Primetime Investigates - War Without End

A look at the war on drugs, from attempts to eradicate the sources in Colombia and Afghanistan, to border controls and policing in Europe/N. America

Did anyone see it ?

It made a very strong case for the lifting of prohibition. I found myself being considerably swayed by the arguments.

Watchable here http://www.rte.ie/news/primetimeinvestigates/

The big question was how can we let something so dangerous go unregulated ?

Bloody good question if you ask me.

Edit: I think this is the paper from the UCC guy on the programme.
http://www.ndc.hrb.ie/attached/824-0775.pdf

It is also worthy to note that in 1998, the UN had vowed to make the world drug free by 2008.

It was an interesting programme but I thought it was very one-sided. The few people against legalisation had very little time and they seemed either patronising (the European guy) or agressive (the American).
That being said, I am strongly pro-legalisation/regulation. I really think it is complete foolishness to leave the trade in the hands of criminals. Like prostitution, drugs have been around for a long time and will continue to be around for longer than any of us will live.

I have watched some of that on what has been a busy night. The drug war is a farce of course to keep about a million cops paid. What person under 50 has never done drugs. The problem is people do not want to mind their own business. I don't care if a person snorts a 4 stone bag of flour. Were these lads on the first part real guards. They would be better off finding the lads that tied the old man to the chair.

youngdan wrote:

What person under 50 has never done drugs.

Lots in fact.

Never even tried a bit of weed ?. I had even more craic when I was in college than I realised.

AfricanDave wrote:

youngdan wrote:

What person under 50 has never done drugs.

Me. If you exclude alcohol.

Ibid.

Save for a very peculiar experience I once had, but I would not term it experimenting with drugs as such.

Never snacked on a smoker then Lestat ?

People, the original question please.

Is prohibition on drugs working ? (I think not)
Would you call the current setup prohibition ? (I think so)
Would it be better legalised and regulated ? (I don't know, but suspect it could not be any worse)

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

People, the original question please.

Is prohibition on drugs working ? (I think not)
Would you call the current setup prohibition ? (I think so)
Would it be better legalised and regulated ? (I don't know, but suspect it could not be any worse)

Agreed - Government to take over supply (that take the "cool" out of it pronto) - would bring prices right down ( get the illegals out of it if there aint any serious profit in it) - would regulate the quality (90% of overdoses are due to additives and thinners added) and then make sure the taxes on it pay for the healthcare of the individuals involved and organisation needed.

I can't think of a less worse solution - prohibition just doesn't work

then again - most folks would just prefer to put their heads in the sand and pretend it just doesn't and wont happen to them or their nearest and dearest - like that wonderful solution we have to abortion here.

If we accept that alcohol and cigarettes are addictive drugs then I think we could do worse.

Most of the damage to mind and body is done by the legal drugs.

Increasing the price seems to be the best way of reducing consumption. Or perhaps we should hand the whole matter over to the Taliban who according to the UN completely knocked out opium/heroin production in Afghanistan.

Lestat wrote:

AfricanDave wrote:

youngdan wrote:

What person under 50 has never done drugs.

Me. If you exclude alcohol.

Ibid.

Save for a very peculiar experience I once had, but I would not term it experimenting with drugs as such.

It seems, Lestat, that you have misquoted me.
I definitely didn't say this, as it's wrong on so many levels.
I don't drink.

AfricanDave wrote:

Lestat wrote:

AfricanDave wrote:

youngdan wrote:

What person under 50 has never done drugs.

Me. If you exclude alcohol.

Ibid.

Save for a very peculiar experience I once had, but I would not term it experimenting with drugs as such.

It seems, Lestat, that you have misquoted me.
I definitely didn't say this, as it's wrong on so many levels.
I don't drink.

We'd better get the garlic out AfricanDave. I think that Evo said it, but his post is gone....

Well I didn't say it. I'd much prefer to take drugs than to drink alcohol.
In saying that it's been quite a while since I've taken drugs (Drugs are more of a youthful endeavour and I don't have the patience for them any more)
But back on topic -
No, prohibition doesn't work.
Yes, the current regime is definitely prohibition.
It would be better regulated.

I think the best thing the state can do for heroin addicts is to give it out for free.
Or even better, set up centres in the towns worst affected that would be something like social welfare offices. A heroin addict can show up at 8 o clock in the morning, do a day's work like sweeping streets or whatever, then at the end of the day is given a few euros and enough heroin to feed their habit.
What could go wrong? Free slave labour and dramatically reduced petty crime rates.

Cannabis is a no brainer and as far as I'm concerned should be mandatory (To quote Bill hicks)

I would have reservations about legalised cocaine though. Having taken a lot of cocaine and experienced some problems with the drug I know from experience that it is very very dangerous.
Other drugs like LSD and ecstasy wouldn't be too bad because they have such a strong impact on the body it would be very hard to take them continuously for prolonged periods of time.

What parents, teachers, children and the Government need to do is significantly increase the ages at which children first taste alcoholic drinks and take narcotics.

The Irish Times Health Supplement did a piece about a month ago which showed that teenagers which began to drink in their late teens were four times less likely to develop alcohol dependency than those who started in their early teens.

If people start drinking and taking other drugs like heroin, cocaine, hash and ecstasy later in life, a lot of the successive problems of addiction and drug-related crime can be solved.

What about children in France and Spain etc who supposedly start drinking wine with their dinner around the age of 13...?
Doesn't this help to normalise moderate drinking and show that drinking is no big deal?
I know from when I drank as a teenager that I never really liked drinking but I did it because I wasn't allowed to.

AfricanDave wrote:

What about children in France and Spain etc who supposedly start drinking wine with their dinner around the age of 13...?
Doesn't this help to normalise moderate drinking and show that drinking is no big deal?
I know from when I drank as a teenager that I never really liked drinking but I did it because I wasn't allowed to.

Well, I'm talking about drinking in an Irish(and also British) context. The average amount of pure litres of alcohol consumed in those countries is much lower than in Ireland and I cannot see our culture change sufficiently to see us matching their lower rates of alcohol consumption which are more spread out through the week. We drink lots and intermittently, Continentals drink little and often.

Therefore, in our cultural context, I feel that staving the day of the first drink off into the future is our best bet.

See, I think the best way to solve Ireland's drink problem is to make it more widely available.
In Ireland, the only place you can really go for a drink is in pubs, which are essentially drinking centres.
That means that in Ireland, the actual event being attended is drinking or going to the pub.
In most European countries you can get drink in cinemas, museums, at the theatre etc.
This means you can go out to do something and have a drink to complement the event, as opposed to Ireland where drinking IS the event.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

What parents, teachers, children and the Government need to do is significantly increase the ages at which children first taste alcoholic drinks and take narcotics. ....

I don't agree with that at all. Mostly because it is un-doable. Highly un-doable. And the other reason is that kids don't give a fart for statutes.

Speaking of which.

Could this be prevented by replacing prohibition with regulation ?

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Speaking of which.

Could this be prevented by replacing prohibition with regulation ?

This is an interesting question.
I would imagine that regulation would take control of the market out of the hands of criminals etc, but when it comes to children it's a different question.
Obviously if drugs were regulated they would only be available to people over the age of 18 or so.
Where does this leave teenagers who want to take drugs. Would they go down the route they do now with alcohol and either steal it from their parents or get someone's older brother etc to buy it for them?
Regulation could lead to an increase in children/teenagers being prosecuted for dealing.....?
It might be a different offence though. Maybe something similar to the existing offence of purchasing alcohol on behalf of a minor?

Why should it be any of my business if they want to do drugs

youngdan wrote:

Why should it be any of my business if they want to do drugs

Nobody said it should be your business Dan.

AfricanDave wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Speaking of which.

Could this be prevented by replacing prohibition with regulation ?

This is an interesting question.
I would imagine that regulation would take control of the market out of the hands of criminals etc, but when it comes to children it's a different question.
Obviously if drugs were regulated they would only be available to people over the age of 18 or so.
Where does this leave teenagers who want to take drugs. Would they go down the route they do now with alcohol and either steal it from their parents or get someone's older brother etc to buy it for them?
Regulation could lead to an increase in children/teenagers being prosecuted for dealing.....?
It might be a different offence though. Maybe something similar to the existing offence of purchasing alcohol on behalf of a minor?

It is a tough one Africa. I'm gonna have to think about it. Stuff that happens always seems obvious after the fact, but usually thoroughly unpredictable before the fact.

Well shag ye anyway, I'll never get round to answering all the threads I need to visit if ye don't stop putting up interesting new threads

I did a lot of drugs when I was younger. Mind you, I never checked out the addictive ones like coke, smack or speed. I was also a volunteer with the Samaritans for a few years. Why would I speak about the Samaritans in relation to drugs?

It's like this:

When I first joined the Samaritans, suicide was still an unlawful act. On top of the stupidity of this, the criminalisation of suicide was causing major problems and preventing the compilation of accurate statistics with regard to the numbers of suicides taking place in Ireland. Because suicide was seen to be an antisocial act (to understate the case severely), many suicides were not being classed as suicides, in order to protect surviving families and friends from social stigmas. For this and for many other reasons, there was a big move ongoing to have suicide decriminalised. With a lot of work, patience and heartache for survivors, friends, families and organisations, suicide was finally decriminalised. Finally, we could compile accurate statistics and inform the public of what we'd long suspected: suicide was at an epidemic rate. Of course, nothing has happened since then and certain politicians have made a name for themselves by pretending to give the vaguest of fucks about it. But that's a different story...

Anyway, with suicide having been decriminalised, the last moral and logical argument for the continued criminalisation of drugs and users was done away with. Afterall, if the State recognises (finally) that the individual has a supreme right to take his or her life, then it stands to reason, that no matter what the individual ingests and no matter what the result of this ingestion on the individual is, it's none of the State's bloody business.

Are drugs dangerous? Yes, absolutely.

Can drugs cause death? Again, yes, absolutely.

Have I got the right to hang myself? Yes, absolutely.

The arguments for the criminalisation of drugs are as coherent and logical as an argument about criminalising cars and roads would be.

What about the black-market economy that's here and thriving? Yup, it's scummy and is populated by utter scum who'd sell their mother's to make a few bob or indeed, just to be seen as the nasty bastards that they are. Decriminalise drugs and you destroy this insidious economy. You all but put an end to criminal gang activity, period. You free up thousands of Gardaí to tackle criminal acts that are their business. You save hundreds of millions that can be invested in Ireland rather than being pissed away on a futile pseudo-moral crusade. And indeed, you stop the public from squandering billions on enriching scumbags who basically take this money out of legitimate circulation. You also put an end to decent folks having to consort with utter scum and you'd free up much needed prison spaces. (Currently, more than half of all prison spaces are taken up by those who are serving three months or less.) If drugs were decriminalised, folks could grow their own - this might possibly reduce the vast amount of money thrown at alcohol pushers and might encourage intimate social gatherings that might take place in the home, rather than the pub.

Okay, rant over. Ahhhhh... I feel much better now.

AfricanDave wrote:

I'd much prefer to take drugs than to drink alcohol.

Cannabis is a no brainer and as far as I'm concerned should be mandatory (To quote Bill hicks)

I would have reservations about legalised cocaine though. Having taken a lot of cocaine and experienced some problems with the drug I know from experience that it is very very dangerous.
Other drugs like LSD and ecstasy wouldn't be too bad because they have such a strong impact on the body it would be very hard to take them continuously for prolonged periods of time.

Alcohol is regulated but is it a good model of recreational drug use in our society ? ... Probably ecstasy should be legalised though I've never taken it; cannabis never agreed with me whenever I smoked it but I persisted and it agreed with me less and less

hmm I wonder what hallucinogenics are like ...

Now, cocaine and that stuff - narcotics. This is downright dangerous shite for once and for all. It's fine as long as you're not addicted and I believe it's very easy to get addicted - is this true ? It baffles me how apparently sophisticated people end up hooked on white powder - isn't awareness of the problems associated with narcotics or opiates or whatever they're called a bit more sophisticated than falling into a social trap of taking such hard recreational drugs ? How do people get educated on the dangerous simplicity involved in addicting yourself to cocaine ? (I'd have reservations about legalising it too but I think addicts should go nowhere near jails anyway )

Hermes wrote:

Are drugs dangerous? Yes, absolutely.

Can drugs cause death? Again, yes, absolutely.

Have I got the right to hang myself? Yes, absolutely.

The arguments for the criminalisation of drugs are as coherent and logical as an argument about criminalising cars and roads would be.

So you are totally in favour of liberalising access to and use of drugs then? Isn't there more to the arguments against some drugs than the individual danger aspect though Hermes ? I'm not very aware of the arguments for or against it. Isn't there social problems, crime, family difficulties - although the scale of similar issues associated with alcohol could make cocaine etc. addiction look like a visit to Santa Clause.