Posted on 06/18/2006 9:22:25 AM PDT by SittinYonder
And Scottish Conservative justice spokeswoman Margaret Mitchell said: "I accept Wood's sincerity, but this is a very dangerous message to go out. I would never say that we have lost the war on drugs. Things are dire, but we should never throw up the white flag."
FWIW ... Drug Tsar in Scotland says WOD there is lost.
Ping.
Fortunately, in the US, we have a drug czar, not a drugs tsar.
Why didn't Singapore lose its war on drugs?
end the war on pot and ramp up the war on real drugs. then you might have a real war worth fighting.
Excellent point.
We've lost it here too, just the big government crowd, and most conservatives can't let it go.
Because Singapore does it right. The only way we will win the war on drugs is if we make the punishment so harsh that no one will choose to use drugs.
I have long said that the only way we will win the war on drugs is if we impose the death penalty for possession. Others have suggested it is unreasonable and harsh, and maybe it is, but you can't win a war without piling up some bodies.
Because Singapore is very small, and is willing to sacrifice almost all freedoms we and the British hold dear for the sake of social order.
Stopping people from ruining their lives by screwing up their brain chemistry isn't worth the cost of living in a police state.
I would argue that we haven't started fighting it here. See my post #9. There is no real committment from the U.S. Government for winning the War on Drugs. If there was, it would have been over in 1992.
We are such a bunch of sentimental wusses that is not going to happen.
Can you imagine executing a cute, upper-class college girl for giving out cocaine to all her friends?
It is not realistic in the type of society we have.
Absolutely! Protect the money interest in the drug trade at all costs!
Because Singapore already is the kind of police state that is utterly necessary to carry out such a policy effectively.
Then we've lost the war on drugs here, too.
It has been demonstrated over and over again that people are willing to risk any level of punishment to take drugs. Even though everyone knows the risks of overdose (that could lead to death), people still choose to use drugs.
When you take into account what people are willing to risk, I think the only option for winning the war on drugs is to make death a certainty.
Execute a few of those cute, upper-class college girls for possession and pretty soon the WOD is won.
Exactly.
Are you willing to volunteer your services as executioner? Will you walk up a put a bullet in the first 14 year old kid we catch with a joint in his pocket?
We haven't won the "war on drugs" because it isn't a "war." There is no end to it. There is no point at some future date that all drugs will vanish and all the users and dealers will surrender.
That does not mean that we should stop enforcing the laws. The "war" is actually an on-going struggle against one of society's worst sicknesses.
Oh really? What about the absolutely enormous cost of continuing an ineffective policy? Either we ramp it up and stomp out drug use or we'll have to admit the same kind of defeat this drug tsar in Scotland is admitting.
I don't disagree. The problem is, if people want to do something, they are going to do it. This applies to drugs. When there are people out there who want to use drugs, it creates demand, and we both know if there is demand there WILL be a willing supplier for that demand somewhere. There is no stopping it, the only thing the government can do is hope to slow it down and make it more difficult, but the end result will be the same.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.