They were crimes that resulted directly out of the prohibition of drugs. With Wilkinson, the facts are relatively clear. The circumstances as I understand them surrounding the death of Hapeta are that he was starting out selling Cannabis and the two youths who murdered him were “protecting their patch”.
One would lose count of the number of burglaries committed, or the number of cars stolen, or the aggravated robberies committed each year in order solely for the offenders to obtain cash to purchase prohibited drugs on the black market. The prohibition of drugs, whether they’re called recreational or whatever label attaches, not only does not work, it in fact makes society more dangerous and unsafe. If we want a safer and crime-reduced country then all drugs should be decriminalised and regulated immediately. The regulation can occur through the sale by government controlled stores. These stores would be a monopoly and they would not be allowed to advertise.
Those are my beliefs. They are also the view of Judge Jerry Paradis who is in New Zealand to present to a government ministry on drug prevention. Judge Paradis is a member of LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) and was a Canadian District Judge for 28 years. He’s seen it all.
During his lecture at AUT on Friday he spoke of how during his bench service, the supply side of illegal drugs increased hugely yet the number of addicts stayed relatively stable: the increase of drugs did not result in more drug problems. Of course that is because individuals are able to decide for themselves that drugs are bad news and the increase in their supply didn’t mean humans weren’t able to choose not to use them.
Judge Paradis described how the drive to take drugs was innate and therefore there will always be demand to match the supply. The LeDain Report, a Canadian Government commissioned report in 1972, was the most extensive report ever undertaken in Canada on the prohibition of drugs whose thesis was that the criminal law is the least effective way to deal with drug issues. In New Zealand during the last two weeks we have seen just that.
A better example of the way prohibition has conclusively and demonstrably failed is the USA. One of the most morally righteous countries in the World decided to “get tough on drugs” during the Nixon era [1968-1976]. The odd reasoning behind it was that drugs are bad for you and your health and well-being. The USA decided to “deal” with the inevitable social and health problems caused by drug abuse by invoking the criminal law. It has spent between then and now approximately $US 1,000,000,000,000.00 [One Trillion dollars] on the issue. The Drug Enforcement Agency budget in 1971 was $75 million dollars. In 2001 it was $1.6 Billion. As a result of this “war on drugs” drug arrests quadrupled and the percentage of prison inmates committed for drug offences increased from 26% in 1973 to 56% in 2001. Yet the drug ‘problem’, and of course related crime problems, have got worse. Prohibition has failed.
What prohibition does is this:
1. It creates a black market – approximately $500 Billion per annum worldwide and gives enormous profits for the drug cartels;
2. Property crime, violent crime and other violent crime (all known as drug related crime) increases;
3. There is no quality control over the drugs being taken: who knows what that white pill contains;
4. It is a tremendous drain on police, court and justice resources.
In short, the cost of prohibition is exorbitant. It is unnecessary. It is draining. All of these reasons are why, in New Zealand, drugs should be decriminalised and regulated.
Judge Paradis stated that during his time on the Bench, 60% of the crimes that came before him were drug prohibition crimes. That can be reduced overnight by decriminalising and regulating drugs.
Section 4 of New Zealand’s Sale of Liquor Act is a relevant starting point for the policy prescription. It says:
The object of this Act is to establish a reasonable system of control over the sale and supply of liquor to the public with the aim of contributing to the reduction of liquor abuse, so far as that can be achieved by legislative means.
Perfect.
Section 4 acknowledges control over the supply; has the aim of contributing to the reduction of abuse; but only so far as that can be achieved by the law.
That is what the crux is. The criminal law can only achieve so much in dealing with drug prohibition crimes. The two recent murders highlight that the level of muchness is in fact very low.
Let's forget about being precious on this issue and face reality: prohibition is an abject failure.
Let's get some personal responsibility back into people's lives. Let's face it, if 'P' was decriminalised and its supply regulated overnight would you go and buy some tomorrow? Most would answer 'NO' because it's bad shit. The ones who would can be helped through medicine, not handcuffs.
More at: www.drugwarodyssey.com
10 comments:
"A better example of the way prohibition has conclusively and demonstrably failed is the USA."
It hasn't in Singapore. Whether or not drug criminalisation is a bad idea, the argument that drug use cannot be stopped by law enforcement is flawed.
Well the Honourable Judge said drug use is innate RB, and the Ledain report confirmed it.
This is a tricky one.
I believe drugs are evil and best avoided.
But current policies are not working.
So maybe legalisation plus regulation might have a better result.
So we could beat drug crime by becoming an authoritarian police state like Singapore? All we have to do to end this is give up what freedom we have left? Forgive my lack of enthusiasm...
Gooner's point 4 alone ought to be sufficient for govt regulation of the supply - not only do you not know what's in those pills or that powder, you can pretty much guarantee there's something in it that's going to fuck with your health more than the drug will fuck with your head. Most of us like having our head fucked with now and then, but preferably without playing Russian roulette with our health at the same time.
So we could beat drug crime by becoming an authoritarian police state like Singapore?
It's far more of a democracy than NZ is;
with much more personal responsibility;
and much less state involvement;
and far more economic growth than NZ has ever managed.
There was nothing in the pharmacology of 'P' that created the killing of Don Wilkinson. It was the rules that created this mayhem. P wasn't involved (note: suspected lab has not been replaced by confirmed lab!)
I have seen the enemy and the enemy is us. We are the arvchitects of this problem and until we realise it (as a community) the problems will self replicate faster than a ponzi scheme.
Now if only this would make it into ACTs law and order policy and I'd be happy.
The independent police watchdog is investigating the arrest of a man whose farm was seized under the proceeds of crime act, after claims of corrupt police conduct. Shaun Allen has spent 15 years and a $500,000 Lotto windfall after he came out of jail fighting to clear his name. Mr Allen, who served an 18-month sentence and had his $365,000 Hawke's Bay farm seized after he was convicted of growing marijuana in 1993, says he found evidence of doctored documents and manufactured evidence in the police case. He is planning to apply for a prerogative of mercy, in which the governor-general pardons a person who has been wrongly convicted. "I want to clear my name. When I went to jail it was bad enough, to have my kids come to jail and ask me to come home, that was hard. But even though I'm out, it never leaves me. Day and night, every night, I can't switch it off. I want it to end." Mr Allen had owned his 840-acre farm for just a few months when police raided the property and found 1000 cannabis plants. He has always maintained his innocence and says the crops were being grown by a previous owner or a trespasser. He thinks he was set up by police determined to convict someone. With the help of a team of lawyers and private investigators, he says he has uncovered evidence of corrupt police practice. The Independent Police Conduct Authority has confirmed it is investigating. Police did not return requests for comment. National MP Chester Borrows, a former police officer, said he had seen Mr Allen's evidence and described the case as "very concerning". "There are documents here and procedures here where police have worked well away from the norm," he said.
Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4692486a11.html
Gooner: I agree with all your points and their subsequent logic, (in fact I made them on Newstalk ZB earlier this year which caused a mini-hurricane), except one.
The title should not be: "Drugs should be decriminalised and regulated", but "Drugs should be legalised", period. No regulation, except market regulation.
To explain:
It's not up to the state to tell you what to do, and that includes what to put into your body. If you want to harm yourself, go right ahead. More fool, you. I don't take drugs, either, FFM. Never have done; can't stand them. I was a poster child for Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign. But I know how to mind my own business.
It goes without saying that should an adult harm others or their property while under the influence (of any substance), then the law should deal with them seriously.
My point: There is no need for regulation, as market regulation would do that. History has clearly shown the difference in product quality when alcohol was prohibited for consumption, as opposed to legalised sale. Your cheap plonk at the supermarket might be just that: cheap plonk. But it sure as hell isn't hooch.
As you have said: By removing the criminality (which doesn't give a damn as to what the product contains), we remove the exhorbitant black market profits; the only reason the criminals are in the business in the first place. We also remove the subsequent gang violence that results from distribution/supply differences, as well as the attendant community crime that results from desperate folk finding money for the highly-priced product.
So: Enter real private enterprise with which the gangs can never hope to compete. Who would you rather do your business with: some grubby slug behind a filthy public loo or your local chemist?
More: In a free market, a drug such as P would not exist because there would be safer, vastly cheaper alternatives manufactured by drug companies. You can always trust drug companies to meet the market. ;)
The rest of your points are spot on, but there is one more extremely pertinent point which results from an open market:
Pharmacists are not interested in supplying drugs to your children.
Criminals, however, don't give a shit about your kids and grandkids.
That alone deserves some serious thought.
The Leighton Smiths of this world who constantly cry "BAN DRUGS!" are aiding and abetting the gangs with every utterance.
Nixon's 'War on Drugs' has been an unmitigated disaster. 35 years of insanity. 35 years of doing more & more of what's patently not working.
Kind of puts Iraq into perspective, don't you think?
"The Leighton Smiths of this world who constantly cry "BAN DRUGS!" are aiding and abetting the gangs with every utterance."
Ohhhh Im so telling Mr Smith on you!
;-)
Wewll said Sus.....
Post a Comment