http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/20/pope-francis-dont-legalise-drugs
I think the new (and generally fairly groovy) Pope Francis has been reading Trainspotting by Irvine Welsh. Compare the Pope's speech to the International Drug Conference:
"I would reaffirm what I have stated on another occasion – no to every
type of drug use. It is as simple as that … But to say this no, one has
to say yes to life, yes to love, yes to others, yes to education, yes to
greater job opportunities. If we say yes to all these things, there
will be no room for illicit drugs, for alcohol abuse, for other forms of
addiction."
With the infamous heroin justification speech delivered by Renton in Trainspotting:
“Choose a life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a
fucking big television. Choose washing machines, cars, compact disc
players and electrical tin openers... Choose DSY and wondering who the
fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching
mind-numbing, spirit crushing game shows, stucking junk food into your
mouth. Choose rotting away in the end of it all, pishing your last in a
miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish,
fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself, choose your future.
Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that?”
Notice a certain similarity in logical structures and theme?
Showing posts with label Drug policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Drug policy. Show all posts
Saturday, 21 June 2014
Sunday, 17 March 2013
Keeping up with the Czechs?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/the-winners-and-losers-of-drug-liberalization-in-the-czech-republic-a-888618-2.html
Clichéd, I know, but Christoph Scheuermann's article on the 'losers' of Czech liberalisation has inspired me to imitate the majority of amateur political bloggers and wade into the murky debate on drug policy and the potential benefits of liberalising recreational drug use.
The Spiegel article focusses on the social consequences of the Czech Republic's decision to legalise possession of small amounts of drugs (both hard and soft) while continuing to prosecute those who carry large supplies or deal. Inevitably it stresses the plight of individual 'losers' who have been harmed by this policy.
Such anecdotal cases have little value to any real understanding of any issue, despite their attraction to investigative journalists. However, they do reveal genuine tragedies caused by addiction to drink, drugs or gambling. I would only quibble with the connection that is drawn between these sad cases and Czech legislation. You could write an identical article with similar tales about drug use in the USA, UK or dozens of other countries.
The writer's case is also markedly inconsistent He briefly discusses the plummeting price of drugs and the claims of native dealers that the marijuana business is now in the hands of Vietnamese immigrants to the Czech Republic.
He doesn't dwell on the fact that this suggests some positive effects of the legislation. If Czech dealers are making little profit then a source of revenue for illegitimate use has completely dried up. The American war on drugs has done little to stop Colombian paramilitaries or Mexican narcotics gangs from using drug trade profits for other political, criminal and violent activities. By contrast, if times are bad for Czech dealers there is little reason or opportunity for criminal gangs to set up shop in the country.
Perhaps realising this flaw in his argument, Scheuermann then switches his focus to the border problems caused by the flow of drugs from the Czech Republic to its neighbours. However, he continues to rely on weak assumptions. The existence of a cross-border trade cannot be laid purely at the feet of the Czech government. There is only regional drug flow because of the differing harshness of legislation in the different Central European countries. If prices are low and production is relatively easy in the Czech Republic then it makes sense for dealers to try to muscle into nearby markets. All it would take to remove this incentive is some coordination between enforcement agencies or, more radically, the adoption of similarly liberal drug regulation by surrounding European nations.
Clichéd, I know, but Christoph Scheuermann's article on the 'losers' of Czech liberalisation has inspired me to imitate the majority of amateur political bloggers and wade into the murky debate on drug policy and the potential benefits of liberalising recreational drug use.
The Spiegel article focusses on the social consequences of the Czech Republic's decision to legalise possession of small amounts of drugs (both hard and soft) while continuing to prosecute those who carry large supplies or deal. Inevitably it stresses the plight of individual 'losers' who have been harmed by this policy.
Such anecdotal cases have little value to any real understanding of any issue, despite their attraction to investigative journalists. However, they do reveal genuine tragedies caused by addiction to drink, drugs or gambling. I would only quibble with the connection that is drawn between these sad cases and Czech legislation. You could write an identical article with similar tales about drug use in the USA, UK or dozens of other countries.
The writer's case is also markedly inconsistent He briefly discusses the plummeting price of drugs and the claims of native dealers that the marijuana business is now in the hands of Vietnamese immigrants to the Czech Republic.
He doesn't dwell on the fact that this suggests some positive effects of the legislation. If Czech dealers are making little profit then a source of revenue for illegitimate use has completely dried up. The American war on drugs has done little to stop Colombian paramilitaries or Mexican narcotics gangs from using drug trade profits for other political, criminal and violent activities. By contrast, if times are bad for Czech dealers there is little reason or opportunity for criminal gangs to set up shop in the country.
Perhaps realising this flaw in his argument, Scheuermann then switches his focus to the border problems caused by the flow of drugs from the Czech Republic to its neighbours. However, he continues to rely on weak assumptions. The existence of a cross-border trade cannot be laid purely at the feet of the Czech government. There is only regional drug flow because of the differing harshness of legislation in the different Central European countries. If prices are low and production is relatively easy in the Czech Republic then it makes sense for dealers to try to muscle into nearby markets. All it would take to remove this incentive is some coordination between enforcement agencies or, more radically, the adoption of similarly liberal drug regulation by surrounding European nations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)