Recreational drug users are responsible for organised crime gangs

[room305]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

Why, exactly?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

I have dabbled in almost all illegal drugs

Aha!! knew it !

Touche!

(knew it too! )