It seems to me that nobody would willingly argue with the Sensible Sentencing Trust's championing of victim's rights. However also given consideration must be potential victims and their rights to be safe.
Drugs are involved in a great deal of crime, whether they create an unquenchable thirst for money to fund habits leading to burglary and dishonesty crimes or they induce behaviour changes that lead to crimes of recklessness and/or violence or they are a mix of both. The traditional western response is to attempt to eradicate drugs, except where a majority also enjoy indulging in them ie alcohol. That attempted eradication is causing more crime than it is preventing.
If you don't believe me look at the one case whereby we have de facto legalising of a highly addictive drug - heroin. The methadone programme is accepted not as a great success in weaning people of heroin but as a effective deterrent to crime. This programme, which caters to over 4,000 addicts, sticks out like dog's. It is the one exception to the overriding rationale behind the war on drugs. But it would appear lawmakers refuse to learn anything from it.
Instead we continue to create more crime rather than reduce it by acceptance and accommodation of drug use. Hell's bells. What a wet liberal I will be labelled as. One of those pesky ACT liberals who cause problems for the ACT conservatives.
ACT appears to have linked itself to the SST. I have never seen or heard the Sensible Sentencing Trust back an end to prohibition. And any failure to do so actually condones the creation of more victims. Upping the ante will only worsen crime in New Zealand. Add to that the insane welfare policies NZ pursues (ACT's opposition to which is the main reason I support them) and we are never going to see the kind of safety and security alluded to at their law and order launch yesterday.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Agreed completely. It shouldn't be a law and order policy - it should be a victims rights policy.
And seeing as drug use between consenting adults has no victims - Drugs shouldn't be a law and order issue.
While I'd love to see more explicit references to ending prohibition in the ACT policy response, I am just as happy to see no reference to drugs, as after all it means that they aren't going after them either.
Its worth remembering ACTs recent voting record on the issue, voting agaisnt the banning of BZP.
I for one will ALWAYS be pushing for drug liberalisation at any ACT meeting I'm attending, as I believe that the only real way to stop gangs, is to remove their source of income.
Hi Lindsay & Mike .. of course you're both correct.
I attended yesterday's launch. Have left comments over at No Minister.
I don't believe a function of government is to protect people from their own stupidity. In that regard I do not support the banning of any substance, except with those not capable of making a rational decision (such as children).
Allistar: that is a principle of Libertarianz and thus its policy.
"The effects of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools". Herbert Spencer.
An oldie but a goodie.
I attended yesterday's launch. Have left comments over at No Minister."
I know you did and submitted balckmai...er a photo of same to Leighton Smith to tease you with at odd moments...;-)
there's one simple policy that will solve this problem (and Libz weenies, yep it breaks the pathetic "non-initiation of force")
A gang member, member of a corrupt organisation, or otherwise involved in organised crime (*) has no defence against murder or assault etc charges; if the attacker is a member of the police, reasonable suspicion is enough.
* Union membership should be on this list, but that's not germane to this question.
Hey, James! What's that about keeping your friends close, but your enemies closer, etc?! Ha.
Anon: what's so 'pathetic' about "non-initiation of force" please?
Don't think I've ever been called a weenie, before, either! Bit ironic, though, coming from a faceless one! :)
To me, while the idea of legalizing drug use is an intellectually slick sounding argument when presented as a sound bite, I'm a little skeptical. The social problems surrounding drug use aren't so easy eliminate with the stroke of the legislatures pen.
The analogy with the prohibition era is a well-fried catfish. Alcohol has been in customary use for centuries, with most of the adult population partaking in it to various degrees. The difference always was between attempting to ban something which is customary and trying to stop something becoming customary. Two different things.
With all of other current social problems these days, is drug legalization, and the possibility of it ever becoming customary worth the risk? Because there's no going back.
"The social problems surrounding drug use aren't so easy eliminate with the stroke of the legislatures pen."
I am not talking about eliminating the social problems. That won't happen.
I am talking about NOT creating more crime.
"With all of other current social problems these days, is drug legalization, and the possibility of it ever becoming customary worth the risk? Because there's no going back."
yes it is.
Drug laws have resulted in heaps of problems.
you have criminalization of users, which makes them behave more like criminals and makes treatment more difficult once you have that "criminal" tag attached to you. In addition you have a black market that fuels more criminal violence drug trade and can also corrupt some members of the police force given the amount of money at stake.
you also have a greater incentive for inventing new alternatives which could be potentially more dangerous intoxicating drugs.
not to mention that the war on drugs is a complete waste of money and resources that could be better spent on more important stuff like ambitious university research projects for instance.
Instead of going around searching for a local gangs to buy these drugs from (and in an illegal manner) people can get them by prescription from the pharmacy.Far safer and better.
I think its time this fear of decriminalizing or legalizing drugs be put to rest.We've had enough protectionist laws. We need to use more education and less fear.
Grant - its quite simple, who owns my body, myself or the government. If the government owns my body - fine, they can dictate what I can and cannot put in it.
Otherwise I should be free to put whatever I want, wherever I want providing its my own body.
Post a Comment