How long do you stick with something that isn't working?
The 'War on Drugs', while a nice phrase to throw out at press conferences, seems flawed to the point of uselessness.
Drugs are certainly bad. They destroy brains and bodies and absorb people in their entirety.
The thing is, this zero tolerance approach necessitates excising these people from the society that could help them.
If you decide that drugs are bad, anyone who takes them is bad, and all their mothers are bad, then the most victimised continue to sink.
Now granted, I'm deeply nestled into middle class suburbia, but in my experience, there is a large group of people that take drugs primarily for the purpose of having fun - a group that is rarely represented in the wartime propaganda.
Much like communism and outlawing alcohol, the war is doomed to failure, as it fails to account for human behaviour. People want stuff, they like a tipple and some of them like drugs.
And after years of warfare, there's still drugs all over the place. The zero tolerance thing is not working.
Is it not better to give a small amount of ground? To admit that drugs are out there and try to help people from being destroyed? To save those who have been?
Pill testing could prevent people taking bad drugs. Shooting galleries could get people help if things go wrong. Counselling may help them overcome their crutches.
But none of these things are possible if we just fine them and throw them back away.
I ... have no point of note, just musings about something that seems a bit off.
Stefan tells stories, writes about stories and tells stories about stories.
3 comments:
i support the decriminalisation of drugs, purely as a pragmatic approach to an issue that cannot just be bludgeoned out of existence or swept under the carpet.
there has been a change in attitudes in recent years, which is encouraging:
the DFO has refocused their efforts toward harm minimisation as opposed to the demonisation of users.
trials of the medically supervised injecting centre in kings cross have been extended until 2011.
decriminalisation of soft drugs continues in certain states.
enlighten.org.au sell testing kits and they also maintain pillreports.com
IMO [note: this is separate to a discussion of people with the disease of addiction, which is held in an entirely different context]:
in the western cultural context, i believe recreational drugs are the pinnacle of solipsistic consumerism. no longer a tool held in a deep cultural/mythological context by shamans or medicine people, and the artists and innovators of culture, they are widely available to the masses and consumed in massive proportions; utilised as a means for prosaic communion or, derisively, to get 'out of it'.
symptoms of a deep rift within our collective bond and our connection to nature, perhaps. i find it sad and entirely uncomforting.
The 'war on drugs' is not being won because they haven't declared 'total war on drugs'.
Total war brings to mind total extermination...no prisoners, no surrender...
Now THAT'S a war on drugs.
B.
The war on drugs was created as a distraction for people, much like the war on terror. It just there to make up warm and safe, knowing that there is a war out there to keep our children from trying drugs. Well, here's the problem, I've tried drugs, my parents tried drugs, some of my grandparents have tried drugs, and by golly, i know my kids are going to try drugs too. Guess what, people do drugs. The real problem, is that once you try a drug, you are a "drug user" and as a drug user, you are a bad person. There is no cushion then between an experiementor and a user. Therefore, the jump to addict is much shorter. The "war on drugs" is going to won by compassion, not intolerance.
Post a Comment