Forum Topic

Stringent laws, spectacular police drives, vigorous prosecution, and imprisonment of addicts and peddlers have proved not only useless and enormously expensive as means of correcting this evil, but they are also unjustifiably and unbelievably cruel in their application to the unfortunate drug victims. Repression has driven this vice underground and produced the narcotic smugglers and supply agents, who have grown wealthy out of this evil practice and who, by devious methods, have stimulated traffic in drugs. Finally, and not the least of the evils associated with repression, the helpless addict has been forced to resort to crime in order to get money for the drug which is absolutely indispensable for his comfortable existence.The first step in any plan to alleviate this dreadful affliction should be the establishment of Federal control and dispensation – at cost – of habit-forming drugs. With the profit motive gone, no effort would be made to encourage its use by private dispensers of narcotics, and the drug peddler would disappear. New addicts would be speedily discovered and through early treatment, some of these unfortunate victims might be saved from becoming hopelessly incurable.Drug addiction, like prostitution, and like liquor, is not a police problem; it never has been, and never can be solved by policemen. It is first and last a medical problem, and if there is a solution it will be discovered not by policemen, but by scientific and competently trained medical experts whose sole objective will be the reduction and possible eradication of this devastating appetite. There should be intelligent treatment of the incurables in outpatient clinics, hospitalization of those not too far gone to respond to therapeutic measures, and application of the prophylactic principles which medicine applies to all scourges of mankind.August Vollmer, 1936

Paul James ● 4656d

Paul,Don't follow your stance. If the wiki reference is what you rely upon, then should I be swayed without further thought? Just a load of numbers. Not helpful per se.Seemingly quite a few countries made khat illegal. Are they wrong? Were we wrong not to have done the same? Why?The ACMD report rejected by government does not impress to the point that we must not change the law. One of the authors discredited himself over ecstasy. Or, some psychologists disagreed with him. How reliable is he? Is it helpful to have a dentist advising the government about khat controls?You also did not answer my previous questions. Am none the wiser.While agreed ignorance and fear need to be challenged before setting an appropriate law and budget, it may be legitimate to simply say that if society is so sick of drug taking then, as it is so destructive, make the laws harsher. I do not accept lumping anti drugs arguments with anti alcohol arguments. Just deal with some of these one at a time. We don't have the resources or probably the understanding to compare and contrast the two reliably.Do you want us to live our lives alongside the many various impacts of drug taking around us which we loath. If so why? Have you sat in the magistrates courts and wondered what the magistrates are doing with repeat offenders?I suggest that your comment about three years of dropping crime in W13 in another thread would have had far greater impact if you had broken the figures down into the smaller crime areas. Crime around the Green Man Estate is appalling - whether up or down. Thanks Ealing Town Hall.I don't get the agenda behind your challenges in these two threads.

George Knox ● 4656d