http://www.sundayherald.com/22727

Ministers declare 'war on drugs' is over

Special Report One: Drugs
No more 'Just Say No' campaigns ... instead, harm reduction, rehabilitation and information will be the policy
By Neil Mackay Home Affairs Editor

THIS weekend Scotland's drugs minister has officially declared that the 30-year war on drugs is over. In an exclusive interview with the Sunday Herald, Dr Richard Simpson, also the deputy justice minister, said: 'The only time you will hear me use terms such as 'War On Drugs' and 'Just Say No' is to denigrate them.'
Instead Simpson has pledged to ensure that Scotland's harm- reduction, methadone, and rehabilitation services are fixed.

Simpson, who was a prison doctor, said: 'I've never used the term 'teach children how to take drugs', but what I would say is that we need to provide them with information. We need to say 'we'd rather you didn't take ecstasy, but if you make that decision, here are the risks'. We have to give them all the information they need to take responsibility for themselves.

'It's not about us wagging a finger at young people as they won't pay attention to that -- so it's not worthwhile. We've got to be very realistic and not say 'you're going to die if you take ecstasy', what we will say is 'some people do die when they take ecstasy but we don't truly know why'.'

He said that 'we can't pretend that we're going to stop the availability of drugs' or people using drugs, and the concept of 'Just Say No' had therefore been abandoned for good.

In an another interview, the UK pensions minister Ian McCartney, whose son died of a heroin overdose because he was not given methadone in jail, told the Sunday Herald: 'It wasn't a prison sentence he got, it was a death sentence. There is no sense to the current system. Going to jail harmed my son and did nothing to address the cause of crime.'

Now he is determined to change the system. 'I'm not just a government minister,' he said. 'I'm a parent too, and if I thought our strategy was flawed I wouldn't be part of it. The prevailing attitude both in and out of government towards addicts has been 'it's all your own fault'. That's why we have virtually no treatment services and a legacy of 3000 deaths a year. In 20 years, 60,000 people have died -- that's enough to fill Ibrox Stadium. That's why we need harm-reduction policies in place.'

His Scottish government colleague Simpson also edged close to support for a Royal Commission on drugs saying that the debate was 'stifled', and issues such as legalisation and decriminalisation 'have to be addressed', adding: 'We can't have a genuine debate about these issues because some of the press turn around and say that's wrong. We need to have that debate, we need to be more sophisticated about our approach. I think this parliament has to talk about it much more openly.'

As part of an in-depth Sunday Herald investigation into Scotland's drug problem, we found that some addicts wait as long as two years to get methadone. Simpson said there must be 'adequate resources' for all drug addicts and if services were not improved then 'questions would have to be asked of local health boards'.

cont...

He attacked the jailing of addicts for short prison terms : 'Drug addicts going into prison and coming back out again is a waste of public money. It neither addresses their offending behaviour nor does it cut crime. It's purposeless ... We have our priorities wrong.' He added that he would like to see 'very, very, very many fewer' addicts going to prison.

He favours exploring the concept of ecstasy testing kits in clubs to reduce risk. He is unconvinced whether or not cannabis is a gateway drug, adding that the Executive was less concerned with people possessing illegal drugs than with them resorting to crime to feed their habit.

Backing David Blunkett's plan to downgrade the criminal classification of cannabis, he said: 'We need to concentrate on the most dangerous drugs and that is class-As such as heroin and cocaine. The reason for changing the classification of cannabis -- if we chose to -- is to send a clear message about priorities. It says to young people that we recognise that all drugs aren't the same.

'If we give messages that they are all bad then we will not be believed. Young people say alcohol causes five times the deaths that drugs do. Last year there were 1500 deaths due to alcohol and 292 from drugs. From a criminal point of view young men drinking and becoming aggressive is a significant problem ... cannabis is not associated with aggression.'

Simpson said he looked on drug addiction as a health problem as well as a criminal one.

So Scotland has a clue, when will we?

Are you fucking serious?????

Probably not for awhile longer.  We have our Puritian values that get in our way.  However Scottland is in the growing number of countries doing the same.  It is good to see they are taking resposibility for their kids instead of just sending them to jail.  On another note the DEA is actually doing its own medical marijuana test finally for AIDs and cancer patients which it has not done since the early 70's.  However it might just be a face saving move because of so many screw ups on there part lately.

He's absolutely serious and we should too. You can NOT legislate morality effectively. Never have, never will.

Did his son die because he wasn't given methadone, or because he took too much heroin?   [:\]

This is how I read it.  He over dosed because there was no treatment facility in the prision and being an addict he is willing to do anything to get it.  It was probably some heroine someone smuggled in and then was cut with something really bad that got him killed.  Or he just took to much.  

Religious Feces!  (Holy S*^t!)  That's the first truly rational thing I've heard come from ANYBODY in government in quite a while!

Imagine that!  A government that has decided that [i]the proles should be responsible for themselves![/i]  Will wonders never cease?

I'm very serious, let me guess, you are one of the few that still believe in the war on citizens, er I mean drugs.

The war on drugs can never be won, for exactly the same reason that Prohibition failed.  We should learn from history.    

People will pursue their habits and addictions into the grave.  You can't stop them, they can only stop themselves.

What did prohibition get us?   Gangsters, and all that goes with it.  There was money to be made running booze, and that's exactly what they went after.   It was exactly the same as the drug dealers' turf wars we have today, except the gangsters (particularly the mafia) during Prohibition was much more thoroughly organized.

When Prohibition was repealed,  the mafia had found other vices to exploit and didn't go away.
They're involved in all the remaining vices that are regulated or outlawed.  Drugs, gambling, prostitution, racketeering.

If we stopped this stupid war on drugs that we can't win and only wastes time, money and jail space, and legalized drugs instead,  the unorganized (relatively speaking) drug trade would collapse and all the bangers would have to get jobs because they can't compete with 7-11's prices.    With no lure of big money remaining, they wouldn't be in business and there certainly wouldn't be enough money to be worth shooting about.  

Cure the crime problem.  Legalize drugs.  After all, like alcohol and tobacco use, it's a personal issue and a social one.  It shouldn't be a legal one.  

If drugs were legalized, we'd have about the same number of drug users afterwards that we do now, but they wouldn't be so secretive about it, and they would also have less inclination to break into your property to find stuff to steal and sell to support their habit, since the prices would go down.

People who don't want to use drugs still won't want to even if they're free and legal.

CJ

About time some common sense started going around.  Maybe it will catch on.

When I was in grade school they showed us what could happen if we smoked.  We had a doctor come in and present a slide show that had pics of lungs, a person without a bottom jaw, hole in the throat, etc, etc.

There was no BS.  We were told that it didn't happen to everyone, but it could happen to us.

In my entire life I have had one puff on a cigarette and smoked one cigar.  They gave me the education that I needed to make a responsible decision.  Benefits include a lower health insurance, no stains on fingers, gums or inside the home, more $$$ in my pocket and staying relatively healthier than those who smoke quite a bit.

Yes, he is serious!  Boomer, are you one of those raising hell about the loss of our rights since 9/11?  If so, you need to look at loss of rights due to the war on drugs.  It has been much greater than any loss of rights because of the war on terrorism.  Many people keep screaming about freedom and liberty, but are quick to take it away from those that they disagree with.

As for the article, I agree with some points and disagree with others.  I believe any adult should be able to do whatever they want as long as the are held responsible and are prepared to accept the consequences of their actions.  If they commit any other crime to support their habit, then have the most severe punishment inflicted upon them.  Contrary to some posts on other threads that I have seen, pot is not addictive and crime to support a pot habit is a lot of BS.  Only weak minded people who believe everything the DEA says believe that crap and it is also not a gateway drug.  More BS.

However, the article seems to indicate they will do nothing about kids doing it.  I think drugs should be regulated in the same manner as liquor with punishment for kids caught doing it and a lot of parental responsibility.

I've always admired the Scots--now it seems I have one more reason.

Never thought I'd see the day.  It'll never happen here though, because the government agencies responsible for the "war on drugs" have their budgets to justify--and we all know that government bureacracy never gets smaller, only larger.

I'm really tired of the bullshit constantly regurgitated by the supporters of the war on the drugs, such as:

1. More people will do drugs.

I say bullshit, people that want to do drugs are already doing them. People who don't want to do drugs are not going to start because it's legal.

2. To keep drugs away from the children

Once again, bullshit. Drug dealers don't ask for ID, drugs are more available to kids than alcohol. Kids that want to use drugs, are already using them. We must educate, not incarcerate. Damn now I feel like Johnny Cockring "If it don't fit, you must acquit". LOL

3. Buying drugs funds terrorists

Well this is why drugs should be legalized so profits can not be made by terrorists and gangs. Personally I feel this is total bullshit anyway and that we fund many more terrorists every time we fill our gas tanks. How much oil do we get from Saudi? How many of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi?

I've always wanted to know, why do dime bags cost 25 dollars? Why do they call it dime bags if it cost 25 bucks? I have good friends who smoke pot socially, there's nothing wrong with them. I still enjoy hanging out with them and they're still the same people, just a bit mellower when they're on pot.

By being tough on drugs we make a huge and very profitible market for the criminals. Just legalize every drug and the criminals couldn't sell drugs.

Inflation, used to cost $10. I know all kinds of people that smoke pot. Sure some are losers, and would be losers regardless of whether they smoked pot or not, and some are pillars of their community.

We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons, why would anyone think we can keep them out of our country, our cities, or our neighborhoods.

Heavy herion users must keep some amount of herion in their bodies at all times or they will die. Their bodies get so used to the heroin that without it they go into shock and die. This is what most likely happened to this man. Your senario of the man overdosing in prison is highly unlikely.

Of course not!  The war on privacy (I mean drugs) has been a big success.  Just look at a few of the wonderful things it has helped to bring us:

*Warrantless searches
*Multi-jurisdictional task forces
*Military forces involved in law enforcement
*Body cavity searches
*Over-populated prisons
*Log-jammed criminal justice systems

And best of all, your tax dollars pay for it.

We could learn a thing or two from those Scots.  It is good to see that somebody has some common sence.  Instead of concentrating on locking people up for their own good, we should switch to harm reduction.  I am tired of having bicycles and car stereos stolen so some junkie could get a five minute fix.  I am tired of escalating taxes to pay for locking people up for taking drugs.  If they jack themselves up, they need to take responsibility.

If drugs are decriminalized, I don't think there will be a huge drug binge.  After prohibition, there was a bit of a surge, but things went back to normal shortly after.  Right now, anybody that wants some drugs can get them.  The only thing legalization would do is take the profit out of it for gangs and thugs.

My only concern is that we take some of the money we save by not locking people up, and put it towards treatment and prevention.  It is not harm reduction unless people change their ways.

Yes, I remember when a dime bag actually cost $10.

Fact's for factoids....from the FBI

'Although people may think that the Drug War targets drug smugglers and 'King Pins,' in 2000, 46.5 percent of the 1,579,566 total arrests for drug abuse violations were for marijuana -- a total of 734,497. Of those, 646,042 people were arrested for marijuana possession alone. This is an increase over 1999, when a total of 704,812 Americans were arrested for marijuana offenses, of which 620,541 were for possession alone.

Marijuana Arrests and Total Drug Arrests in the US  
Year Total Drug Arrests Total Marijuana Arrests Marijuana Trafficking/Sale Arrests Marijuana Possession Arrests

2000 1,579,566 734,497 84,271 620,541
1999 1,532,200 704,812 84,271 620,541
1998 1,559,100 682,885 84,191 598,694
1995 1,476,100 588,964 85,614 503,350
1990 1,089,500 326,850 66,460 260,390
1980   580,900 401,982 63,318 338,664

Sources: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports for the United States 2000 (Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 2001), pp. 215-216, Tables 29 and 4.1; Uniform Crime Reports for the United States 1999 (Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 2000), pp. 211-212; Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports for the United States 1998 (Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 1999), pp. 209-210; FBI, UCR for the US 1995 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1996), pp. 207-208; FBI, UCR for the US 1990 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1991), pp. 173-174; FBI, UCR for the US 1980 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1981), pp. 189-191.'

          gib187th

I been looking at this post, and I tell you this

Drugs will never be legal.  Never.  

Why?  Just cause of $$$.  People can say they could tax the crap out of it.  Guess what?  Throwning some seeds in the ground, and drying it in the back shed dont take too much trouble to do.  

I hate to,but I have to agree with c-rock but they will never be legalized in the good ol U.S. because then,the Gov. wouldn't be able to fly their little black DEA choppers around and confiscate honest peoples property! (ie) their tractors,cars,homes,bank accounts,weapons,and then take them out of the work population which means they can't pay taxes. SO where can the Gov. get a better excuse to oppress its own people and perform illegal search and seizure other than keeping drugs illegal? Don't hold your breath on them being legalized!

I think things like this show that we really do not have valid representation in our govt. I remember a poll here that cleary showed over 80% thought the war on drugs was useless and should be stopped and this is a gun board filled with right leaning conservatives (no offense meant), imagine what the results would be on a left leaning liberal type board. So, clearly the american public is waking up and smelling the bullshit and saying we don't want it anymore. How much longer can the govt ignore our wishes, have they forgotten "by the people, for the people"? It seems that many of us are going through the same thing the early americans went through before the revolution, that we are being taxed, but we are not being represented. Clinton after leaving office has stated that he feels marijuana should be legal or at the very least decriminalized, why couldn't he say that while in office and do something about it. It's obvious that many politicians feel the same way but don't have the balls to say it while in office. I thought Bush would be busy with his new war on terror but yet he is still throwing away money at the drug war and allows DEA to raid cannabis clubs against all wishes of the state (and the people).

All the war on drugs is doing is:

1. Alienating an entire culture in our country
2. Filling our prisons with non-violent "criminals" causing overcrowding which causes the early release of violent criminals.
3. Ruining peoples lives - snatching property, denying student loans to kids that have been busted, which turns many of us against the government.

I predict that if the govt does not pull it's head out of it's ass and start representing the people then foriegn terrorists will the least of our concern and we will have many more domestic terrorists, really just citizens that have had enough of this BS and are willing to do something about it, or people that are already a victim of the war on drugs and have nothing left to lose.

Feels like 1984 around here with all the rights we lose, for our safety and our own good.

So, let me get this straight:

A junkie is more likely to commit a crime, so lock him up just in case.

By that logic, someone might conclude that certain minorities are statistically more likely to commit crimes, so we should lock them up just in case, too.

I'm not an expert on Scotland's laws, but my guess is that stealing or beating someone up will get you thrown in jail.

LOL, junkies are to drug users as murderers are to gun owners. Most drug users are the average looking citizens you see around you that hold jobs, pay taxes and make this country great. The govt wants you to think that everyone that uses drugs are thiefs, muggers, con artists, etc, but like most of the things the govt tells us, it just ain't true.

Blacks commit a majority of crimes, but does that mean we should round 'em up?



Using drugs is not smart.  Using drugs can make you less smart.  But, I don't think it's fair to suggest that all people who use drugs have below average intelligence.

Take it from someone who's been there - you can't legislate drugs out of society.  I was a practicing alcoholic / addict for over a decade.  Haven't touched a thing, including alcohol, in almost nine years - thank God.  All the laws in the world weren't going to keep me from using!!!  Legalize the stuff - smart people will still be smart, and burnouts will still be burnouts.  If someone commits a crime for drug money, or any other reason, hammer their ass.  Hammer them extra, extra hard for violent crimes.  Realize, however, that arresting a guy because he has a doobie is dumb, wasteful, and counter-productive.  My opinion.

Tate

The walking dead are already out stealing and robbing, so lets lock them up for that.  The majority of criminals may be drug users, but the majority of drug users are not criminals (other than the drugs).

As to taking drugs made in a third world country, if they were legal you could buy them in a pharmacy.  Problem solved.

I already said that I thought it was dumb to use drugs.  Personally,  I've never tried ANY of it.



No, but you did seem to indicate that you advocate locking people up who possess and use drugs because they commit the majority of crimes.  If you are concerned about incarcerating the people who commit the majority of crimes, we already have plenty of statistics on that.  We just need to go around and arrest all of them. [whacko]



Some people find homosexuality repugnant.  Should we criminalize that too, while we're at it?

You are right.  Freedom is what makes this country great, and the drug war has ended up being a War on Freedom.

No country of which I am aware has ever stopped a black market in anything.

(Don't forget how many LEO's lives and careers ruined by huge dollars.  Like or detest Hoover, he wouldn't let the FBI go after the Mafia because he knew many of his agents would be bribed.)

Mike103, if you would listen to what Hell and Mad are saying instead of just blindly disagreeing with everything that they say you would realize that neither one of them think that drugs are a good thing. They as well as myself believe that drugs being illegal is what is bad.

Yes, but that is because drugs are illegal. Make it legal and guess what? No more money for the terrorist, mob, gangs, etc.. And I don't even know where you are going with cop killer, child abuse nonsense. After dealing with your war on drugs for over 20 years do not try to bullshit me either. Luckily, people with your viewpoint is in the minority. Also sounds like you are a cop or something and have a vested interest in the drug war, confiscate any homes lately?

And I really like the statement you made about "people who use drugs are not smart". I know plenty of mensa members that would not agree with you as many are pot smokers. Amazingly I also have many friends with very high IQ's who have graduated at the top of their class from schools like MIT, Harvard, Yale, etc, that enjoy smoking pot and feel as I do. But I'm sure you are much smarter than all of us since you don't do drugs. Einstein used drugs, what a idiot huh?

My opinions are not likely to change as I'm pretty set in my ways. I've tried most drugs and found that I did not like them, same as alcohol. I don't think using drugs or drinking is a good thing, but I know the war on drugs is a very bad thing. I would never advocate doing drugs or drinking while handling or even carrying a gun. Sure I've tried most drugs and I did not like them. The only drug I have ever enjoyed using was marijuana and that was more for it's medicinal properties rather than a party drug.

Okay, so let's say that Scotland has a clue. But about what?

Oppressive, controlling, socialist government?

High taxes?

High unemployment?

Deadly, drunken brawls at soccer games?

Strict gun control and how to effectively disarm a populace?

Soaring crime rates?

And now they want to decriminalize drugs, destigmatize drug abusers, and turn them lose on that unarmed populace?

Sounds like a win-win plan to me! Bring it on! I can't think of a better country to emulate!

To be totally honest, while I believe that hard drugs like cocaine and heroin should always be legally frowned upon, I'm not against partial decriminalization of drugs. But we would need significant political and legal reforms in place before any decriminalization gets a nod from me. First off, NO taxpayer funded treatment. You want to do drugs, do it on your own dime and don't expect to pickpocket my tax dollars when you get in over your head. Second, MUCH stiffer legal consequences for crimes committed either under the influence of drugs or to support an addiction, including automatic death penalty for causing the death of another (this would include killing someone while driving under the influence of alcohol, too).

I seriously doubt that we will ever see that sort of accountability in your beloved Scotland. We don't and probably never will see it here, either. So until we do, I'm more willing to accept the status quo than catering to substance abusers.

And this is precisely why drugs should be legalized and regulated like alcohol or tobacco.  

Drug related gang violence?  Gone.  The mob isn't going to be able to sell drugs wgen you can got them at the drugstore or liquor store.  

Child abusers?  Most of the child abusers I hear about on the news are not mentioned in the same breath as drugs.  Drug use does not a child abuser make.  Sorry to say, but the worst drug for this is alcohol.  People get drunk, they sometimes get violent and irrational, more likely to hit their kids, or their spouse.  And many more people use alcohol.  Ban alcohol for the children!  Oh, wait, we tried that and it failed miserably.

Illegal aliens?  Well, if they are such a problem shouldn't outlawing drug make them go away?  Oh, right drugs ARE outlawed, and what does that do about illegal immigration?  Not a damn thing.

Middle Eastern terrorists?  Make all of the drugs homegrown, and again, there goes that link.

Cop killers?  Hmmm, since it's a problem already, and drugs are illegal already, maybe we should make drugs...MORE ILLEGAL!  YEAH!  That'll work.  Just as well as outlawing them did.  Legalization will certainly turn everyone into drug-crazed cop killers, right?  Just like it will make me a junkie.  Now for the really scary part...no it won't make people into junkies and murderers.

Seems odd, Mike.  You seem so virulently anti-drug, yet you present arguments in support of legalization/decriminalization.  Most of these problems that you seem so focused on would be eliminated, or at least alleviated by removing our [unconstitutional] ban on drugs.  So until the government comes to its senses, smoke 'em if you got 'em.  

You forgot one the CIA..........Gib187th

Bravo, Scotland!

I can't think of a better course of action to be taken by sane and reasonable people in this situation.

Interdiction will never stop the flow of drugs or any other "product". As long as a demand exists for ANYTHING, there will always be SOMEONE to provide the supply to the consumer.

Education, to me is by far a superior plan than eradication.

I am not saying that drugs are good for anyone but neither is a "Reefer Madness" mentality. I am grateful that I was able to stop using/abusing drugs years ago, but I know many more have/can not.

Educate with truth, not the outright BS that has been perpetrated on us in the past that even a geekin' hop head could see through.

Sorry, I didn't mean to step onto the soapbox. I guess I just wanted say why not try something else? What we have been doing for the last couple of decades sure as hell hasn't worked.

mongo  

You're missing the point.  We will still have laws against property crimes and crimes of violence.  What we won't have is warrior cops bashing in people's doors and cases of mistaken identity where people get shot and killed.  No more DARE, no more bullshit propaganda.

We might even get some of our cherished freedoms back from the brink of extinction.  

Hell, I'd even go as far as volunteering my time to take all the drugs we can find and putting them out on every street corner--give them away free by the truckload to any fool that wants them. In no time at all, the street price will plummet so low that all the gangstas in the 'hood will have to go find a new racket or sell their Mercedes' to a used car dealer (or commit a crime of violence worthy of being locked up for, I suppose).

I'd much rather see money pouring into healthcare rehab services than into police agencies whose corruption only grows in lockstep.  It's insane.  

Y'know, after I made that last post it suddenly occurred to me that mike103 has instigated other arguments on the very same subject in the past by taking the headstrong line.  I think he's a troll.

Well we can't all be open minded, logical thinking people can we, who would we argue with? And someone needs to believe the govt. propaganda otherwise the billions they spend on it would be wasted. [rolleyes]

Will you feel the same about legalisation when your child is hit and killed by a stoned motorist? Its bad enough with just the drunks and you want more of these folks? It's a personal issue; the addict needs to face it and walk away as there's no other way to stop it. So by saying it's ok now, we are making it easier for them to justify their slavery.