# Recreational drug users are responsible for organised crime gangs



## room305 (4 Nov 2007)

I see that today, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin [broken link removed] to the growing list of those condemning recreational drug users for gangland crimes.



> Archbishop Diarmuid Martin today unleashed a scathing attack on recreational drug users, accusing of them of being inherently connected to gangland violence.


I find this tortuous logic deplorable but perhaps understandable in a very naive and simplistic way. What perplexes me however, is why this logic only ends up being deployed in relation to recreational drug use.

For example, why are the same people not accusing purchasers of Chinese goods as being "inherently connected to" the genocide in Darfur, or why are buyers of American products never castigated for supporting to ongoing war and "ruination of lives, many of them young and vulnerable" in Iraq?


----------



## Sn@kebite (4 Nov 2007)

room305 said:


> For example, why are the same people not accusing purchasers of Chinese goods as being "inherently connected to" the genocide in Darfur, or why are buyers of American products never castigated for supporting to ongoing war and "ruination of lives, many of them young and vulnerable" in Iraq?


Maybe because he only values Irish lives? But I'm sure if we googled we'd find other acts made by him to show he does care about more people.
btw, are you a recreational drug user and that's why this annoyed you? Just curious.


----------



## terrysgirl33 (4 Nov 2007)

Doesn't it make sense?  If there was no money in smuggling drugs into the country, no-one would bother doing it.  There are people who pay a lot of attention to where the goods they buy are sourced.


----------



## z103 (4 Nov 2007)

I can't see anything wrong if an adult wants to willingly use recreational drugs, as long as they are not addicted to them (eg alcoholic). There are many thing people get addicted to, sex, gambling etc.

I also can't see a problem with people growing or processing recreational drugs.

The problem is the way which most governments deal with recreational drugs. They make them illegal, which spawns illicit trade and all the other nasty stuff.

I was a recreational drug user and throughly enjoyed them. Among the best decisions I ever made. I still drink, so maybe this shouldn't be in the past tense.


----------



## contemporary (5 Nov 2007)

how do the drugs get here? organised criminals. who do they sell it to? drug users, 1+1=2. cant stand the bishop tbh but he is right on this occasion


----------



## shnaek (5 Nov 2007)

Vincent Browne had an excellent article on this point in the Sunday Business Post last week. He pointed out that:

"There have been about 53 murders or suspected murders since the beginning of 2007 ... Of the 53 murders, only 13 can be attributed to gangland crime. That is less than a quarter. So how come politicians and others repeatedly convey that the murder problem is almost exclusively a gangland phenomenon? ... The problem with the misdiagnosis about crime is that wrong remedies are applied, remedies that damage the fabric of our civil liberties."

This argument also applies to drug use. Misdiagnosis and hysteria are no use to us when it comes to framing legislation. Many governments like to have rigidly controlled societies. Any excuse to crack down on civil liberties is welcome - such as the waffle produced by Mary McAleese and the good bishop on the link between recreational drug users and gang crime. This is a simplistic view which suits the nicely insulated small mind, a view which fails to take in broader matters - such as why drugs are illegal in the first place. 

Vincent Browne goes on to point out: "As for this stuff about consumers of spamspamspam and cocaine being part of a web that reinforces gangland crime, isn’t the truth more obvious: that all this gangland stuff - or most of it, nowadays - arises from the criminalisation of private behaviour we would not tolerate in another sphere?"

If we supplied, regulated and educated we would be much better off as a society and the Gardai would be free to focus their attention on other matters. Serious drug users would not be mugging and assaulting people (as they themselves said on Joe Duffy's show last week) in order to feed their massively overpriced and illegally supplied addiction. Alas this is the tough and unpopular route, and thus a route our government are sure not to take.


----------



## ClubMan (5 Nov 2007)

contemporary said:


> how do the drugs get here? organised criminals. who do they sell it to? drug users, 1+1=2. cant stand the bishop tbh but he is right on this occasion


Can't disagree with that myself either. Consumers of illegal drugs are breaking the law and contributing to wider criminality. It's not rocket science.


room305 said:


> What perplexes me however, is why this logic only ends up being deployed in relation to recreational drug use.
> 
> For example, why are the same people not accusing purchasers of Chinese goods as being "inherently connected to" the genocide in Darfur, or why are buyers of American products never castigated for supporting to ongoing war and "ruination of lives, many of them young and vulnerable" in Iraq?


Most _Chinese _goods (for better or worse) are not illegal to trade here so the comparison does not really hold up. Besides, I'm sure that the _Catholic Church _and other organizations who raised the issue of illegal drug dealing and use have also highlighted some of the human rights issues mentioned above too.


leghorn said:


> I can't see anything wrong if an adult wants to willingly use recreational drugs, as long as they are not addicted to them (eg alcoholic). There are many thing people get addicted to, sex, gambling etc.
> 
> I also can't see a problem with people growing or processing recreational drugs.


Personally I can't see anything wrong even if they do get addicted and don't directly harm the person or property of non consenting others. However this is a _Libertarian _utopian (dystopian to some) vision that I don't really see happening any time soon. So as long as the law of the land deems the trafficking and use of certain drugs to be illegal then surely people should abide by the law? Those who disagree with the law in the first place should campaign for a change rather than conveniently just ignoring it.


> I was a recreational drug user and throughly enjoyed them. Among the best decisions I ever made. I still drink, so maybe this shouldn't be in the past tense.


 There's a big difference between recreational use of *illegal *and *legal *drugs.



shnaek said:


> If we supplied, regulated and educated we would be much better off as a society and the Gardai would be free to focus their attention on other matters. Serious drug users would not be mugging and assaulting people (as they themselves said on Joe Duffy's show last week) in order to feed their massively overpriced and illegally supplied addiction. Alas this is the tough and unpopular route, and thus a route our government are sure not to take.


This is simply not true. For example, never before (as far as I can see) has alcohol been so widely available and cheap to source in _Ireland _and yet I know alcoholics who still steal money from their nearest and "dearest" to fund their addiction.


----------



## so-crates (5 Nov 2007)

Firstly, I am not nor ever have been an illegitimate user of drugs and I perhaps belong to that "nicely insulated small mind" that does not appreciate the supposed benefits of "expanding your consciousness, yada, yada, yada". Views being coloured by experience I am entirely in agreement with the archbishop.

Secondly, these drugs are neither "illegal" nor "recreational". They are controlled substances, where necessary there is a legitimate market in these substances through proper official channels (i.e. the pharmacies via prescription for medication). The controls that were introduced for these substances was as a result of widespread abuse of and issues with these substances. Rather than being some random act of government incompetence, it was a response to alarm.

To address the OP's criticism, the bishop's statement is not in any way less relevant or cogent simply because he doesn't tackle a more general issue of product sourcing. Buying drugs on the street through illegal and shady sources is still wrong in and of itself.

In response to leghorn, there are other issues aside from addiction, that can arise from "recreational" use. Medication by doctors carries enough risks and they have a more qualified idea of the possible dangers and side-effects. Even so they have to tinker with treatment to obtain the best outcome as patient reactions to medication can vary widely. Ill-informed self-medication by "recreational" drug usage can (and does) precipitate serious mental ill-health in a proportion of users, can induce dangerous heart arrythmias in some users, can result in damage to organs, and more nasty outcomes. The "benefit" derived by most "recreational" drug users is illusory and selfish, allowing a regulated but uncontrolled market in these substances will only better society because it will allow the fools who prop up the illegal uncontrolled market to gain easier access to their chosen poison.

Also 13 murders out of 53? That is almost a quarter. I would be very happy to see these murders uncommitted. It may not be an "exclusively gangland phenomenon" but that is a very sizeable proportion of murders in the State resulting from a small population. The "gangland" does not make up a quarter of society, it is alarming that their murder rates do.


----------



## pinkyBear (5 Nov 2007)

Hi there,
I was very open minded about the whole "recreational" use of drugs - personally speaking don't use any myself until a friend of Mr. Bear's stayed with us while - that in itself is a whole other story. To be honest as a bystander watching someone light up 2-3 spliffs every day after work (he does hold down a good job) , and knowing that he goes to every festival going just to score - to be honest is a bit pathetic - for a guy soon to be 40.  No more than somone who at that same age goes out "just to get drunk" at the same age....


----------



## ubiquitous (5 Nov 2007)

room305 said:


> I find this tortuous logic deplorable but perhaps understandable in a very naive and simplistic way.


Why, exactly?


room305 said:


> What perplexes me however, is why this logic only ends up being deployed in relation to recreational drug use.


Really? I don't think so. I myself would choose never to give custom to any business if I am aware that it was being owned, managed, or connected to, IRA or gangland figures. I don't think this sort of stance is particularly unusual. The phenomenon of the boycott has a long and not entirely dishonourable history in this country.



room305 said:


> For example, why are the same people not accusing purchasers of Chinese goods as being "inherently connected to" the genocide in Darfur, or why are buyers of American products never castigated for supporting to ongoing war and "ruination of lives, many of them young and vulnerable" in Iraq?


...and, following your logic, why were buyers of Irish goods in the UK never castigated for supporting the actions of the IRA in the 70s, 80s and 90s?


----------



## z103 (5 Nov 2007)

> In response to leghorn, there are other issues aside from addiction, that can arise from "recreational" use. Medication by doctors carries enough risks and they have a more qualified idea of the possible dangers and side-effects.


 Yes, I don't disagree with this. However, I don't want to live in a sterile world, where all risks are assessed by government. I want to make my own choices and live with the consequences.

Air travel is dangerous, bad for the environment, passengers get exposed to radiation etc. Planes also run on oil products, and we all know how much death and misery oil causes. Why doesn't bishop whateverhisnameis complain about that?



> The "benefit" derived by most "recreational" drug users is illusory and selfish


 Most benefits in life are illusory and selfish.



> and knowing that he goes to every festival going just to score - to be honest is a bit pathetic - for a guy soon to be 40.


Some people go to every festival just to listen to music - which to be honest is a bit pathetic.


----------



## pinkyBear (5 Nov 2007)

> Most benefits in life are illusory and selfish.


That not correct leghorn, plenty of lifes pleasures are not selfish - take shopping for one....! 
The thing is with recreational drugs is yes there is a link between the user and the supplier (who is linked with gangland activity).. and please dont present the arguement for legalising coccaine, what ever about cannibas it is dangerous..And besides how anyone could  take something and shove it up their nose is beyond me...


----------



## z103 (5 Nov 2007)

> The thing is with recreational drugs is yes there is a link between the user and the supplier (who is linked with gangland activity).. and please dont present the arguement for legalising coccaine,


 This link is there largely because of government policy.



> what ever about cannibas it is dangerous.


 Oh really? - so what's its LD50 (median lethal dose,50%) then? Compare this to alcohol. LSD is another interesting one.


----------



## shnaek (5 Nov 2007)

Vincent Browne has another great article on this topic in yesterdays Business Post, actually. I only just got around to reading it at lunch. I am coming across as a real Vincent Browne fan here, where in reality I am a fan of civil liberties and common sense. 

It pains me to see time, energy and resources waisted on trying to save people from themselves. Instead of making criminals out of as much of the population as we can, we should be taking a broader and more mature outlook and seeking to educate rather than criminalise. 

Where are our priorities? Is the drug user in their home more dangerous than the gang of youths attacking someone on the street? Is the drug user at home more dangerous than the person carrying a concealed knife out on the town? Is the drug user at home more dangerous than the rapist? If you think the drug user is more dangerous, then your views will reflect this. If you don't think the drug user is more dangerous, then why support the established view that all users are criminals and they must be witch hunted as the law's top priority?


----------



## so-crates (5 Nov 2007)

leghorn said:


> Yes, I don't disagree with this. However, I don't want to live in a sterile world, where all risks are assessed by government. I want to make my own choices and live with the consequences.


What is it that makes people think that their risk-taking is going to be so much different to other people's risk-taking? There is no shortage of literature and information in several formats (including first person accounts) available about the effects of drug abuse (and your "recreational" is an abuse of what is a medicine). So why does each new fool want to experience the same worn tread for themselves that others before them have learnt the hard way to dismiss and walk away from? We should be willing to learn from the experience of others and not so bent on experiencing it all ourselves. If you want to take a risk take a constructive one rather than a destructive one. Take a risk on a business venture, take a risk on a person as a friend, take a risk on a person as a partner. Humans are very poor risk assessors on the whole and place far too much importance on their own "control" of a situation, drug users are no different and are probably the worst offenders.



leghorn said:


> Air travel is dangerous, bad for the environment, passengers get exposed to radiation etc. Planes also run on oil products, and we all know how much death and misery oil causes. Why doesn't bishop whateverhisnameis complain about that?


Diarmuid Martin, I believe.
Because unlike drug abuse air travel is beneficial to people collectively and individually in quantifiable, measurable, real ways; as with any activity be it walking (potential damage to delicate flora and fauna) or something more conventionally damned there is an environmental consequence that we are only truly beginning to appreciate. 
We also have some idea how much death and misery and environmental damage is caused by the pointless, fruitless abuse of drugs but this does not seem to worry you overmuch. Have you considered the damage to rainforests caused by the monocultures of cocaine for example?



leghorn said:


> Most benefits in life are illusory and selfish.


Most benefits in life have an element of illusion and selfishness otherwise it is difficult to incentivise people to engage in them. But most benefits have additional individual and/or communal benefits which drug abuse is wholly without. A pleasant meal is a delight to the palate and stimulus to the brain but it is also fuel for life. Drugs out of the context of medicinal purposes have no use. Abusers have to generate justifications for wholly pointless exercises in self-harm.



leghorn said:


> Some people go to every festival just to listen to music - which to be honest is a bit pathetic.


Funnily enough it is the purpose of a festival... the drug abuse isn't.


----------



## so-crates (5 Nov 2007)

leghorn said:


> This link is there largely because of government policy.


No the link is largely there because the market is willing to buy off anyone at any cost (and I am not talking only monetary here).
You also are losing sight of the fact that "legal" goods (as in say tee-shirts or cigarettes) are also traded by the criminal gangland element. Even "legal" drugs will sustain a sizeable criminal enterprise.



leghorn said:


> Oh really? - so what's its LD50 (median lethal dose,50%) then? Compare this to alcohol. LSD is another interesting one.


So if it doesn't kill you it's alright?


----------



## ClubMan (5 Nov 2007)

shnaek said:


> If you don't think the drug user is more dangerous, then why support the established view that all users are criminals and they must be witch hunted as the law's top priority?


Yes - but show this lack of support by, for example, lobbying/campaigning for changes to the relevant laws but not by simply saying - "oh those laws are stupid or don't suit me personally so we should just ignore them"!


----------



## Caveat (5 Nov 2007)

If any currently illegal drugs are legalised with the associated price/strength/quality controls, I still believe a black market will flourish.  Why buy _government_ brand spamspamspam for example when you can still buy _street_ brand, at twice the strength and only 20% more in price?

Any chemically prepared drugs represent an even greater challenge - the next 'dodgy lab manufactured' upper is always just round the corner.

For what it's worth, I have dabbled in almost all illegal drugs (some time ago now!) and whilst I enjoyed myself and rarely overindulged,  I think they all have dangers - even spamspamspam - although I don't think spamspamspam is any more dangerous than alcohol.


----------



## shnaek (5 Nov 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Yes - but show this lack of support by, for example, lobbying/campaigning for changes to the relevant laws but not by simply saying - "oh those laws are stupid or don't suit me personally so we should just ignore them"!



You and I can make that choice, as we are doing here by debating the issue. There are those who are addicted to drugs who are unable to make that choice, and making them criminals isn't a help.


----------



## Jock04 (5 Nov 2007)

Caveat said:


> I have dabbled in almost all illegal drugs


 


caveat said:


> Aha!! _knew_ it !


 

Touche!  

(knew it too! )


----------



## truthseeker (5 Nov 2007)

Caveat said:


> If any currently illegal drugs are legalised with the associated price/strength/quality controls, I still believe a black market will flourish. Why buy _government_ brand spamspamspam for example when you can still buy _street_ brand, at twice the strength and only 20% more in price?
> 
> Any chemically prepared drugs represent an even greater challenge - the next 'dodgy lab manufactured' upper is always just round the corner.
> 
> For what it's worth, I have dabbled in almost all illegal drugs (some time ago now!) and whilst I enjoyed myself and rarely overindulged, I think they all have dangers - even spamspamspam - although I don't think spamspamspam is any more dangerous than alcohol.


 
This is an interesting point. I remember in my college days there was always this huge ordeal associated with someone trying to get their hands on spamspamspam/hash, with a whole runaround of 'the guy said he'd have it thursday', 'now he is sayin friday', 'darn - didnt get it in time for the weekend', 'ive to meet him at a different place, different day', etc... it seems to me had government brand spamspamspam been available back then we would have have legged it round to the local 'spamspamspam off licence' and bought it when we wanted it and not risked these furtive meetings with dodgy people in dodgy areas - never knowing if you were going to be robbed or not.

So in that for instance - government spamspamspam would have won out.


----------



## ClubMan (5 Nov 2007)

shnaek said:


> You and I can make that choice, as we are doing here by debating the issue. There are those who are addicted to drugs who are unable to make that choice, and making them criminals isn't a help.


Tough. Excuse me if I don't have much sympathy for drug addicts.


----------



## shnaek (5 Nov 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Tough. Excuse me if I don't have much sympathy for drug addicts.



Fair enough. There are those who have no time for the caring society and we all got our votes.


----------



## z103 (5 Nov 2007)

- Why do you think people take drugs in the first place? - Do you think people want to end up as junkies?

No.

One of the main reasons people indulge in recreational drug taking, why they take health risks, and risks with the law (for 'illegal' drugs), is because it's fun! I don't want to read about how much fun someone else has had, I want to experience it myself.

A subtle point you seem to have missed.


----------



## so-crates (5 Nov 2007)

shnaek said:


> You and I can make that choice, as we are doing here by debating the issue. There are those who are addicted to drugs who are unable to make that choice, and making them criminals isn't a help.


They make that choice every day. Unfortunately they have fallen into the trap of making the same bad choice every day. It shouldn't mitigate their responsibility but it should inform society's response. Legitimising their behaviour supports it and diminishes their responsibility. The truly difficult road is not making it easier for them to obtain their poison by legitimising their abuse of medicine but to help them in facing up to their own choices, their own responsibilities, their own issues. That is the long hard road. Legalisation is a cop-out.


----------



## so-crates (5 Nov 2007)

leghorn said:


> - Why do you think people take drugs in the first place? - Do you think people want to end up as junkies?
> 
> No.
> 
> ...


 
leghorn, I am perfectly aware that the "reason" (an interesting application of the word in this context) people take drugs is to experience a high. This goes back to my premise that the driving force is selfish and illusory. It also is in line with my point that people a woeful risk assessors. They take the risk with the drugs because they have an inflated view of their own self-control and are selfish enough to consider only their own ephemeral pleasure.

The justification of their own pleasure is the worst reason for them to engage in an activity that is illegal, potentially harmful to themselves, potentially harmful to their family, definitely harmful to their society, definitely harmful to the environment and ultimately futile and without benefit.


----------



## Jock04 (5 Nov 2007)

There will never be Government spamspamspam.

What there might be at some point is Government allow you to grow a couple of plants for your own use without criminalising you & therefore doing away with your need to give business to a drug dealer. Or possibly Amsterdam -style regulated Coffeeshops. Although I suspect that either option is very unlikely to happen, at least anytime soon.

With regard to the case for lobbying to have laws changed rather than ignoring them - it just doesn't happen really, does it?
Were there protest marches to shout for the right to carry on using your mobile phone while driving? No, and when was the last time you made a car journey without seeing someone using one? People do ignore laws that don't suit them, to some degree.

Taking the smokers out of the equation would radically reduce the number of people supporting organised crime, would probably please a sizeable part of our young population & release resources to fight bigger dangers to society.
Can't see it happening though.


----------



## so-crates (5 Nov 2007)

Jock04 said:


> There will never be Government spamspamspam.


Maybe not Government spamspamspam (there is no government tobacco either) but what may happen in the future is that a pharmaceutical company may isolate the chemicals from spamspamspam that are beneficial to individuals suffering from glaucoma or provide relief to individuals suffering from multiple sclerosis (i.e. genuine medical need) and those drugs may become licenced and available on prescription.


----------



## shnaek (5 Nov 2007)

Indeed - it won't happen, no matter how much lobbying, because we aren't really an independent nation. Our laws reflect our interaction with other nations, particularly Britain and the US, but also our relations with the EU. Legalising certain currently illegal drugs would not endear us to the US multinationals who prop up our economy. Legalising viagra on the other hand...


----------



## z103 (5 Nov 2007)

> leghorn, I am perfectly aware that the "reason" (an interesting application of the word in this context) people take drugs is to experience a high. This goes back to my premise that the driving force is selfish and illusory.


 Of course the driving force is selfish! So what?
What do you mean by 'illusory'?



> It also is in line with my point that people a woeful risk assessors.


I'm the living proof that this is incorrect.
I've taken many risks and illegal recreational drug use certainly paid off, for me.


> They take the risk with the drugs because they have an inflated view of their own self-control and are selfish enough to consider only their own ephemeral pleasure.


 Some people are so selfish, they would like to deny others the right to live their lives the way they want to. Yes, risks, warts and all.



> The justification of their own pleasure is the worst reason for them to engage in an activity that is illegal, potentially harmful to themselves, potentially harmful to their family, definitely harmful to their society, definitely harmful to the environment and ultimately futile and without benefit.


 - Harmful to society because of government policy.
- Illegal because of government policy.
- It didn't harm my family.

- Certainly not futile.
- Cartainly had a benefit. I enjoyed myself.


----------



## Jock04 (5 Nov 2007)

shnaek said:


> Indeed - it won't happen, no matter how much lobbying, because we aren't really an independent nation. Our laws reflect our interaction with other nations, particularly Britain and the US, but also our relations with the EU. Legalising certain currently illegal drugs would not endear us to the US multinationals who prop up our economy. Legalising viagra on the other hand...


 

........is a different kind of propping up!


----------



## Jock04 (5 Nov 2007)

so-crates said:


> Maybe not Government spamspamspam (there is no government tobacco either) but what may happen in the future is that a pharmaceutical company may isolate the chemicals from spamspamspam that are beneficial to individuals suffering from glaucoma or provide relief to individuals suffering from multiple sclerosis (i.e. genuine medical need) and those drugs may become licenced and available on prescription.


 
Yep, and I'll be delighted for those individuals.

In the scheme of things though, the amount of TCH-related products which are bought by these groups is negligible.


----------



## Caveat (5 Nov 2007)

so-crates said:


> Maybe not Government spamspamspam


 
In the interests of clarity, I used the term "government" facetiously - I simply meant government taxed/licensed/legal etc etc...


----------



## MrMan (5 Nov 2007)

> - It didn't harm my family.



Not yours but you can be sure it hurt families from where it was produced


----------



## so-crates (5 Nov 2007)

leghorn said:


> Of course the driving force is selfish! So what?
> What do you mean by 'illusory'?


So what? The consideration of self-pleasure as the only motive is of least benefit to society as a whole (i.e. none). The consideration of self-pleasure over the obvious reasons against abusing drugs betrays a character at odds with the society you wish to belong to and engage in. Your behaviour adds a little bit to the misery of people around the world not just in this society and nothing positive. So what? Ask me that when you are on the receiving end of that misery.

By illusory I mean that it gives the appearance of existence without the substance. The mechanism by which most drugs deliver their high is to hijack and interfere with bio-chemical pathways used to reward beneficial behaviour. They provide the "high" without ever providing the benefit for which that pathway evolved.



leghorn said:


> I'm the living proof that this is incorrect.
> I've taken many risks and illegal recreational drug use certainly paid off, for me.
> Some people are so selfish, they would like to deny others the right to live their lives the way they want to. Yes, risks, warts and all.


Not quite, you are living proof that risk is not definite outcome. You can take a risk and it may work out or it may not. The fact that it did work out for you in those circumstances does not make the risk any less, it just makes you lucky. It is fallacious and foolish to assume that the outcome you experience is the outcome that everyone else enjoys. You aren't living proof of the efficacy or safety of drugs, just as the unfortunate person who does not have your luck/genes/background is not the living proof of the detrimental effects of drugs. You are part of a dangerous, uncontrolled, social experiment. A Russian Roulette type of scenario. Just because you pull the trigger and survive does not guarantee survival.
What is selfish about wishing the best for all members of society? Wishing the healthcare wasn't tied up with fools and their self-indulgent, self-induced problems? Wishing available police resources weren't tied up chasing the nasty bogeymen with drugs? Wishing the social service wasn't overstretched with families that cannot function because of the selfish and foolish behaviour of members?
It is selfish and unwise from a position of safety and security to deem that a little bit of foolish behaviour on your part is more valuable than the good of society as a whole. We all compromise, some of us prefer our compromises to be globally beneficial rather than selfishly indulgent.



leghorn said:


> - Harmful to society because of government policy.
> - Illegal because of government policy.
> - It didn't harm my family.
> 
> ...


- No harmful to society because the of the potential and actual damage to the individual, the family, the village, the town, the community (all of which was evident prior to the introduction of control of the substance).
- As I already pointed out the correct term is controlled. Diamorphine (heroin) is used for example as a painkiller for the terminally ill.
- Lucky you, hope other families are as lucky ... oh wait, not all of them are.
- How is it not futile? In other words what was the point?
- Lucky you - you enjoyed yourself, without thought, care or consideration you acted for your pleasure and your pleasure alone. It isn't a benefit. It is the illusion of a benefit that you enjoyed.


----------



## so-crates (5 Nov 2007)

Jock04 said:


> Yep, and I'll be delighted for those individuals.
> 
> In the scheme of things though, the amount of TCH-related products which are bought by these groups is negligible.


 
As is the amount of palliative opiates. The justification for their usage is based on need not want.


----------



## so-crates (5 Nov 2007)

Caveat said:


> In the interests of clarity, I used the term "government" facetiously - I simply meant government taxed/licensed/legal etc etc...


 
I guessed but it gave me a very 1984 moment there!


----------



## pinkyBear (5 Nov 2007)

> - Harmful to society because of government policy.
> - Illegal because of government policy.
> - It didn't harm my family.
> 
> ...


I have to say leghorn you sound pretty sad in fairness - Mr.Bears friend is like you and as I said earlier if he was a guy in his early 20's he'd be concidered "cool" - by some people standards. But now nearing his 40's he is pretty pathetic - even his gf has tired of him as what was once occasional is now more and more part of his life, and has ruined theirs. 
The use/abuse of a substance is not really the point of the OP - but yes illegal drugs and the increase in use has both increased the power of gangs and the ferocity of them. You may think I am making this up but we (Mr. Bear and I)were witness to a cocaine related shooting some years ago... The shooter who was eventually caught had been involved in 16 shootings that year, the police told us...



> Harmful to society because of government policy.


So please don't try and tell me that the increase in drug usage is unharmful to society..


----------



## shnaek (5 Nov 2007)

so-crates said:


> What is selfish about wishing the best for all members of society?


Many people can make this arguement, but what makes them the best judge of what is best for all members of society? Who is qualified to make that decision?



so-crates said:


> Wishing the healthcare wasn't tied up with fools and their self-indulgent, self-induced problems?


 There are far far more people in there because of alcohol and cigarettes than there are because of illegal drugs.[/QUOTE]



so-crates said:


> Wishing available police resources weren't tied up chasing the nasty bogeymen with drugs?


Legalise like Holland/Switzerland etc and police resources will no longer be tied up.

Only in a 1984 like society can we legislate on every single personal choice and the world will be all the greyer because of it.


----------



## pinkyBear (5 Nov 2007)

Well lucky you shneak - you may have been/are a recreational use and sing of the joy of choice - you obviously haven't seen the other end - the shootings...


----------



## madisona (5 Nov 2007)

Perhaps  Dr Martin could deliver the following sermon next Sunday based on the following media investigations 

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1498672006



*Archbishop unleashes rage at those who shop at ******

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin today unleashed a scathing attack on those that buy clothes from (a certain supermarket), accusing of them of being inherently connected to child slavery.

The most senior Catholic churchman in the country insisted anyone shopping there couldn't sanatise their role in the immoral expolitation of young children in the third world.

“Child slavery and cheap clothes  belong intrinsically together,” he said

In what will be viewed as a thinly-veiled reference to the growing culture of buying cheap clothes  by Irish working -classes, Dr Martin was adamant there could be no moral ambiguity about involvement with the buying of clothes. 

He added: “Double standard about the clothing trade can never be made politically correct. It is certainly not socially correct. It is not correct for society.”

Dr Martin said society as a whole needed to take a stand against cheap clothes.

“That is what citizenship is about. There is no room to be complacent in the face of wanton disregard for human life,” he told the congregation.

“Too many lives have been lost. Violence is a blind alley that in the long term achieves only grief. Vengeance only rebounds on those who practice it.

“The clothing  trade is in its own right violence, a trafficking in exploitation and the ruination of lives, many of them young and vulnerable.”


----------



## shnaek (5 Nov 2007)

pinkyBear said:


> Well lucky you shneak - you may have been/are a recreational use and sing of the joy of choice - you obviously haven't seen the other end - the shootings...


I resent that accusation. Just because I stand up for peoples freedom of choice does not mean that I partake in illegal activities. I argued for smokers rights also, even though I have never smoked and find it a most disagreeable habit. 
But your comment is a simplistic one (no offence intended)- and does not respond to any of my arguements above. You simply bash the same drum without addressing the points I raise. Drum bashing went on too during the witch hunts, and the hunt for the 'reds' in the USA. Anyone who argued the case of reason was labelled a red, or a witch, or whatever the public demon was at the time. In general this diverted public attention away from other issues, harder to tackle perhaps, or closer to rulers hearts. It is an easy arguement to sway the masses, but it is useless in meaningful debate.


----------



## room305 (5 Nov 2007)

madisona said:


> Perhaps  Dr Martin could deliver the following sermon next Sunday based on the following media investigations
> 
> http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1498672006
> 
> ...



Very good! This is exactly the type of issue I was talking about. For some reason the argument that purchasing a certain product encourages practices the purchaser might be morally uncomfortable with, really only gains traction when it is made in reference to recreational drugs for some reason.


----------



## room305 (5 Nov 2007)

shnaek said:


> Just because I stand up for peoples freedom of choice does not mean that I partake in illegal activities. I argued for smokers rights also, even though I have never smoked and find it a most disagreeable habit.



I couldn't agree more, I approach this issue primarily from a civil liberties standpoint and this colours my view of the debate somewhat. A government that wishes citizens to bear moral responsibility for the actions of those from whom they purchase illegal drugs, must surely bear a similar responsibility for making the drugs illegal in the first place.


----------



## z103 (5 Nov 2007)

> By illusory I mean that it gives the appearance of existence without the substance.


Now define reality, So-crates.



> The mechanism by which most drugs deliver their high is to hijack and interfere with bio-chemical pathways used to reward beneficial behaviour. They provide the "high" without ever providing the benefit for which that pathway evolved.


I have yet to feel stoned through any means other than the consumption of spamspamspam.



> - Lucky you, hope other families are as lucky ... oh wait, not all of them are.


Well, that's the world we live in. Some people starve, others are obese. By what other means do we exploit less developed countries? All nicely hidden beneath a veneer of marketing. Maybe we shouldn't burn oil, or buy cheap electronics.



> - How is it not futile? In other words what was the point?


Why watch a movie?
Why eat one type of food over another?
Why read novels?


----------



## room305 (5 Nov 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> Why, exactly?



Why do I find the Bishop's (or McAleese's, or Ahern's, or Lenihan's etc.) arguments simplistic and naive? Well for one, they seem to be intent on putting all recreational drug users into one single box, despite them encompassing quite a varied strata of society. For example, does the Minister for Justice really and truly believe that someone who grows their own supply of spamspamspam contributes to gangland crime in the same way as someone who purchases vast quantities of cocaine?



ubiquitous said:


> Really? I don't think so. I myself would choose never to give custom to any business if I am aware that it was being owned, managed, or connected to, IRA or gangland figures. I don't think this sort of stance is particularly unusual. The phenomenon of the boycott has a long and not entirely dishonourable history in this country.



Right, but would you be so bold as to claim that anyone who obtains a pirated DVD is responsible for IRA sanctioned murder? You might know that a certain proportion of pirated DVDs on the black market are from IRA pirating operations. You might personally avoid any form of copyright infringement (not least because it is illegal) but I doubt you would feel free to associate everyone who plays fast and loose with copyright law as being "inherently connected" to the provisional IRA.



ubiquitous said:


> ...and, following your logic, why were buyers of Irish goods in the UK never castigated for supporting the actions of the IRA in the 70s, 80s and 90s?



I see how it could be misconstrued based on my original post, but I was merely putting forward suggestions. Personally I see no moral conflict inherent in buying goods from any country.



ClubMan said:


> Yes - but show this lack of support by, for example, lobbying/campaigning for changes to the relevant laws but not by simply saying - "oh those laws are stupid or don't suit me personally so we should just ignore them"!



One of the biggest problems with issues of civil liberty is that specific personal freedoms tend to be enjoyed only by a small groups of people. Debates regarding issues of personal freedom tend to focus on what I like to think of as the "balance sheet". By which I mean, the debate will discuss a myriad of different ways by which society is bettered or worsened by the presence or absence a certain law. 

It can be hard to gain any kind of traction or support in such debates, especially since to my mind they miss the point completely. When it comes to the issue of whether recreational drugs should be criminalised or not, nobody can say for certain whether we'll be better off (hard to imagine we'll be worse off but who knows?). The principle of whether the government has any business telling its citizens what they can or cannot consume only ever receives passing mention. As you said in another post, this is probably part of a libertarian utopia/dystopia, but is where my interests in the issue lie.

There is also the complication of campaigning on recreational drugs issues. I know it wouldn't go down well with my employer, and I can only imagine my claiming my interest is only from a civil liberties perspective (I don't consume recreational drugs personally) would be greeted with scepticism at best!


----------



## so-crates (5 Nov 2007)

leghorn, you evidently like to draw a veil over the consequences of your engaging in black market activities and ignore any outcomes other than your own satisfaction. It has nothing to do with civil liberties from what you have said and all to do with your choosing to break the law and support and fund an ignoble industry. Irrespective of how infrequently you choose to engage in such activity you do so without due consideration for others. When I refer to other families I also encompass those who have to deal with (for example) psychosis induced by spamspamspam use, again I say - lucky you. Reality is that which hits home on the occassions when you aren't stoned and having to justify such behaviour.
room305 - I think that your point that these arguments only gain traction when they refer to what you refer to as "recreational" drugs is plain wrong. The entire Fair Trade movement is based on the need to change the way the supply chain imposes on the producer. You simply wish to defend the "civil" liberty of drug abuse and deem the archbishop's analysis of the drug situation in Dublin to be an attack. It is unfair to dismiss his cogent arguments on the basis that they do not cover something else just because you would really rather he didn't make them.

Once and not terribly long ago several of these drugs were readily, legally available. I would urge all of you who think that there is some validity in your civil liberties argument to examine why these drugs became almost universally controlled. The arguments of the time have lost their proponents but we should try and learn from history rather than foolishly argue for the opportunity to repeat mistakes.


----------



## z103 (5 Nov 2007)

> I would urge all of you who think that there is some validity in your civil liberties argument to examine why these drugs became almost universally controlled.


Why did they become almost universally controlled?


----------



## Pique318 (6 Nov 2007)

Well spamspamspam has to thank DuPont


> Dupont Chemicals was, and still is, one of the largest petro-chemical manufacturers in America. It's multi-national tentacles stretch far. You can see advertisements for their products on government buses here in Australia.
> Around 1935 Dupont had patented a new synthetic fibre called *Nylon*, and a great deal of money was invested in an extensive campaign to market Nylon to the public. Hemp at this stage was still a legal crop, and though its natural attributes were many, it's labour intensive production process made it very expensive in comparison with cotton and the new, chemically-produced Nylon.
> *However, a machine which had been invented in the early 1900's and perfected around 1937 was set to revolutionise the Hemp industry. *The *decorticator* would separate the hurds from the stalks, leaving the long fibres ready to be put into bails. What the "cotton gin" did for the cotton industry, the decorticator was about to do for the manufacturing of a wide variety of hemp products, especially paper-making, rope-making and as a raw material for clothing manufacture. Dupont stood to lose millions.
> Banker to the Dupont empire at this time was a certain Andrew Mellon, who also happened to be a Congressman and Secretary to the Treasury. Included in Mellon's portfolio was responsiblity for the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Mellon appointed his nephew-in-law, Harry Anslinger to head the Bureau. Collusion cannot be proved, but Anslingers activities in this role had a huge indirect impact on American agricultural and manufacturing processes, and of course Mellon's business interests.
> ...


----------



## room305 (6 Nov 2007)

DEA zealousness and tests on the brains of lab rats (now considered erroneous) appear to be behind the decision to [broken link removed].



> MDMA was rediscovered in the early 1970s by chemist Alexander Shulgin, and by 1976, a small group of psychiatrists and psychologists began to use it in their practices as a therapeutic agent. Calling it an “entactogen” (to touch within), they found it reduced fear and promoted acceptance, thereby facilitating communication. Deemed a “penicillin for the soul,” MDMA (also called “Adam”) enabled couples in troubled marriages to talk to one another; it allowed rape and incest victims to come to terms with their trauma; and it helped chronically ill patients to face pain and death.
> 
> The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 had already prohibited human research on psychedelic drugs. The therapeutic community was fearful of publicizing their positive, if anecdotal, research findings, which would spread the word that MDMA was an extraordinary tool for communication and spiritual growth. These insightful psychotherapists were rightly concerned that popularization would lead inevitably to criminalization.
> 
> ...





> While a guest on a _Phil Donahue Show _devoted to the MDMA controversy, a DEA official heard physiological brain researcher Dr. Charles Schuster (now head of the National Institute on Drug Abuse) discussing a study by one of his students, which showed changes in the brains of rats as a result of the injection of large, frequently repeated doses of MDA, a chemical "cousin" of MDMA. The fate of MDMA was sealed with this piece of information. Within a few weeks, the DEA called a press conference to announce that it was placing MDMA in Schedule I on an emergency basis. This action was justified by reference to MDMA's potential brain-damaging effect and its widespread use (that was partially the result of publicity about the original hearing).


----------



## ubiquitous (6 Nov 2007)

room305 said:


> Why do I find the Bishop's (or McAleese's, or Ahern's, or Lenihan's etc.) arguments simplistic and naive? Well for one, they seem to be intent on putting all recreational drug users into one single box, despite them encompassing quite a varied strata of society....does the Minister for Justice really and truly believe that someone who grows their own supply of spamspamspam contributes to gangland crime.



If you read the entire text (ie beyond the first 2 paragraphs) of the article that you have linked above you will see quickly that Dr. Martin's comments were directed at the drugs trade and what he termed as "the bond between the sordid network of drug trafficking and violence and the socially accepted use of certain drugs as ’recreational’." His comments were interpreted as focusing on the use of cocaine. I don't know how many Irish people are growing cocaine in their back gardens?



> “Violence and the drug trade belong intrinsically together,” he told an active citizenship service, led by his Church of Ireland counterpart Dr John Neill, in Dublin’s Christ Church Cathedral.
> 
> In what will be viewed as a thinly-veiled reference to the growing culture of cocaine use by Irish middle-classes, Dr Martin was adamant there could be no moral ambiguity about involvement with the drugs trade. “Illicit drug consumption cannot be sanitised out of that equation,” he said.
> ...
> ...







> Personally I see no moral conflict inherent in buying goods from any country.



This is strange considering you asked...



> why are buyers of American products never castigated for supporting to ongoing war and "ruination of lives, many of them young and vulnerable" in Iraq?


----------



## room305 (6 Nov 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> If you read the entire text (ie beyond the first 2 paragraphs) of the article that you have linked above you will see quickly that Dr. Martin's comments were directed at the drugs trade and what he termed as "the bond between the sordid network of drug trafficking and violence and the socially accepted use of certain drugs as ’recreational’." His comments were interpreted as focusing on the use of cocaine. I don't know how many Irish people are growing cocaine in their back gardens?



So why the subterfuge? Other commentators on the issue do not appear to make any such distinction. I'd have a lot more respect for someone advancing an argument that one particular class of drug was ethically dubious, even if I was unlikely to agree with their argument.



ubiquitous said:


> This is strange considering you asked...



I was merely trying to point out that almost nothing people consume is free from moral or ethical dilemma (including Fair Trade coffee!).


----------



## ubiquitous (6 Nov 2007)

room305 said:


> So why the subterfuge? Other commentators on the issue do not appear to make any such distinction. I'd have a lot more respect for someone advancing an argument that one particular class of drug was ethically dubious, even if I was unlikely to agree with their argument.



??

There is hardly much subterfuge in a comment that is as fortright as "the bond between the sordid network of drug trafficking and violence and the socially accepted use of certain drugs as ’recreational’".

Does anyone believe that it is more ethically dubious to buy cocaine from a gangland drug trafficker than it is to buy spamspamspam from the same guy?




room305 said:


> I was merely trying to point out that almost nothing people consume is free from moral or ethical dilemma (including Fair Trade coffee!).


I agree, as I expect would most people. However that does not mean that there is nothing particularly unethical with giving custom to drug traffickers, pimps or for that matter purveyors of child porn.


----------



## shnaek (6 Nov 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> There is hardly much subterfuge in a comment that is as fortright as "the bond between the sordid network of drug trafficking and violence and the socially accepted use of certain drugs as ’recreational’".


This bond is a bit dubious though, is it not? How about the 'recreational' users who grow their own? There is a link of course between drugs and guns, as there was when there was a prohibition on alcohol in the US. The solution in the US was to remove prohibition. Most of the gangs were then left with nothing 'illegal' to sell.



ubiquitous said:


> Does anyone believe that it is more ethically dubious to buy cocaine from a gangland drug trafficker than it is to buy spamspamspam from the same guy?



And what of the ethics of smoking your own? How does the Bishop and the President feel on this matter? It really is such a nonsense point when trying to tackle the serious issue of violence - we need to look at the layout of our urban areas for example, and the lack of facilities etc. IE -  the Hard Issues. It is depressing to think we are stuck with fluffy soundbites instead of hard thinking.


----------



## ubiquitous (6 Nov 2007)

shnaek said:


> This bond is a bit dubious though, is it not? How about the 'recreational' users who grow their own?



As I asked above (without an answer to date), how many people grow their own cocaine in this country?

For that matter, how many people grow their own spamspamspam as a % of those who smoke it?


----------



## room305 (6 Nov 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> As I asked above (without an answer to date), how many people grow their own cocaine in this country?
> 
> For that matter, how many people grow their own spamspamspam as a % of those who smoke it?



It is not a straight choice between "growing your own" and "funding criminal gangs". Not all illegal drugs are distributed in this country by the type organised criminal gangs whose members feature heavily in the writings of Paul Williams. There are many smaller operators sourcing drugs from Europe and the UK, or West African and Eastern European immigrants may smuggle drugs in from their own countries to sell to their own communities here. Nor are all drug traffickers/dealers running around shooting each other (and more importantly) any bystanders who get in their way.

The problem is of course, that the smaller non-violent operators very easily get muscled out by the more violent and aggressive gangs.

Of course recreational cocaine users should be given pause for thought even if they source their blow directly from Columbia because of the horrific conditions endured by those involved in cultivating it.


----------



## pinkyBear (7 Nov 2007)

> Drum bashing went on too during the witch hunts


I don't mean to appear that way at all but the drug culture is something that I am very exposed to, through some friends and in an area where we used to live. 
It is all very nobel to say you support civil right and the right for someone to "grow their own" as far as I am concerned I have no issue with that. The thing is, and it is a very violent relaity that as the drug culture has grown in Ireland so too has the gang culture and violence. Does this mean Certain Drugs should be de classified, well in certain cases they are - Cannibas is a well known treatment for MS and can be gotten in percription (it is made in to capsules)..

So it is all very well to champion for civil liberties - if you yourself and none of your friends or family are affected and none of the trouble is in your back yard. 



> Nor are all drug traffickers/dealers running around shooting each other (and more importantly) any bystanders who get in their way.


 Yes you are correct - but in the two years I lived in Finglas there were three shootings - none of them newsworthy and one of these incidents narrowly missed children. The dealer involved was small time and we later discovered was involved in 16 shootings in the area.


----------



## shnaek (7 Nov 2007)

pinkyBear said:


> So it is all very well to champion for civil liberties - if you yourself and none of your friends or family are affected and none of the trouble is in your back yard.



My point though (on the topic in question - ie. recreational drug users are responsible for organised crime gangs) is that there wouldn't be any of this 'gang' trouble if the drugs were legal in the first place, and regulated just like the alcohol industry. There would of course be bad cases, just as there is with alcohol, but that is not the topic being debated here. I'm sure the Irish smuggled in plenty whiskey during the prohibition days, just like people who can use cannibas legally in other countries smuggle it in here. To label them responsible for organised crime is to tar everyone with the same brush. 
My argument is that if we make these drugs legal and regulate them, then the organised crime gangs that deal in drugs will be out of business. This is what happened in the US, and is surely is a reasonable argument, on the topic in question.


----------



## pinkyBear (7 Nov 2007)

> point though (on the topic in question - ie. recreational drug users are responsible for organised crime gangs) is that there wouldn't be any of this 'gang' trouble if the drugs were legal in the first place


 
How do you know - just because ciggerettes are legal there is still smuggling - however as it is not as lucritave - fewer larger gangs involved. 



> To label them responsible for organised crime is to tar everyone with the same brush.


 Not so much tarring them with the same brush - at the end of the day no matter what you purchase from a dealer the money still ends up with some gang some where . That you cann't deny.



> My argument is that if we make these drugs legal and regulate them, then the organised crime gangs that deal in drugs will be out of business.


 
http://www.drugpolicy.org/global/drugpolicyby/westerneurop/thenetherlan/

I do agree with you on certain points - however I think you are being a bit simplistic in your views - Criminal gangs wont go away - don't be nieve - they will shift their business else where. Holland has a known success rate in their attitude to drugs - however it is also a known route for trafficking drugs around Europe - Rotterdam being Europes bussiest port...
This report below makes for an interesting read and does look at the reality of de crimanalising drug usage.
[broken link removed]


----------



## shnaek (7 Nov 2007)

pinkyBear said:


> How do you know - just because ciggerettes are legal there is still smuggling - however as it is not as lucritave - fewer larger gangs involved.


There is still smuggling, but hardly well armed organised gangs terrorising communities with smuggled cigarettes. The profit isn't there for that kind of risk. And the problem is much much less than if cigarettes were illegal.



pinkyBear said:


> Not so much tarring them with the same brush - at the end of the day no matter what you purchase from a dealer the money still ends up with some gang some where . That you cann't deny.


but my point there was that these people aren't purchasing from a dealer. These people are buying what is legal in their own country and bringing it here. Yes, an illegal activity - but those users aren't responsible for organised crime gangs. That was my point.



pinkyBear said:


> Criminal gangs wont go away - don't be nieve - they will shift their business else where.


And therefor recreational drug users are not responsible for the gangs. If the gangs are just going to move their business, then we can see it is the fact the drugs are illegal in the first place that is responsible.




pinkyBear said:


> Holland has a known success rate in their attitude to drugs - however it is also a known route for trafficking drugs around Europe - Rotterdam being Europes bussiest port...


Are you suggesting that the reason Rotterdam is Europes busiest port is because drugs are coming in there?
And the reason Holland is the source of drug trafficking is because they are illegal in many other European nations. If they were legal in every EU schengen agreement country, then Holland wouldn't be a source of drug trafficking.


----------



## pinkyBear (7 Nov 2007)

> Are you suggesting that the reason Rotterdam is Europes busiest port is because drugs are coming in there?


No I amn't. 



> but my point there was that these people aren't purchasing from a dealer. These people are buying what is legal in their own country and bringing it here. Yes, an illegal activity


So they in them selves are dealing - certainly if they are buying to supply onto others.



> And therefor recreational drug users are not responsible for the gangs.


Eh what planet are you on - yes they are - inadvertainly they are - Joe Bloggs buys some hash from a local small dealler in town, this dealer buys from a bigger dealler and so on - so eventually along the chain it goes to an organised gang.



> If the gangs are just going to move their business, then we can see it is the fact the drugs are illegal in the first place that is responsible.


You are not making one ounce of sence here - The only way gangs can be obliterated is if every country in the world has an "open drugs" policy - and concidering there isn't even a global "open alcohol" policy that is some stretch of imagination. 

Holland in isolation has an open and supportive attitude to Drugs, however it cannot be disputed that it enables large scale drug trafficking within Europe all be it unintentionally...
I am afraid shneak you are being far too simplistic in you view as to what is a very complex issue - alot of money gets made in Drugs and could it even be said that drug money influences certain governments...


----------



## shanegl (7 Nov 2007)

> Eh what planet are you on - yes they are - inadvertainly they are - Joe Bloggs buys some hash from a local small dealler in town, this dealer buys from a bigger dealler and so on - so eventually along the chain it goes to an organised gang.


 
It think his point might be that you said the gangs would remain if drugs were legalised, which contradicts the claim that the drug users are responsible for the existance of the gangs. Either the gangs would mostly disappear if everyone stopped buying drugs from them, or they will remain. In the first case drug users should all stop, in the second case it doesn't matter what they do and everyone should focus their energy on the root cause of gangland criminality - gangs.


----------



## ubiquitous (7 Nov 2007)

shanegl said:


> It think his point might be that you said the gangs would remain if drugs were legalised, which contradicts the claim that the drug users are responsible for the existance of the gangs. Either the gangs would mostly disappear if everyone stopped buying drugs from them, or they will remain. In the first case drug users should all stop, in the second case it doesn't matter what they do and everyone should focus their energy on the root cause of gangland criminality - gangs.



It beggars belief that people are arguing that buying cocaine that is sourced by criminal gangs does not support these gangs financially and perpetuate their criminality. A bad case of "hear no evil see no evil" methinks. If enough people, by word and deed, cried "stop", this problem would diminish and wither, even if it would never go away completely. This is what happened in Northern Ireland when the public turned against paramilitarism.


----------



## room305 (7 Nov 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> It beggars belief that people are arguing that buying cocaine that is sourced by criminal gangs does not support these gangs financially and perpetuate their criminality. A bad case of "hear no evil see no evil" methinks. If enough people, by word and deed, cried "stop", this problem would diminish and wither, even if it would never go away completely. This is what happened in Northern Ireland when the public turned against paramilitarism.



I agree completely, if enough people stop buying illegal drugs the trade will diminish and without a large enough market it would not be worth the risk for gangs to import large quantities of drugs.

However, it is equally true that if recreational drugs were sold legally in licensed premises in a manner similar to alcohol, the illegal drugs market would shrink considerably, starving the gangs of revenue.

That is why I consider it duplicitous for the government to blame recreational drug users for gang violence without acknowledging their own role in the affair.


----------



## shnaek (7 Nov 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> It beggars belief that people are arguing that buying cocaine that is sourced by criminal gangs does not support these gangs financially and perpetuate their criminality.


Who is arguing that?




pinkyBear said:


> So they in them selves are dealing - certainly if they are buying to supply onto others.


My specific question there was if you think recreational users from abroad or here who have their own drugs and are using it themselves and not selling it are responsible for criminal gang violence. Do you think this? A yes or no will suffice.




shanegl said:


> It think his point might be that you said the gangs would remain if drugs were legalised, which contradicts the claim that the drug users are responsible for the existance of the gangs.


Yes, that is the point I was attempting to make.

I am not saying that I think drugs are a good thing. I am just saying that there is a certain hysteria surrounding gang warfare at the moment, and I am of the same opinion as Vincent Browne who makes the points more succinctly than I can, that the governments focus on this is out of proportion compared to, for example, the incidence of violence on the streets or sexual crimes. However, I don't wish to go off topic.


----------



## shnaek (7 Nov 2007)

room305 said:


> I agree completely, if enough people stop buying illegal drugs the trade will diminish and without a large enough market it would not be worth the risk for gangs to import large quantities of drugs.
> 
> However, it is equally true that if recreational drugs were sold legally in licensed premises in a manner similar to alcohol, the illegal drugs market would shrink considerably, starving the gangs of revenue.
> 
> That is why I consider it duplicitous for the government to blame recreational drug users for gang violence without acknowledging their own role in the affair.



Well put.


----------



## room305 (7 Nov 2007)

pinkyBear said:


> So it is all very well to champion for civil liberties - if you yourself and none of your friends or family are affected and none of the trouble is in your back yard.



This is an anonymous message board so try not to make assumptions about what people are or are not exposed to in their own "back yard". Civil liberties are important, and during times of duress governments will frequently try erode these liberties citing 'special circumstances'. Just look at the Bush administration in the US. Now I hear our own Minister for Justice has been positing the idea of Gardai bugging known or suspected criminals. If drug culture is something you are "very exposed to", how would you feel if the Gardai used that as justification to listen in on your telephone calls?



pinkyBear said:


> Yes you are correct - but in the two years I lived in Finglas there were three shootings - none of them newsworthy and one of these incidents narrowly missed children. The dealer involved was small time and we later discovered was involved in 16 shootings in the area.



But had it not been for the illegal drugs trade this guy would probably have pursued a career in investment banking, right?


----------



## ubiquitous (7 Nov 2007)

> _Originally Posted by ubiquitous
> It beggars belief that people are arguing that buying cocaine that is sourced by criminal gangs does not support these gangs financially and perpetuate their criminality. _Who is arguing that?





shnaek said:


> Who is arguing that?






shanegl said:


> Either the gangs would mostly disappear if everyone stopped buying drugs from them, or they will remain. In the first case drug users should all stop, *in the second case it doesn't matter what they do*
> ....
> and everyone should focus their energy on the root cause of gangland criminality - gangs.



This ignores the obvious point that if the market for cocaine contracted, there would be less business and money for the criminal traffickers. Even though they would never completely go away, I believe strongly that less criminality is good for society, just as less paramilitarism was good for Northern Ireland.


----------



## MrMan (7 Nov 2007)

> But had it not been for the illegal drugs trade this guy would probably have pursued a career in investment banking, right?



Well if he is in a disadvantaged area there is a chance that his involvement with drugs started at an early age therefore removing any chance of a normal life. 
The other aspect is, that no matter where he is from, there is no other illegal trade that can make so much money with so little risk to the seller. The levels of money that can be made are reflected in the apparent willingness to eliminate any competition from the market.

At what line do the pro legalisation people draw to what can be construed as a legal drug that should be made available to the open market. Surely there have been enough proven cases to show that most hard drugs have a very negative impact on users. Should heroin, LSD etc be available to 18 year olds as soon as they leave school? Would legalising it not remove the final barrier from kids experimenting and putting their lives on the line?


----------



## pinkyBear (7 Nov 2007)

> Civil liberties are important, and during times of duress governments will frequently try erode these liberties citing 'special circumstances'.


Absolutly - I am not arguing otherwise - but what I am saying is that the criminal gangs do impeded ordinary citizens civil rights. And those who'se money ends up with the gang is enabling them.


----------



## shanegl (7 Nov 2007)

> This ignores the obvious point that if the market for cocaine contracted, there would be less business and money for the criminal traffickers.


 
Indeed, I agree. This argument also holds for legalising drugs though. A poster responded to this saying they shouldn't be legalised on this basis, since gangs "won't go away", and will "shift business elsewhere". My point was that if you're going to argue against legalisation on this basis, you can't simultaneously argue that buying drugs supports the gangs. If you re-read my post you'll see I'm not arguing that buying drugs doesn't support gangs, I was offering two possible scenarios.
Both legalisation and abstaining will produce the same effect of reducing the gangs' impact. Neither are very likely unfortunately.


----------



## room305 (7 Nov 2007)

MrMan said:


> Well if he is in a disadvantaged area there is a chance that his involvement with drugs started at an early age therefore removing any chance of a normal life.



Only a very small percentage of dealers are in such a position because they became addicted to drugs at an early age. Neither this, nor being born into an area of disadvantage is an excuse to engage in violent behaviour. Either way it misses my point completely, which is that anyone who is willing to kill someone for the sake of a few Euro is unlikely to be a productive member of society, regardless of whether drugs are illegal or not. You touch upon this in your next point.



MrMan said:


> The other aspect is, that no matter where he is from, there is no other illegal trade that can make so much money with so little risk to the seller. The levels of money that can be made are reflected in the apparent willingness to eliminate any competition from the market.



The risk to the seller is actually enormous, I don't know how you can think it isn't. However, the potential for profit is huge and more importantly the demand is huge. There is probably no other illegal trade where it is so easy to find a buyer for your product.



MrMan said:


> At what line do the pro legalisation people draw to what can be construed as a legal drug that should be made available to the open market. Surely there have been enough proven cases to show that most hard drugs have a very negative impact on users. Should heroin, LSD etc be available to 18 year olds as soon as they leave school? Would legalising it not remove the final barrier from kids experimenting and putting their lives on the line?



I imagine what is acceptable varies from person to person and there is no easy line to draw. At the very least there should be democratic debate on the issue. The current stance by the government lacks any credibility and does far more harm than good. I am shocked by the amount of spamspamspam teenagers in my area smoke, it beggars belief. Yet they believe it to be "harmless". This is what happens when the dangers of drugs are grossly exaggerated for shock effect - people end up believing they are totally without risk.


----------



## ubiquitous (7 Nov 2007)

shanegl said:


> This argument also holds for legalising drugs though. A poster responded to this saying they shouldn't be legalised on this basis, since gangs "won't go away", and will "shift business elsewhere". My point was that if you're going to argue against legalisation on this basis, you can't simultaneously argue that buying drugs supports the gangs. If you re-read my post you'll see I'm not arguing that buying drugs doesn't support gangs, I was offering two possible scenarios.
> Both legalisation and abstaining will produce the same effect of reducing the gangs' impact. Neither are very likely unfortunately.



Yes, but legalisation is hardly even an option for Ireland in isolation from similar action by the US and other Western powers?


----------



## room305 (7 Nov 2007)

pinkyBear said:


> Absolutly - I am not arguing otherwise - but what I am saying is that the criminal gangs do impeded ordinary citizens civil rights.



Perhaps, but your statement did imply that you viewed civil liberties as something of luxury, and not for those toiling at the coalface as it were.



pinkyBear said:


> And those who'se money ends up with the gang is enabling them.



Indeed, but has been pointed out by multiple posters including myself, these gangs are also enabled by the criminalisation of recreational drugs. It goes without saying that the members of these gangs would be vehemently opposed to any legalisation of the product they distribute.


----------



## MrMan (7 Nov 2007)

> Neither this, nor being born into an area of disadvantage is an excuse to engage in violent behaviour.



I'm not offering an excuse, my point is that disadvantaged areas have generally been the worst hit in terms of crime, alcohol and drug abuse. 

The advent of drugs as a major industry on these shores in the last decade has led to a major upsurge in violent crime because this new easy money is hard to let go of. A cycle of crime generally exists in these areas and the next generation look to be even more violent. 



> The risk to the seller is actually enormous, I don't know how you can think it isn't.



I don't think it is. At the lowest level many sellers get cautions, or carry low levels of supply on them. By the time they get jailed, it's usually short sentences with part suspended. At the higher levels the risk is in who you mix with. And when you consider soime of the sentences for large shipments worth millions the risks are nearly worth it in my opinion.


----------



## room305 (7 Nov 2007)

MrMan said:


> I'm not offering an excuse, my point is that disadvantaged areas have generally been the worst hit in terms of crime, alcohol and drug abuse.



If you are not pro-offering it as an excuse, why even mention it?  The point remains - and your other comments appear to support this view as well - individuals with a penchant for violent behaviour are attracted to drug dealing because it is an industry in which violent behaviour is rewarded.



MrMan said:


> I don't think it is. At the lowest level many sellers get cautions, or carry low levels of supply on them. By the time they get jailed, it's usually short sentences with part suspended. At the higher levels the risk is in who you mix with. And when you consider soime of the sentences for large shipments worth millions the risks are nearly worth it in my opinion.



As a profession, small time drug dealers are remarkably poorly remunerated for the work they put in. Quite apart from the risk of being jailed, most small drug dealers operate on credit from larger dealers. They then extend credit to those to whom they sell even smaller quantities of drugs. As any small tradesman and the executives at Northern Rock know, if your creditors fall due before your debtors have paid up, serious cash flow difficulties can arise. Only for drug dealers, these difficulties can result in death.

Though the margins from bulk shipment to street level are huge, the small time drug dealer doesn't get to take advantage of these. The bigger they try to become, then the greater the risk of imprisonment or death.

I know it's a US study but _Freakonomics_ author Steven Levitt has done some work on the economics of drugs gangs. He concludes that the majority of dealers do not make more than the minimum wage.



> We use a unique data set detailing the Financial activities of a drug-selling street gang to analyze gang economics. On average, earnings in the gang are somewhat above the legitimate labor market alternative. The enormous risks of drug selling, however, more than offset this small wage premium. Compensation within the gang is highly skewed, and the prospect of future riches, not current wages, is the primary economic motivation. The gang engages in repeated gang wars and sometimes prices below marginal cost. Our results suggest that economic factors alone are unlikely to adequately explain individual participation in the gang or gang behavior.


----------



## MrMan (8 Nov 2007)

> I know it's a US study but Freakonomics author Steven Levitt has done some work on the economics of drugs gangs. He concludes that the majority of dealers do not make more than the minimum wage.



I read that too and while it was interesting I would be unsure of wheter to fall back on it for an argument. Small time dealers here vary in intelligence and circumstance and the more astute ones seem to make a relatively decent income without the hassle of 40hr week. I've known guys who have stopped working as block layers because they were making enough through dealing. Most of the lucky ones get caught once or twice and then turn away from it, the guy I mentioned never looked back and now he is a shadow of his former self through the continued use of heroin.


----------



## room305 (8 Nov 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> Yes, but legalisation is hardly even an option for Ireland in isolation from similar action by the US and other Western powers?



This is a fair point. Some of the UN treaties the country is a signatory too have specific clauses about the legal status of certain drugs. So it may be that we don't have an alternative option, but this needs to be acknowledged. Yet, both the UK and the Netherlands have managed to relax their drug possession laws to a certain extent without being alienated.

Personally, I think that while we need to remain cognisant of such issues they are not insurmountable. I doubt it would be a good idea to legalise all drugs overnight - but the country needs to admit that the present system is not working and begin evaluating alternative options.


----------

