It could not only be stated, but also evidence and reference
supported, that the growth of drug policy in the West has had serious
consequences for the progression of policy trajectories on and within countries
where traditional, religious, and culturally embedded drug use takes place.
The fact is that drugs and drug use being conceptualized in the West, is
almost entirely misconceived, and inappropriately applied in large numbers of other
nations, that have adopted similar laws/policies after the predominant western
nations have. (This becomes quite obvious once statements are reviewed that
have been made by the United Nations, for example, in the scheduling of substances
to be included in drug control laws, which routinely happens presently with new
RC's(Research Chemicals), as they become known. Unfortunately, this misconception,
serves only to make the passing of such new laws and inclusions, in these nations,
merely fear-driven and put fourth without all the facts, while the ones doing so, actually
have the intentions of harm reduction, and unknowingly, only ever receive the tried,
tested, and known results of failure that every drug war has been, or will ever be.......
as is the reality of making drugs and addiction a legal issue at all, instead of addressing
them in the form they actually exist as, health issues, and nothing more.)
Clearly, it is the long-standing fear of drugs and drug users, based upon the exaggerated
risks and health harms assumed to be factually contained within “drugs”, and on fears
related to “othering,”(any action by which an individual or group becomes mentally classified
in somebody's mind as "not one of us")prejudice, and misconception, that has driven this
approach and continues to do so. Specifically, it is a weak understanding of how drug risk
manifests in reality, and the failure to make clear (or even suggest), that the many other
factors besides the actual drugs are of equal significance in understanding drug-related
risks and harms. This has resulted in drug control policy that is mistakenly reliant upon
isolated, worst-case scenarios.
This same approach suggests that illicit drugs, by and large, have no, or few, beneficial effects
to society, and that their use should be prohibited. Another consequence of such a fear and
risk based approach, is that it is quite a contradiction to individual rights, and the social and
cultural norms of various groups, as well as traditional and cohesive practice.
The only actual safety that any such laws or policies are able to attempt to provide, is the
protecting of individuals from themselves, because it has no place in reality, to place any
amount of accountability on, nor assume there is even a need OF protection from a lifeless,
inanimate object like a drug, of which any human with life, choice, and free will, is likely to
happen along at any given minute, and choose to do with it as one pleases.
As one is aware, All or most adult humans of sound mind, do not get a choice of whether
or not we will be held accountable for our actions, choices, and decisions throughout life,
because it is automatically decided for us, that we will, in fact be held fully accountable for
them.
For one's fellow humans to self appoint oneself and their chosen constituents as a
presiding authority of structure, order, and ensuring of accountability in general, is one thing,
and can even be viewed as necessary to maintaining order. But when things reach such
a point of complacency and arrogance, of self appointing oneself to also take the decision of
what to and not to put into other people's bodies, the end of individual freedom becomes
actual reality. When the most basic elements of a conscious being's existence, are allowed to
be decided by one that is no more or less entitled to do so than any other, there really ceases to
be many elements of that same being's existence that cannot also be assumed by another.
If drugs were the problem, then this approach could also be used for the implication
of many other lifeless and inanimate objects, in many other scenarios, such as a rock that was
thrown through a window, now becoming only partially my fault if i threw it at the window, because
now the rock can be held accountable for some of the blame; or a car wreck where there is no
mechanical or otherwise failure of any vehicles involved, but still the vehicles can now be placed
as being somewhat responsible in anyway for the accident.
.......meanwhile, back in the crime & punishment system of placing these drugs and the
people that use or associate with them, the individual IS STILL held fully accountable,
and thus punished with incarceration for being afflicted with a health issue such as addiction.....
the drugs are only blamed, when doing so accommodates the occasional justifying
of the crime/punishment system for drugs ........
So where does there arise any credibility or justification for some self serving, manipulative
Scumbag to be self, peer, or otherwise appointed to decide such things in the first place for
someone else? And what ACTUAL positive results has this approach had on the whole scenario
and inevitable cycle of humans rightfully making the decision for themselves, of what to and
not to put in THEIR OWN bodies? The biggest majority of these humans is and has been aware
of both the illegal classification of these drugs, and the consequences of using/associating with them......
yet drug use rates do not decrease, and never have while drug wars were in place, in any nation.
Let's think about the soundness of that concept for a second.........hmmmmmm..........can't seem to find any
.......... Wonder why?
So why exactly do I need someone ELSE to decide what I can or can not put into my own body,
and whether or not to do it...... hell, it seems that I'm competent enough to accept full
accountability for that and every other aspect of what to and not to subject myself to
(and many completely legal of those choices are of much greater health and loss of life risk
than a mere perception or consciousness altering substance), so where exactly is the harm
reduction in this approach? If one is indeed missing something here, and there actually is
some harm reduction in this approach, please share these findings with one.
The drug war's day is finally coming to an end. It had a hell of a run though! One can hardly
deny that. It sure as hell had it's twists and turns, particularly to those of us who served
multiple and consecutive years in one or more of the many fine resort getaways they have had
waiting for us, so faithfully, over the years, every time a new simple possession or distribution
charge, etc...... was issued by the pathetic excuses for law enforcement, that they've kept ever
so mindlessly enforcing the pointless garbage over the years.
Hell, who knows, one might even some day, come to miss the good ol Scumbag fuckery of old,
perhaps from the sheer hilarity of looking back upon it......like the classic........shove the ol wolf
into a sheep suit, tuck his tail in there, zip it up, and send him out to address the masses,
that panic so easily, and don't even need much encouragement.....but, look at it from their
perspectives, and one supposes it could be slightly sympathized with, if viewed as they were
just going along to get along, essentially, by saying to themselves......hell, no need to give
up this vast improvement in quality of life, and added bonus of not having to have a real job
to receive it, just keep playing o holier than thou, govt employed upholder of these completely
counter-productive, fear driven, and scare-tactic fueled laws and policies, and bring about
exactly NONE of the reduction of anything that we insisted they would, and used as reasons
to implement the complete failures to begin with.
Clearly, there won't be too much lost in the replacing of the scumbags currently making such
decisions, as a down syndrome'd, inbred, keebler elf that was recently laid off from the cookie
tree could handle these daunting tasks performed by the majority of current and prior "leaders" .....
There's no credibility to lose where it never existed in the first place...... Bullshit is bullshit, and facts and
logic are facts and logic. It is what it is. And no amount of attempted justifying, or brainwashed support
from the masses, can make right come out of a complete failure of an approach to something, like the
drug war is to a health issue like addiction, nor can it negate the basic right of any grown, of sound mind,
and fully accountable for their own actions and choices human being, to rightfully decide for themself,
what will and will not go into their own body.
So, for those that take the larger view as perspectives, and actually account for the other contributing
factors thaN are ever implicated in most incidents of drug-associated harm to oneself or others,
one can easily draw their own conclusions to the tried, tested, and predictable outcome of making
something like drugs and addiction, legal and punishable issues at all, instead of addressing them in
their actual forms......as the health issues they are, and nothing more. The objective here is to bring
awareness not just to the utter futility of outlawing and punishment as failed approaches for drugs
and addiction, but more importantly to how these assumptions have, and always will be destructive to
not just individual and social rights, but historical cultures and traditions, ecologically, economically
bankrupting the participating nation's economies, self-limiting the individuals, as well as an entire
species that prides itself in the natural act of evolution, but ironically, is not even able to step outside
of the box that is our comfort zone, and even consider an
actually tested, proven, evidence based,
in-use, fact-based and real world, successful alternative, like
Portugal's Harm Reduction approach,
one that is in place now, and has been for 15+ years(since July 2001) and again,
actually works.
edited conclusion of ch. 12 in the file posted here
References
~~Aldhous, P. (2006). Drugs, crime and a conservation crisis. New Scientist, 191(2567), 6–8.
~~Berridge, V. (1998). Opium and the people: Opiate use and policy in 19th and early 20th century
Britain, 2nd revised edition. London: Free Association Books.
~~Beynon, C., Stimson, G., & Lawson, E. (2007). Problematic drug use, ageing and older people:
Trends in the age of drug users in northwest England. Ageing and Society, 27(6), 799–810.
~~Bourgois, P., Prince, B., & Moss, A. (2004). The everyday violence of hepatitis C among young
women who inject drugs in San Francisco. Human Organization, 63(3), 253–264.
~~Brecher, E.M., and the Editors of Consumer Reports (1972). Licit and illicit drugs: The consumers
union report on narcotics, stimulants, depressants, inhalants, hallucinogens, and marijuana–
including caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol. Boston: Little Brown.
~~Chagnon, N. (1983). Yanomamo: The last days of Eden. NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
~~Chigwedere, P., Seage, G. R., Gruskin, S., Lee, T. H., & Essex, M. (2008). Estimating the lost
benefits of antiretroviral drug use in South Africa. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndromes, 49(4), 410–415.
~~Coomber, R. (Ed.). (1998). The control of drugs and drug users: Reason or reaction? Amsterdam:
Harwood Academic Publishers.
~~Coomber, R. (2006). Pusher myths: Re-situating the drug dealer. London: Free Association
Books.
~~Coomber, R. (2011). Social fear, drug related beliefs, and drug policy. In G. Hunt, M. Milhet, &
H. Bergeron (Eds.), Drugs and culture: Knowledge, consumption and policy (pp. 15–32).
Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
~~Coomber, R. (2013). How social fear of drugs in the non-sporting world creates a framework for
policy in the sporting world. In Anti-doping rational policy or moral panic? [Special issue].
International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics.
~~Coomber, R., & South, N. (Eds.). (2004). Drug use in cultural contexts beyond the West:
Tradition, change and post-colonialism. London: Free Association Books.
~~Coomber, R., & Sutton, C. (2006). How quick to heroin dependence? Drug & Alcohol Review, 25
(5), 463–471.
~~Courtwright, D. T. (1995). The rise and fall and rise of cocaine in the United States. In J. Goodman,
P. E. Lovejoy, & A. Sherratt (Eds.), Consuming habits: Drugs in history and anthropology.
Chatham, UK: Routledge.
~~Darke, S., & Zador, D. (1996). Fatal heroin “overdose”: A review. Addiction, 91(12), 1765–1772.
Del Olmo, R. (1987). Aerobiology and the War on Drugs: A transnational crime. Crime and Social
Justice, 30, 28–44.
~~Del Olmo, R. (1998). The ecological impact of illicit drug cultivation and crop eradication
programs in Latin America. Theoretical Criminology, 2(2), 269–278.
~~Diko¨tter, F., Laamann, L., & Xun, Z. (2004). Narcotic culture: A history of drugs in China.
London: Hurst & Company.
~~European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. (2007). Guidelines for the evaluation
of treatment in the field of problem drug use. Lisbon: EMCDDA. Retrieved December 2, 2012
from http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index50509EN.html.
~~Feeney, K., & Labate, B. C. (2014). The expansion of Brazilian ayahuasca religions: Law, culture
and locality (this volume).
~~Fitzgerald, J., & Threadgold, T. (2004). Fear of sense in the street heroin market. International
Journal of Drug Policy, 15(5), 407–417.
~~Gfroerer, J., Penne, M., Pemberton, M., & Folsom, R. (2003). Substance abuse treatment need
among older adults in 2020: The impact of the aging baby-boom cohort. Drug and Alcohol
Dependence, 69(2), 127–135.
~~Habermas, J. (2001). The post-national constellation. Cambridge: Polity Press.
~~Hobbs, D. (2013). Lush life: Constructing organized crime in the UK. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
~~Kaplan, J. (1985). The hardest drug: Heroin and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
~~Kohn, M. (1992). Dope girls: The birth of the British underground. London: Lawrence &
Wisehart.
~~Krivanek, J. (1988). Heroin: Myths and reality. Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
~~Labate, B. C., & Jungaberle, H. (Eds.). (2011). The internationalization of ayahuasca. Zurich: Lit
Verlag.
~~Laville, S. (2008, November 11). Cocaine users are destroying the rainforest four square meters a
gram. The Guardian, 13.
~~Lloyd, C. (2010). Sinning and sinned against: The stigmatisation of problem drug use. London:
UK Drug Policy Commission. Retrieved December 1, 2012 from http://www.ukdpc.org.uk/
resources/Stigma_Expert_Commentary_final2.pdf.
~~MacRae, E. (2004). The ritual use of ayahuasca by three Brazilian religions. In R. Coomber &
N. South (Eds.), Drug use and cultural contexts beyond the West (pp. 27–45). London: Free
Association Books.
~~Mann, C., Ouro-Bang’na, F., & Eledjam, J. J. (2005). Patient-controlled analgesia. Current Drug
Targets, 6(7), 815–819.
~~Molano, A. (1992). Amapola en los Andes Colombianos. Santafe de Bogota, agosto. Unpublished
manuscript.
~~Moore, D. (1993). Beyond Zinberg’s “social setting”: A processural view of illicit drug use. Drug
and Alcohol Review, 12(4), 413–421.
~~Musto, D. F. (1987). The American disease: Origins of narcotic control. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
~~Nutt, D. J., King, L. A., & Phillips, L. D. (2010). Drug harms in the UK: A multicriteria decision
analysis. The Lancet, 376, 1558–1565. doi:10.1016/S0140- 6736(10)61462-6.
~~Parra, L. E. (1994). La amapola un ano despues de iniciada su erradicacio: Solucio´n posible.
Revista Fiesta a la Vida, 2(2). Santafe de Bogota: Direccion Nacional de Estupefacientes,
enero.
~~Police Foundation. (2000). Drugs and the law: Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Misuse
of Drugs Act 1971. London: The Police Foundation.
~~Reinarman, C., & Levine, H. G. (Eds.). (1997). Crack in America: Demon drugs and social justice.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
~~Rhodes, T. (2002). The risk environment: A framework for understanding and reducing drugrelated
harm. International Journal of Drug Policy, 13(2), 85–94.
~~Rhodes, T. (2009). Risk environments and drug harms: A social science for harm reduction
approach. International Journal of Drug Policy, 20, 193–201.
~~Rivera Cusicanqui, S. (2004). A quasi-legal commodity in the Andes: Coca-leaf consumption in
northwestern Argentina. In R. Coomber & N. South (Eds.), Drug use and cultural contexts
beyond the West (pp. 64–82). London: Free Association Books.
~~Rolles, S., & Measham, F. (2011). Questioning the method and utility of ranking drug harms in
drug policy. International Journal of Drug Policy, 22(4), 243–246.
~~Schuerkens, U. (2003). Social transformations between global forces and local life-worlds:
Introduction. Current Sociology, 51(3/4), 195–222.
~~Sentencing Council. (2012). Drug Offences Definitive Guidelines. Retrieved March 20, 2012 from
http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/Drug_Offences_Guideline_Professional_Con
sultation.pdf.
~~Smith, D. E. (Ed.). (1972). It’s so good, don’t even try it once: Heroin in perspective. New York
City, NY: Prentice Hall.
~~South, N. (1998). A green field for criminology?: A proposal for a perspective. Theoretical
Criminology, 2(2), 211–234.
~~South, N., & Brisman, A. (Eds.). (2012). The international handbook of green criminology.
London: Routledge.
~~Tupper, K. W., & Labate, B. C. (2012). Plants, psychoactive substances, and the INCB: The
control of nature and the nature of control. Human Rights and Drugs, 2(1), 17–28.
United Nations General Assembly Special Session. (1998). Political declaration: Guiding principles
of drug demand reduction and measures to enhance international cooperation to counter
the world drug problem. In Resolutions adopted at United Nations General Assembly Special
Session on the World Drug Problem, New York, 8–10 June 1998. Retrieved December 2, 2012
from http://www.unodc.org/pdf/report_1999-01-01_1.pdf.
~~Williams, C. (Ed.). (1996). Environmental victims: An introduction. Environmental victims
(Special issue). Social Justice, 23(4), 1–6.
~~Woodiwiss, M., & Hobbs, D. (2009). Organised evil and the Atlantic Alliance: Moral panics and
the rhetoric of organized crime policing in America and Britain. British Journal of Criminology,
49(1), 106–128.
~~Zinberg, N. (1984). Drug, set and setting: The basis of controlled intoxicant use. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
~~Zinberg, N. (1985). Drug, set and setting. New Haven, CT: Yale University