, the children
of parents who are in jail (where the Aboriginal community is
over-proportionally represented). And that there is a flaw in the argument
that people have a choice to take advantage of government facilities
provided for them, when you just look at the patterns second and third
generation unemployed, or criminals, which shows that it is obviously
extremely hard for people in these communities to break the cycles of
poverty and abuse. BUT, even if you were not to agree with this (which
many people don't) isn't it reasonable to want to put resources into
lifting people, and whole communities, out of these situations (even if
they deserve to be there), just for the sake of reducing crime that
effects the rest of us? You might not excuse a criminal, but you also
don't want them to re-offend - how sad it is that anger at them would
stifle possible solutions to the problem of criminality.
Cressida
Quoting Luis Johnstone <luisjohnstone@onetel.net>:
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 a lot 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------
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