Recreational drug users are responsible for organised crime gangs

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

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.”

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.
In December 1937 Anslinger introduced the Marijuana Tax Bill, an event which proved to be the beginning of the era of Prohibition of spamspamspam.
Simultaneously, a fear campaign of anti-Marijuana propaganda was run as front page "news" stories by one of America's most powerful newspaper proprietors, Randolf Hearst. By coincidence Hearst had begun using wood-pulp for paper and invested heavily in its production. The chemicals used to make the wood-pulp suitable for news-print were supplied by Dupont Chemicals. Hemp's fate was sealed.
Few of the congressmen who voted in favour of this Bill realised that they were in effect making all strains of Hemp illegal, subsequently wiping out the industrial hemp industry. In an age when environmental awareness was still dismally limited, fewer of these law-makers could have imagined the future ramifications in terms of environmental degradation which would result from this conspiracy to remove hemp, the strongest, most ecologically sustainable and least pollutant of fibres, from the available range of raw materials suitable for manufacture of paper, rope and cloth fabric.

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.

Proselytizing distributors, on the other hand, believed that MDMA could heal the world. Dismissing psychotherapists’ fears, they looked for a name that would sell the “medicine.” Bruce Eisner (1989), in his book, Ecstasy: The MDMA Story, claims that these entrepreneurs believed “Empathy” would have best described the drug, but they chose “Ecstasy,” which would surely sell better.

And sell it did, crossing over from alternative types to otherwise conventional yuppies in Texas. By 1983, Sunday school teachers and real estate salesmen were using Mastercards to buy Ecstasy from bartenders in Dallas and Austin, who paid taxes on their sales.

The blatant use of Ecstasy in Texas caught the attention of the Drug Enforcement Administration. Preliminary research on rats (given megadoses of MDA, a chemical cousin to MDMA) enabled the agency to begin the process of criminalizing Ecstasy by placing it in the government’s most restrictive category, Schedule I.

During the perfunctory hearings to determine MDMA’s status, a committed group of psychiatrists argued that the drug had medical value. The DEA’s own administrative judge was convinced a placement in Schedule III was appropriate, enabling MDMA to be used in therapeutic settings. Judge Francis Young believed MDMA had low potential for abuse, accepted medical value and accepted medical safety.

Nonetheless, the DEA overturned its own judge’s ruling, and placed MDMA in Schedule I, declaring it had no medical use and high abuse potential, effectively criminalizing its use permanently on July 1, 1986 (Rosenbaum & Doblin 1991).

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.
...
He added: “Double standard about the drug 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 the gangland and drug culture
....
“The drug trade is in its own right violence, a trafficking in death and the ruination of lives, many of them young and vulnerable.”

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.

Recreational drug users are responsible for organised crime gangs

madisona

Guest

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

z103

Guest

Registered User

Registered User

z103

Guest

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency