Comments on: Time for another Singapore rant

By: Larry

Larry — Sun, 26 Jun 2005 07:53:00 +0000

I defy you to justify this. No, go on, fucking try and justify that. I fucking dare you.

David Duff seems to have taken up your challenge.

By: Natalie Solent

Natalie Solent — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 03:46:00 +0000

EG, I haven't commented on this thread for a while because others were already saying what I wanted to. But while lurking I've tried to think of arguments that might appeal to you, rather than the absolute rights arguments that appeal most to me.
How about this? You say that enforcement of drugs laws can be done without massive corrutpion, but the leaders need to show will. If governments show decisive and confident leadership, people will catch it from them. I hope that is a fair summary.
But why does the will need to come from laws or governments? There have been great upsurges in will throughout history, for causes good and bad.
The temperance movement had much better success in saving individuals from alcoholism than it did in its parallel (and to my mind, bad) objective of banning alcohol. The present campaign against cigarette smoking has succeeded in making smoking unfashionable. I think it may lose all it has gained by getting the law on its side, as it probably will. But it shows you can have popular will to fight addictions without the use of law and its attendant corruption.

A separate point is that when there is a prohibition in force the types of drug/alcohol that are easiest to smuggle flourish. This means small, high value packages: i.e. the hard stuff.

By: Squander Two

Squander Two — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:35:00 +0000

> If I was the UK government I could have solved the IRA problem overnight by simply getting the army to go to all of their homes one evening and shooting everyone in the household and their neighbours (just to be sure) in the head.

If I may suggest it, a better example here would be using the above method to eradicate TB from China, since that actually happened. Result? The Chinese no longer trust doctors, no longer reoprt their illnesses, and we got the SARS epidemic before any Chinese medical authorities could react. It's almost as if this extreme repression approach is counterproductive in all areas of life.

By: Chris b

Chris b — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:00:00 +0000

Did Tony Martin farm Opium poppies then?
No wonder the gypo's kept trying to knock over his house
;)

By: Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:40:00 +0000

Yes, but you can’t argue for a general principle if the only examples you can cite run counter to this. Cite some examples.

EG, you seem to miss the point that ‘will’ cannot be magicked from nothingness. In order to inculturate this will, we need to use methods, or change our structures – or something. Nothing is not enough. How do you propose giving the police the will to do what you ask. You do not think that it involves giving them anymore powers, so where do you expect this to come from?

By: Chris b

Chris b — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:39:00 +0000

"A LAW is invalidated by a single contrary instance"
Ah if only.... Has anyone told the High Court? :-)

By: Chris b

Chris b — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:37:00 +0000

EG correct you didn't suggest it was required and stated
"Yes, the Taliban is a good example. It demonstrates that where the government has the desire and confidence to do something, and where it can motivate enough of the people, then that something becomes a done thing. Virulent theocratic repression is not necessary for this, of course."

I totally disagree and was trying to point out that the only reason for the 'motivation' of the people was because of the "virulent theocratic repression".
Can you imagine thar a cash crop and subsistence farmer with 6 children to feed and a wife to look after is going to abandon his only source of hard currency because someone asks him nicely not to??!?! Get real, it's back to good old economics again....

EG If your only point is that with enough 'will' you can get a view enforced on a population then so what? If I was the UK government I could have solved the IRA problem overnight by simply getting the army to go to all of their homes one evening and shooting everyone in the household and their neighbours (just to be sure) in the head.

It's a similar argument to strategic bombing, it doesn't work unless taken to it's locical conslusion, which is politically (and I'd argue almost morally) impossible.

I think what most of us posting believe is that other than living in a virtual police state, which would be a pyrrhic victory, there are other ways to deal with the associated problems which would be:
a) cheaper
b) less likely to seriously impinge on your personal liberty
c) Far more humane
d) will, after removing the nasty externalities associated with drug abuse, allow the root causes to be addressed

And technical point, yes Opium production had almost stopped in 2001. However that was more to do with the fact that the prior years had seen bumper crops and there was a mountain of heroin still unsold, basic economics again... You produce 70-80% of world heroin, there's a glut in the market depressing prices, so what do you do to raise the price? Bingo!! restrict supply..... Funnily enough the years following 2001 returned to bumper opium production....

Drug prohibition hasn't worked for the last 100 years practically anywhere in the world at moderating supply or demand, both have risen inexorably. Why not just accept the war on drugs was lost long ago... There is another way.

Jesus I sound like the Natwest adverts.....

By: Euan Gray

Euan Gray — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 08:49:00 +0000

"That'll be news to every scientist and philosopher in history"

No, it won't. It's a commonly accepted position that a general principle is not invalidated by a specific non-conforming example. A LAW is invalidated by a single contrary instance, but a PRINCIPLE is not.

By: N.I.B.

N.I.B. — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 08:30:00 +0000

I think it might be – and we haven’t even mentioned Tony Martin yet…

By: Squander Two

Squander Two — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 08:09:00 +0000

> Reports ... demonstrate that opium production in Afghanistan had virtually ceased by the summer of 2001.

Along with every other type of production.

Euan, you seem to have missed the point that the Taleban didn't stop drug production through mere will-power. They used methods. Yes, those methods can work. No, no sane person wants to live anywhere where they're used. Your bizarre insistence that the Taleban could have succeeded using different methods because they had will-power is based on what, exactly? Or, if you don't think they could have succeeded with different methods, what on Earth is your point?

Criminalising drugs makes the profits from the drug trade astronomical. A trafficker near the top of the tree can make tens of millions in one afternoon. This enables them to hire private armies, including people who are willing to risk the death penalty in return for living like kings. That's why you can't beat these gangs with a normal police force operating inside reasonable laws. They're armies; you fight them with armies. That can be done at sea and in remote jungle areas, with some success. But do you really want to try it in Plymouth or Birmingham?

> you cannot argue against a general principle by citing a specific instance

That'll be news to every scientist and philosopher in history. But, hey, what did they know?

John, is this your longest comments thread ever?