BOP Times editorial on Drugs
I constantly find myself being in disagreement with the opinions of the editor of the BOP Times, and here is just another example I feel it necessary to comment on.
I disagree with your rationale in your editorial "Drugs must be stamped out."
and it is statist misinformation and propoganda like this that will ensure they continue their popularity and continue to have an adverse effect on those who chose NOT to take recreational drugs.
As editor of the newspaper, you are in the position to state your opinion at will, and so I would assume that you would inform yourself of all the facts before presenting your opinion to the public, and I ask if you have ever read Nobel prize winner Milton Friedmans "Law of prohibition?" If you have not, then you should do so immediately, for without having read this you are at a serious disadvantage to present a balanced editorial.
First of all you say: "Illegal drugs give people a reason to commit crime and hurt others."
Assuming that statement is true, then the opposite is also true ie. if they were legal, those who wish to use drugs would have "no reason to commit crime, and no reason to hurt others." That is immediately a reason for them NOT to be illegal.
While they are illegal, those who demand they are so, are the "reason" people commit crime and hurt others. That makes YOU part of the problem - not the solution that you seek.
If they were legal, those being harmed by the drugs would be hurting themselves - not others.
A more rational solution would be a truthful education programme to teach people not to harm themselves, and the truthful consequences of taking recreational drugs, which would not place other peoples lives and property in danger.
People commit crime because they "want" drugs - not because they are "on" drugs.
Your argument concerning alchohol is not only irrational but also immorral.
I agree that what you say about any political power would not be able to stay in power should they try to ban it, but then you try to justify it being legal by saying the following: "Thousands use it responsibly!"
Thousands also use illegal recreational drugs responsibly.
Don't get me wrong. I do not condone the use of recreational drugs.
All drugs are dangerous, although some more so than others
For this reason I do not take them myself, although I have known hundreds of responsible, everyday people who do, and persecuting them because "you" do not agree with what they chose to put into their body is first of all none of your business, is hypocritical, and makes no sense at all.
Because of your personal irrational, prejudiced opinion, you would also deny those ailing from certain medical conditions from receiving the best treatment for their condition. Not a thing I would like to have on my conscience.
You state the Law Commission would be better off spending its time working out how to cut crime.
What is crime?
Is it possible to commit a crime against yourself?
No!
Therefore to answer your statement, refer to my paragraph above about exactly who "is" the victim of crime.
It should be the governments job to "protect" its citizens from acts of force, fraud and violence and crime with a victim - not inflict those things upon us.
Your paragraph concerning "legal highs" such as Kronic also shows a poor understanding of the issue.
It "should be" any employees right to unequivocally state that "any" mind altering substances will not be accepted as an employee of their company (if they so wish of course). That includes "legal" or "illegal" substances - including alcohol.
Your final statement: "If anything drug laws should be tightened." will have exactly the opposite effect to the end result you wish to achieve. That is not my opinion - its a historical fact which you will read about when you read Milton Friedman.
Tightened drug laws will have the following effect:
Illegal drugs will become smaller and more potent (to aid in concealement, manufacture and distribution.)
Drug prices will increase, and therefore make them more worthy of the risk to manufacture and sell them.
Those manufacting and selling the drugs will resort to more EXTREME measures to protect their valuable product (ie they will invest in bigger, nastier guns and methods of protection)
It will be in these peoples interest to get children hooked on drugs to increase their customer base, and increase their profits
More dangerous, un-regulated, un-tested drugs will be developed, sold and used when people cannot get hold of less dangerous recreational drugs of their choice.
I could go on - please ask me for more examples - I will be happy to furnish them.
I have the same end goal at heart as you do. ie to see less people harmed through using dangerous substances.
To reduce crime (real crime with an involuntary victim)
I suggest the methods used to achieve our mutual goal have proven ineffective, and have squandered more than they have achieved, while you suggest we continue with the squillion dollar tried and failed war on drugs, which in all the years in operation has achieved the results you are unhappy with today.
As editor of the newspaper, you are in the position to state your opinion at will, and so I would assume that you would inform yourself of all the facts before presenting your opinion to the public, and I ask if you have ever read Nobel prize winner Milton Friedmans "Law of prohibition?" If you have not, then you should do so immediately, for without having read this you are at a serious disadvantage to present a balanced editorial.
First of all you say: "Illegal drugs give people a reason to commit crime and hurt others."
Assuming that statement is true, then the opposite is also true ie. if they were legal, those who wish to use drugs would have "no reason to commit crime, and no reason to hurt others." That is immediately a reason for them NOT to be illegal.
While they are illegal, those who demand they are so, are the "reason" people commit crime and hurt others. That makes YOU part of the problem - not the solution that you seek.
If they were legal, those being harmed by the drugs would be hurting themselves - not others.
A more rational solution would be a truthful education programme to teach people not to harm themselves, and the truthful consequences of taking recreational drugs, which would not place other peoples lives and property in danger.
People commit crime because they "want" drugs - not because they are "on" drugs.
Your argument concerning alchohol is not only irrational but also immorral.
I agree that what you say about any political power would not be able to stay in power should they try to ban it, but then you try to justify it being legal by saying the following: "Thousands use it responsibly!"
Thousands also use illegal recreational drugs responsibly.
Don't get me wrong. I do not condone the use of recreational drugs.
All drugs are dangerous, although some more so than others
For this reason I do not take them myself, although I have known hundreds of responsible, everyday people who do, and persecuting them because "you" do not agree with what they chose to put into their body is first of all none of your business, is hypocritical, and makes no sense at all.
Because of your personal irrational, prejudiced opinion, you would also deny those ailing from certain medical conditions from receiving the best treatment for their condition. Not a thing I would like to have on my conscience.
You state the Law Commission would be better off spending its time working out how to cut crime.
What is crime?
Is it possible to commit a crime against yourself?
No!
Therefore to answer your statement, refer to my paragraph above about exactly who "is" the victim of crime.
It should be the governments job to "protect" its citizens from acts of force, fraud and violence and crime with a victim - not inflict those things upon us.
Your paragraph concerning "legal highs" such as Kronic also shows a poor understanding of the issue.
It "should be" any employees right to unequivocally state that "any" mind altering substances will not be accepted as an employee of their company (if they so wish of course). That includes "legal" or "illegal" substances - including alcohol.
Your final statement: "If anything drug laws should be tightened." will have exactly the opposite effect to the end result you wish to achieve. That is not my opinion - its a historical fact which you will read about when you read Milton Friedman.
Tightened drug laws will have the following effect:
Illegal drugs will become smaller and more potent (to aid in concealement, manufacture and distribution.)
Drug prices will increase, and therefore make them more worthy of the risk to manufacture and sell them.
Those manufacting and selling the drugs will resort to more EXTREME measures to protect their valuable product (ie they will invest in bigger, nastier guns and methods of protection)
It will be in these peoples interest to get children hooked on drugs to increase their customer base, and increase their profits
More dangerous, un-regulated, un-tested drugs will be developed, sold and used when people cannot get hold of less dangerous recreational drugs of their choice.
I could go on - please ask me for more examples - I will be happy to furnish them.
I have the same end goal at heart as you do. ie to see less people harmed through using dangerous substances.
To reduce crime (real crime with an involuntary victim)
I suggest the methods used to achieve our mutual goal have proven ineffective, and have squandered more than they have achieved, while you suggest we continue with the squillion dollar tried and failed war on drugs, which in all the years in operation has achieved the results you are unhappy with today.
posted by The Tomahawk Kid at 2:41 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home