Drugs tsar

Is the creation of the new National Drug Control Ministry a good idea?

While details of the new Ministry will not be revealed until tomorrow’s Throne Speech, appointee Wayne Perinchief described its responsibilities as implementing policy on how the police and courts deal with drugs and drug offenders, and coordinating between the different groups.

It’s refreshing to see the Premier trying out some new ideas. Other jurisdictions have their “drugs tsars” and it may be no bad thing for Bermuda to have one too. If it works, we’ll likely forgive Mr. Scott for expanding the size of Cabinet after pledging to reduce it, and for any aspect of self-preservation the move may have.

Comments

[Tiger Bay on 03.11.05 at 08:36]

Next thing, Alex is gonna make me the Minister for White People.

The Drugs Czar is something that sounds good - but is likely to have little impact. It is arguable that many of the problems in enforcement exist because the PLP took prosecutions from the police and politicized it. So now we need a minister to create policies to bridge between the fuzz and the courts?

Moreoever, while enforcement is important, we really need a culture shift that helps keep our kids away from drugs and violence. That means less lips service to "our youth", and real investment in clean sports, afterschool programmes, education. An emphasis on self-respeonsibility and acheivement.

While they are at it, perhaps the PLP parliamentary group will start voluntary drug testing to give a good example. If it's good enough for the bus drivers ...

[Mike34 on 03.11.05 at 09:28]

Bermudian culture seems to accept drug use. We need to tackle it in the schools. Not just "Just say no", but why say no. We need to take the gloves off here and hit the kids hard with the facts about drugs and drug use. Similarly give them other options after school. Promote positive role models on the island - Shaun Goater, David Bascome etc. instead of "Ricky the crackhead"

We need to review legislation pertaining to drug crimes and make penalties harder and police powers more extensive. Scrap the "increased penalty zones" and make the whole island an "increased penalty zone".

Stop siding with the dealers when they appear in court. You get scumbags like Medeiros making false allegations against experienced officers and we entertain it thereby losing 6 seasoned detectives in the fight against drugs. Then the sorry tale about a father who only iported hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of drugs so he could pay off a debt. Give these matters the weight that they deserve - none! Lets get tough.

[Bermudian in Limeyland on 03.11.05 at 09:48]

While it appears to be a good idea does Bermuda think that it will succeed where every other developed country has failed. Also rather than employing another person as a drug tsar would the money not be better spent by giving it straight to the police, either for more sniffer dogs at the airport or for a fast attack boat as used in Miami/Carribean.

[ace on 03.11.05 at 10:04]

I loved the fact that it was pointed out that the new Minister recently announced his intention to import rum from Cuba. On the one hand he will fight "drugs"...on the other hand he will import and sell for profit a "legal" intoxicating drug.

Also, I noted in the courts recently a man had to correct the judge who when reading the charge accidently stated the man was in court to answer charges of possessing marijuana. The defendant corrected him...he was actually charged with cocaine possession. Punnishment...$300 fine. Same punnishment. There is something very wrong with that in my opinion.

[Jake on 03.11.05 at 10:17]

It is arguable that many of the problems in enforcement exist because the PLP took prosecutions from the police and politicized it. - Tiger Bay

Spoken like a true ex-Copper.

How is taking the role of prosecutor from the Police without legal training and giving it to people qualified at the bar? There are excellent examples of individual policemen who did well in the role, but does that make it a good policy? I know one former police prosecutor who was a constant drunk driver, but who was never brought before the courts. Why? What about the problem of independence? Should the decision to prosecute not be separate from the investigation?

Beyond all that, how does this make this a poltical decision?

Other than that, I am with Mike and ace and all in favor of a tougher approach to crime. Look at the effect of the three year mandatory machete rule. Jonathon Smith says it is already having an effect.

One win for the PLP and the AG Mussenden!

[Bill Cook on 03.11.05 at 10:30]

Bermudian in Limeyland,

You raise an interesting point.

Some time ago there was an attempted raid on Westgate as reports of drug dealing and gun use plus cell phones etc.

Upon arriving at the prison the police were refused entry by prison staff.

No one got very concerned about that amazing incident.

Later the temp. warden or prison chief complained of his inability to properly function in tracking drugs in prison as there was not enough money for a sniffer dog,and that is on record.

When you have this and these type of travesties what success will a so called drug Tsar have ?

Can someone explain just exactly what the role of drug Tsar is ? exactly what does he do and what are his responsibilities and is it a salaried position ?

Surely we should have some control over the distribution network even if we seem unable to prevent the importation of drugs.

If we all had ID cards giving our details inc place of employment would this not narrow down those who are employed in drug handling ?

If someone has no visible means of support should we not enact laws that compel one to give the source of income.

We see daily those suspects driving new cars and spending a lot of money yet are unemployed.

Its not rocket science to put 2 and 2 together and figure out that maybe just maybe they earn their money illegally.

[Terry Cloth on 03.11.05 at 11:33]

I agree with you to an extent Bill, but Im not quite ready to break out the jack boots and start high-stepping!

We just need to have a competant, pro-active (sorry Ashfield) system of attacking the problem.

The police are arresting tourists for a joint on a cruise ship then spending the day preparing a file while the real drugs are moved with impunity. THese matters should be left to HM Customs! The police should be investigating rather than crucifying someone for a joint. (Not that I am, by any stretch, condoning the person with the joint)

We need some fresh legs in the war against drugs. The present methods of random street searches and luggage rummaging are old and predictable.

As for the prison fiasco, you have to see the whole thing for what it was - everyone had to be seen to be doing something although they didnt really want to do anything! Typical Im afraid of the agencies involved.

[SmokingGun on 03.11.05 at 11:38]

Bill, you are absolutely correct about Westgate. There are drugs stashed all over the place and it's very easy to get them. Mary-Jane is a constant visitor. The trouble is the drugs in Bermuda are being handled by people who have very close connections to some of the same law makers and prominant people on the island. The police often know who they are but are powerless to do anything because of these connections. When a son of so and so is selling on the street out the back of the family car it's not hard to figure out.

Ace - you are also absolutely correct. Absolutely ridiculous that someone who imports liqour is appointed the anti-drug king. Typical though.

[Big Bad Wolf ^..^ on 03.11.05 at 12:07]

The war on drugs is already lost.Individual choice will always rule over the interests of society.Liquor is a good example of how society will always fail in preventing people from their own decisions.When drugs of any kind are made illegal it justs spirals the profit by vast proportions.The only realistic answer is to legalize all drugs and regulate them.When individuals become adicted and wants help then that is the only time real progress can be made.Drug dealers just love the huge profits that societies have made for their business.Take the profit out of the equation and you might start reversing things.The pursuit of oblivion has been with mankind since the start, no manner of laws and policing will stop it.Don't even get me started about how doctors and shrinks over medicate with prescriptions.The whole subject matter is fraught with such vast hypocrisy.If you look at drug prohibition policies all you see is sustained failure.If you have seen the movie Traffic then you have been touched by the truth of addiction and the business of narcotics.Bermuda appointing a drug tsar is just another failed example,a gesture or wave at a war that Bermuda lost thirty years ago.

[automatic on 03.11.05 at 12:16]

This is just paying lip service to the problem, whilst not actually doing anything about it.

Instead of paying someone to talk about it, why not actually go and arrest some drug dealers? It's not rocket science. I'm not a druggie, but even I know where to find the people that sell them. We all do, they are blatantly obvious about it, yet the Police seem not to notice, or just ignore them and let them carry on with impunity.

One has to wonder why, is it because the Police themselves are involved? That's been suggested many times, and whilst I don't know if it's true, there is the old saying about no smoke without fire, and the fact that they ignore known drug dealers just fans the flames of the rumours.

Same goes with the Prison Officers, if the general belief is true.

On an island this size with more police per capita than practically anywhere in the world, and a very limited number of ports of entry, how hard can it be, really, to stem the importatiuon of drugs?

Rather than tackling the real problem, they instead choose to waste precious resources raiding every cruise ship in the hope of finding a joint or two. That's just a revenue generating exercise and does absolutely nothing about the real issues. Pathetic.

[Bill Cook on 03.11.05 at 12:32]

Wolf,

There is no doubt of the truth of your comments, but I have been many times to Switzerland and to Needle Park and few people are less emotional and more pragmatic than the Swiss.

However that solution did not work although it kept the morgue busy and cured overcrowding etc. ultimately it was abolished.

Singapore similarily pragmatic and emotionless has less problems as it simply executes anyone trafficking in drugs and has very draconian laws period.
I found it a very crime free clean and prosperous country with a form of lets say a benevolent dictatorship.

One feels safe there but a little boring perhaps.

The point is though if you are serious in restricting drug use you must be prepared to make some sacrifices as to privacy etc. as you cant make an ommelette without cracking eggs.

If we are not willing to do that by confiscating property and lenthy prison sentences inc jailing police and prison officers and any other politically connected then the status quo remains and our quality of life goes down the toilet.

[blovator on 03.11.05 at 12:40]

The war on drugs was lost because it doesn't make any sense. If drugs are illegal because they harm the user, why is that I can go to Goslings, a fine Front street establishment and by enough alchohol to kill myself? Laws are difficult to enforce when they don't make sense. But when it comes to laws, we don't write laws for Bermuda, we find out what they did in the States and do that. Even when what they did is a proven and confirmed failure.

In today's culture we constanly use drugs to alter our persepective - alchohol being the overwhelmiingly popular legal one. Yet we have no real grasp philosophically of what we are doing and why. Nor do we wish to. So we promulgate lousy laws and social practices which get us nowhere and make bandits rich.

We do the same with divorce. It is a profoundly popular institution. Everyone agrees that there is such a thing as a good divorce and such a thing as a bad divorce. But we do not enter that institution with any kind of social practices or generally accepted procedure that might make it better rather than worse. Because we don't like to talk about it. The lawyers get rich.

This new drug ministry will be obolished in two years. There will be much wringing of hands and much agonies. Nothing will get done.

Remember Coxall?

[blovator on 03.11.05 at 12:50]

Fill the prison!
Spend more money!

[Phil on 03.11.05 at 13:16]

ace/Smoking Gun

Absolutely ridiculous that someone who imports liqour is appointed the anti-drug king.

To question Wayne Perinchief's appointment on this basis (as Hector also does in today's RG) seems daft.

Sure, we can argue about whether alcohol is more or less harmful than drugs like marijuana. Nevertheless, alcohol is legal and as long as that's the case I don't see how anyone can begrudge Wayne Perinchief making money from it, or suggest that it in any way undermines his ability to run this new Ministry.

[Bill Cook on 03.11.05 at 13:19]

Blo,

The prison is full and we have spent more money.

[Bill Cook on 03.11.05 at 13:23]

Limey,

I assume you are not writing a script for Monty Python ?

Slavery was not only legal but very popular but does that make it morally correct ?

When one dies from smoking that too is legal but morally quetionable.

[SmokingGun on 03.11.05 at 13:29]

Hey Limey, I'm all for someone taking on the drug problem and I wish Mr Perinchief all the best luck in the world. He's certainly qaulified to be in the position but the simple fact that if he is making money off of a legal form of drug use then he will have that thrown in his face each time someone makes their case for why it should be OK to smoke pot.

There are many other people and ways to get the same thing done and because it's such an important issue I think it's just senseless to muddy the waters from the get go.

Just one more reason why Bermuda needs politicians without day jobs.

[blovator on 03.11.05 at 13:36]

Bill Cook: The prison is full and we have spent more money.

ME: But we can put more people in and spend more money!

Smokinggun: He's certainly qaulified to be in the position

ME: No one is qualified to be in the position because no one has had any victories in the "Drug War", the success of which would qualify them. When the amount of drugs siezed rises, we know its because more is getting past the authorities. The whole approuch is quite hopeless.

[SmokingGun on 03.11.05 at 13:54]

blovator I only state he is qualified based on the fact that he was the assistant chief police commissioner. As to wether he was effective in that capacity I cannot say.

[Big Bad Wolf ^..^ on 03.11.05 at 13:58]

Bill there are just as many bodies being produced with drugs being illegal....I'm not suggesting a needle park.Regulate drugs and government can uderwrite some of the social cost of addiction services as alcohol sales do at the present.The vast majority of people that use drugs do not become addicts and that includes the hard stuff.However those with other social and pschological problems and addictive personalities usually get addicted because of coping skills.Obviously each individual case of addiction stands on its own experiences but there are common threads.I strongly maintain that social policy on drugs based on prohibition are doomed to failure and a complete waste of government spending.Speaking on the Swiss did you know in the early 1920s the Swiss Pharmaceutical company Hoffman-La Roche was one of the biggest suppliers of opiates to the far east.The British imposed an embargo on the company but this did not stop them from becoming vastly rich off this illicit drug trading of opiates.

[Phil on 03.11.05 at 13:58]

Bill

You're comparing drinking alcohol to slavery?!

When they tried prohibition in the US, it was an utter failure. I don't think that's the way to go.

If you want to put alcohol on a par with drugs, I'm prepared to consider the merits of legalising or decriminalising cannabis. I doubt very much whether anyone could persuade me to legalise harder drugs such as heroin and cocaine though.

[Bill Cook on 03.11.05 at 15:38]

Limey,

The only comparison was one of morality and legality as I envisage credibility questions of a liquor merchant as our drug Tsar.

We already have that argument for the legalisation of marajuana on a regular basis,so time will tell,if it diminishes his effectiveness.

Wolf the solution to the proliferation of drug use is one of the most difficult problems facing modern life worldwide.

The best we can hope for in my opinion is to minimise the problem as while there are people who want drugs they will find a way to get them.

As for the Swiss you may also recall that they were dilutuing vitamins sold to 3rd world countries and that whistle blower was arrested and died in prison as the movie made about it showed.

The British were also involved with the opium wars as you know.

[blovator on 03.11.05 at 16:36]

The answer is to address the whole issue of mind altering substances. The rate at which number of choices of drug increases will escalate.

Why do we alter ourselves? When is it good? When bad? What are the rules we would like others to observe when they are using any kind of drug. When we write these rules we have to ask "Are we writing this rule because of the drug takers effect on me when he is altered or does this law come from our concern with the way the drug taker is taking care of himself?" This last is actually a very important question.

I think these questions would be a very good start.

[JJ on 03.11.05 at 17:01]

I personally cannot understand why he did not appoint Ashfield Devent as Drugs Czar.

(where is that pesky irony point......)

[JJ on 03.11.05 at 17:15]

Limey:
"If you want to put alcohol on a par with drugs, I'm prepared to consider the merits of legalising or decriminalising cannabis. I doubt very much whether anyone could persuade me to legalise harder drugs such as heroin and cocaine though".
Why not? I am not disputing that addiction to a harder drug is not a more serious problem for the individual or society, but do you believe there are that many people who haven't currently tried coke because it's illegal? I would admit that initially there would be some escalation of use. Some people who haven't tried the drug now, because it's illegal, would become addicts, because they are likely addictive personalities to start with. Most people wouldn't. Think about how much money would be available for treating drug addiction as a health problem when you are not wasting grillions trying catch dealers and killing innocent people in the cross fire.
It would take probably 30 or more years to see a major affect of legalising and control, but I believe society has to try something different. As someone once wrote, "the war on drugs is lost and we are living under an army of occupation".

[Nicolette on 03.11.05 at 17:26]

Er... SmokingGun - how can anyone be ruled as qualified for a position they were already fired from - i.e. his last real job by the look of things? Everyone seems to have forgotton that Perinchief was sacked by the person he credits with making a difference in the drug war and whose ideas he stated he intends to implement again - i.e. Coxall and his "clean sweep operations" and I quote "Mr. Perinchief, a former Assistant Commissioner of Police, said the Police needed to go back to the days of Clean Sweep – a large crack down on street dealers set up in the mid 1990s." Colin Coxall fired this man....you fail in the real world, you get a government ministry or senate seat

Hell, I need drugs to deal with life in Scottland....

[Nicolette on 03.11.05 at 17:28]

Also legalising / decriminalising drugs does not mean we become Needle Park II. It's illegal to drink alcohol in public places, it's illegal to smoke cigarettes in many others so why would anyone make the illogical jump that legal drugs would mean public consumption / fixing up or pipe smoking?

[SmokingGun on 03.11.05 at 17:48]

Nicolette, with all due respect, qualified only means he has a history and experience dealing with drugs. (Please don't turn that one around too;) )

Effectiveness and capability is a whole different matter. As you know some Doctors have certain qualifications but you still won't want to have them treat you.

[Nicolette on 03.11.05 at 21:37]

SmokingGun.. ok I'll leave that comment alone as tempting as it is...:)

[blovator on 03.11.05 at 23:09]

THe police department of NY recomended the decriminalization of pot for the very reason JJ points out. It costs so much and the people they catch aren't really doing anyone any harm.

The Coxall mess:

You don't want your policeman turning over the wrong stones. Maybe thats why perinchief got the job. He had failed before.

[Sandys Man on 04.11.05 at 12:58]

How hard can it be to crack down on people selling drugs on an island of 60,000?

When it comes to drugs, I’m about as green as you get, I’d have trouble buying drugs in Amsterdam.

But I guarantee you, if you gave me two weeks, a couple of large non-corrupt police men and a length of rubber hose even I’d manage to get the problem under control.

[SmokingGun on 04.11.05 at 13:15]

Sandy's Man - don't forget the bullet proof vest, armoured car, and be sure to move your family off the island before you get started. Some people are living large off of drugs and they fancy themselves invincible.

But if you ever want to get cracking I'd be happy to watch your back.

[smith on 04.11.05 at 18:34]

Way to go Bermuda, in other news, first world countries are moving toward the decriminalization of marijuana...in fact, some governments even supply it, for medicinal use.

[loki on 04.11.05 at 18:39]

"some governments even supply it, for medicinal use."

......such as the US Federal Government, funnily enough. And, no, I'm not joking - they even helpfully supply it in the form of pre-rolled joints.

[SmokingGun on 04.11.05 at 18:44]

No problem with marijuana. Just the hard core stuff that's starting to make serious inroads and leading to criminal activities and addicts. Don't imagine you think crack cocaine should be decriminalized.

[loki on 04.11.05 at 19:09]

Being a libertarian, I don't believe that the use of any drug should be illegal. If there's one thing that we can expect ownership of, it's our own bodies and government has no business telling me what I can and cannot put in my body. And, no, I don't do illegal drugs, but that's because I choose not to, not because I believe the government has any right to dictate what I can and cannot ingest. It's a little disconcerting to see the government appointing a Drug Czar to fight a war against drugs that can only ever fail.

[SmokingGun on 04.11.05 at 20:08]

Loki, with all due respect, a person who's brain has been fried by heroin or crack might have got their start as an innocent bystander who just wanted to "experiment" at a young age. Seeing as we live in a time when we have a serious lack of parental guidance and so many kids with a single parent it's a matter of protecting them till they get to an age where, like yourself, they can choose not to use them.

[Raptor on 04.11.05 at 22:24]

"'some governments even supply it, for medicinal use'......such as the US Federal Government, funnily enough. And, no, I'm not joking - they even helpfully supply it in the form of pre-rolled joints." Posted by loki on 04.11.05 at 18:39

Actually, the Supreme Court ruled last June that medicinal use of marijuana is illegal.

[loki on 04.11.05 at 23:50]

"Actually, the Supreme Court ruled last June that medicinal use of marijuana is illegal."

Sigh........do your research, please, before you try and debunk me.

http://www.medmjscience.org/Pages/science/ucsfnews.html

I did not get my information from here, but there is an explanation at this site. If you insist, I will find more research to back up what I say, but after a martini, a glass of wine and a Chicken Tikka Massala, this is all I can be bothered to do right now. The Federal Government has been distributing pre-rolled marijuana joints as part of an experimental program since in or around 1978. I'm not making this up. Basically, there are about seven people in the US that are recipients under the program.

[Uncle Elvis on 05.11.05 at 00:26]

Alcohol is FAR more of a gateway drug than marijuana.
I personally believe that decriminalizing marijuana, or at least lessening the punishment for it, while increasing the punishment for harder drugs, would be a far more effective way to deal with the problem.
I've said it before. I don't use. Haven't for many years. I do, however, believe in the decriminalization of marijuana.

[blovator on 05.11.05 at 00:35]

Sandysman and smokinggun

You real happy with the way heavy enforcement has worked in the US? Its a failure in my opinion. We do like to follow the US in its failed policies. We'll get income tax too I bet.

The criminalization of drugs doesn't seem to have kept anyone from getting into trouble.

We will also be getting rid of Alchohol I guess, if the heavy enforcement strategy is going to make any sense. Get rid of cigarettes too. These also have been a proven failure by the way.

The war on drugs is like a the crusades. A mindless waste of life and treasure in pursuit of nothing. Its the perfect arguement against rampant optimism.

[loki on 05.11.05 at 07:37]

"Loki, with all due respect, a person who's brain has been fried by heroin or crack might have got their start as an innocent bystander who just wanted to "experiment" at a young age. Seeing as we live in a time when we have a serious lack of parental guidance and so many kids with a single parent it's a matter of protecting them till they get to an age where, like yourself, they can choose not to use them."

To clarify - I'm not talking about children, but once you're of age, you should have the right to put whatever the hell you want in your body and government should have no role in protecting you from yourself.

[Raptor on 05.11.05 at 08:10]

""some governments even supply it, for medicinal use'......such as the US Federal Government, funnily enough. And, no, I'm not joking - they even helpfully supply it in the form of pre-rolled joints. Sigh........do your research, please, before you try and debunk me.
http://www.medmjscience.org/Pages/science/ucsfnews.html" (posted by Loki)

Loki, I would be curious to see whether the federal government is still distributing marijuana in the study you mentioned, as the Supreme Court has ruled this illegal. (Not that I agree with them). The above article you were directing us to was written in 1998.

www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/scotus.medical.marijuana

[loki on 05.11.05 at 09:03]

"Loki, I would be curious to see whether the federal government is still distributing marijuana in the study you mentioned, as the Supreme Court has ruled this illegal. (Not that I agree with them). The above article you were directing us to was written in 1998."

Yes, it is. The Federal Government isn't enrolling anyone new in the program - it's basically waiting for all those in the program to die off. I first learned about the program when I watched Penn & Teller's "Bullshit!" show on showtime - where they actually showed one of the remaining people in the program smoking a joint in front of the White House - then I did further research and confirmed what the show had said. In a nutshell - apparently, the people in the program have complete immunity from prosecution and are entitled to smoke wherever they want. It was quite hilarious to see the chap in question receiving his medication - pre-rolled joints in what looked like an oversized prescription pill bottle.

[Bill Cook on 05.11.05 at 09:30]

Loki,

Would be interested in what role you think the government should play in protecting the public at large from someone who had lost all self control due to heavy drug use.

The driver of the school bus your airplane pilot the doctor performing surgery on you or just that person driving towards you on the highway or a college professor like O'Leary who is educating your children ?

[loki on 05.11.05 at 09:36]

"Would be interested in what role you think the government should play in protecting the public at large from someone who had lost all self control due to heavy drug use."

If people harm others - whether as a result of a 'loss of self-control' due to drug use or any other cause - they should be held accountable, but the government has no right to protect people from themselves. The government has no right to dictate what people choose to put in their own bodies. If you want to screw up your own life by becoming a hopeless addict, that is your choice, but once you screw up the lives of others, that is when you should be held accountable criminally.

[Bill Cook on 05.11.05 at 10:27]

Loki,

Perhaps one could say that governments have no right to protect people from themselves,which I happen to dispute, but it has every right to protect people from those whose actions due to their lifestyle choices make them a danger to society.

It has been my experience that humanity is interconnected in such a way that the actions of each affects all.

[SmokingGun on 05.11.05 at 13:49]

"If people harm others - whether as a result of a 'loss of self-control' due to drug use or any other cause - they should be held accountable, but the government has no right to protect people from themselves."

Loki - But the government has the right, and is in fact expected, to protect others from those who have lost control of themselves due to drugs. Just as Bill stated, whether they be a Bus Driver, Pilot or some random person piloting his car on the wrong side of the road.

Blovator - you are taking it to the extreme. When you do so you effectively see it as a war on all drugs. For instance, I personally don't care for marijuana as I don't smoke nor do I like the feeling I got when I tried it as a teenager. But I do know many friends who have and maybe even still do smoke it. I will tip a pint or raise a glass of wine with anyone though. Therefore I would only say fighting the pervasiveness of drugs should be at the level of cocaine, crack, heroin, date rape drugs, adulterated pharmaceuticals etc. Drugs that can have serious and debilitating effects on society. And I obviously will not make a case that alchohol is safe by any means.

[Denis on 05.11.05 at 14:45]

Ok, I took a course on Drugs and Behavior while attending school abroad and learned the following things.

There are a number of different ways to consume drugs:
eating/drinking (slowest, lasts longest)
inhaling (medium, lasts medium)
injection (fastest, more intense)

There is 6 times the dose of caffine required to kill you in a regular cup of coffee. Why does it not? Your body cannot process it fast enough by drinking. If you were to inhale or inject the ammount in a cup of coffee you would likely die.

The weight of a nickel's worth of nicotine is enough to kill you. Why does smoking a cigarette not? Because burning does not produce enough pure nicotine to kill you. If you were to inject nicotine into your blood, you would likely die.

The lethal dose of Marijuana (THC) is approximately 40,000 times the recreational dose. ie, you'd need to smoke 40,000 joint's simultaneously to likely die from Marijuana. Realistically you would have to be connected to an IV of pure THC, and would still require a huge ammount that likely would do little more then dilute your blood which would kill you no different then if you were connected to an IV of water. Your brain and body also have natural chemical receptors for cannaboids (marijuana) indicating it was at one time part of our evolution.

Drinking 20+ litres of water in a short time span of a couple hours is enough to get you high. People have and can become addicted to it and it can also kill you.

Gravol is a halucinogen. A half a $5 bottle of Gravol is enough to get you high perfectly legal. Though not very clean.

You can also get high off Nitrous Oxide stored in whip cream (Whippits, think "Night at the Roxbury") cans and dentists in the early days were notorious for abusing their supplies until.

Cocaine has been used for thousands of years in the indeginous regions of south america - safely. The spanish originally discovered Cocaine when visiting south american. They noticed that local natives would take a wad of coca leaves and stuff it in the side of their mouth. The saliva in your mouth slowly breaks down the active ingredient (cocaine) in the leaves and gives you a general sense of wellbeing... Because of the low doseage, the risk factor and side effects are minimal.
The spanish used their knowledge of chemistry to extract the pure cocaine active ingredient from the leaves which gives you the substance that you commonly think of when you think cocaine, a fine white powder.

Does this remind you of any other kind of legal drug? SUGAR!!! Sugar has over the years become more and more refined and you take a good look at all the overweight people in North America and tell me they're not addicted to sugar. Sugar afterall comes from sugar cane and is processed into a fine white powder. Sugar is a direct contributor to Diabetes, one of the fastest rising disease epidemics in North America. What are we doing about it? Nothing.

Apparently it's fine to stuff our kids full of Ritalin, Prozac and any other prescription drug out there. Too bad they have similar effects to your brain and nervous system as the drug Extassy.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s there were 2 very prominant beverages that legally contained a small ammount of cocaine:

Coca-cola (originally created as a medicinal drink)

Vin Mariani - which was endorsed and drank by such influencial people as:
Queen Victoria of England,
Pope Leo XIII
Pope Saint Pius X
Pope Leo even awarded a Vatican gold medal to the wine, and also appeared on a poster endorsing it.

Haroin and Morphine are nearly identical, both are made from Opium (poppy seeds). Haroin is slightly different which allows it both your body and mind to be effected by the drug. Morphine is not able to effect your mind, but has the same effect on your body as does Haroin.

Narcodics were originally made illegal as an attempt to take drugs and enjoyment out of the hands of minorities.

Newspapers in 1934 editorialized: "Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."

Perhaps you'd care to note quotes from the 1930's Federal Bureau of Narcodics director Harry J. Anslinger:

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."

"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."

"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."

"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."

"Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing"

"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."

Propoganda in those days was power as it was used to strike fear in the hearts of white voters and turn them against black drug use.

The "War on Drugs" has worked about as well as the "War on Terrorism" and the "War in Iraq". Prohibition does not work and only encourages organized crime.

Addicts will not give up their addiction once they've gone too far. Cutting supply only increases demand. Increased demand only hikes the prices and thus the profit potential of smugglers and dealers.

If we strive to cut supply, we will ultimately increase the likelyhood that smugglers and dealers will begin carrying guns to protect themselves. Perhaps you are familiar with the story of the 4 canadian mounties shot in Alberta, Canada who were there to serve a warrant to reposess a truck not too long ago. The owner ultimately was running a grow op operation and thought the cops were there to bust him so he ultimately shot each of the 4 officers and then himself.

Cutting demand and spiking profit will only guarantee that we'll start seeing guns on our island and likely more violence then before.

We need to do more to help addicts. We should offer needle exchanges, educational programs and community support to help them get back on their feet. Using drugs means your looking for a quick fix to your problems and points signs to underlying issues that are not being addressed well enough. Otherwise, there would be no need for these individuals to turn to hard drugs.

Marijuana could be decriminalized and controlled. It could be offered in the form of an Alcohol as it is fat/alcohol soluble. People could be allowed to grow their own plants and laws could be instated to increase penalties for public use.

Ultimately you cannot stop those who choose to use. However you can do more to take it out of the public eye.

Look at alcohol... People can become addicted to it. Thankfully because alcohol is illegal, there is a huge negative stigma that hangs around being an alcoholic that prevents most people from becomming addicted. Because with illegal narcodics there is a stigma associated with any form of use, there is no difference from the societal point of view from someone who occasionally uses to someone who is addicted. Thus, it is much easier for someone to fall into addiction because they are already cast aside.

Ultimately, drugs are harmful when they are ABUSED. When properly used they can be very helpful and useful.

The question we need to ask ourselves is why are so many of our residents choosing to Self-Medicate, and ultimately what for?

[SmokingGun on 05.11.05 at 15:17]

Denis , there was a the typo on achohol being illegal but I agree very much with what you say. Determining root causes and offering support and counseling are two very strong weapons in the fight against abuse.