Random drug testing

I don't smoke, inject, inhale or otherwise consume any kind of illegal narcotic. I support random drug testing in sports, where the use of performance-enhancing drugs is tantamount to cheating. I believe that community leaders, including politicians, should set an example to our youth and refrain from drug use. But do I believe they should be compelled to submit to mandatory testing? No, I do not.

"I would like to see every Government department have mandatory drug testing across the board," said National Drug Control Minister Wayne Perinchief in an interview in the Royal Gazette today. "I am happy when a company has come up with drug testing. It means if you want to keep your job you have to be clean."

The way I see it, it's none of an employer's business whether their employees like to smoke a spliff or snort a line of coke every now and then - as long as it's not affecting their job performance. Similarly, I don't believe that the police should be entitled to conduct speculative raids on my home whenever they get the urge, just to make sure that I've not got a bedroom full of marijuana plants.

If any MPs want to set an example and submit themselves to random drug testing, they should do so voluntarily.

Comments

[TJL on 05.12.05 at 21:38]

I couldn't disagree more. Bermuda's drug laws are draconian, and with the appointment of the new drug czar look set to get even worse. The first people in line to suffer from stupid laws should be the individuals responsible for enacting them, namely the politicians.

Feel like having a joint? You have two choices - don't become an MP, or make your voice heard and try and change the law. Don't hide behind your privledge while less fortunate members of society suffer because of your inactivity.

[Big Bad Wolf ^..^ on 05.12.05 at 21:49]

When is the PLP Government going to match the UBP and be drug tested?

[Cancundreaming on 05.12.05 at 21:50]

I think one needs to separate different classifications of drugs, despite all I’ve been told, i don't think all illegal drugs are bad or 'anti-social as it’s often called. I think some of them are value neutral in terms of their detrimental effects, those detrimental effects depends on how the individual uses them. In that respect i view it along the same lines of alcohol and one's fatty foods.

However, i think that there is a another group of drugs that are inherently detrimental that their addictiveness and corrosive effects rise to the level that even one can put that person's judgment in serious jeopardy, i think heroine or crystal-meth may fall in these categories. I have no problem with any businesses testing for these types of drugs...

However that is for normal employees, i do think that there are certain groups of employees that rise to the standard of requiring zero tolerance of all illegal and some legal drugs, police officers, fireman, politicians, certain civil servants and there may be other persons…

[Big Bad Wolf ^..^ on 05.12.05 at 22:06]

How about airplane pilots too?

[Cancundreaming on 05.12.05 at 22:09]

Yes BBW, airplane pilots as well. I know that even one hit of acid can prevent you from ever being a pilot, as apparently, one hit can cause 'flash backs' years later or something along those lines, at least so I've been told.

[Uncle Elvis on 05.12.05 at 22:25]

"i don't think all illegal drugs are bad or 'anti-social as it’s often called"

But they are all illegal.

[Cancundreaming on 05.12.05 at 22:31]

Uncle Elvis,

I was just expressing my personal point of view, that is all. Personally i don't use the law an automatic barometer of what's right or wrong, or social norms or what I’ve been taught as a kid, i take it all in and try to figure it out for myself. But yes, of course, you're right, illegal drugs are illegal.

[Jake on 06.12.05 at 00:24]

The problem with our collective permissiveness is that is has our country where it is. Let's be honest for a moment.

In a country as small as ours, people are the real resource. I know of too many of my childhood peers who are functionally useless because of drugs. Family and friends are walking zombies today because they thought there were no effects from weed, or that a little coke every once in a while was ok. Let's not even get started on the prettiest girl from class in Primary School who was the best in her class at the Jackson School of Dance - who went on to become the HIV positive Junkie Prostitute of choice for many on Court Street.

If it were me, I would move this drug war along. I would start to implement 35 year sentences and mandatory no parole sentences. It would be very ugly for those who did not participate with the law and help out. There would be no statute of limitations on drug crimes either. No juries for drug trials - so save the tears and the theatrics for somebody who was not acquainted with the new rules of law. There would be isolation for convicted drug felons who refused to participate and help out. No visits, no tv, nothing at all until you rejoin clean society by helping to clean up the mess you made.

Oh Phil, this would only be the start.

[Lost in Flatts on 06.12.05 at 07:04]

I'm with Jake on this one. The only way forward is to show the public that the government are serious about the crackdown, and no use of illegal substances is okay, no matter in how much moderation.

The problem being that the first step is show how dedicated tehy are by being tested themselves. And well, I fear we may not have much government left after that...

[Phil on 06.12.05 at 08:22]

I also agree with jake - the way to start tackling the drug problem is to crack down hard.

But however desirable it may be in principle, whether our politicians are being tested is likely to make little difference to drug use in this country in practice. Who looks up to a politician as a role model anyway?

[Bald Eagle on 06.12.05 at 08:25]

Sorry Limey, I don't agree with you regarding mandatory drug testing for politicians. Like it or not, these people are 'leaders' in Bermuda and it is their responsibility to set an example for the rest of us, especially the young. If they make the rules they should be prepared to stick by them. Frankly there's too much political 'posturing' in Bermuda on many issues were laws already exist, but few are interested in following through with them.

[Big Bad Wolf ^..^ on 06.12.05 at 08:28]

I think my birthday is not too far off so I'm going to go on a Silence TRIP on this blog for ...Oh I think a year...Take care you lot and have a wonderful Xmas. Re Drugs which many posters have claimed I'm on....NO I'm NOT!! But there is no way out through laws...each person has to make their own choice.Drugs should be all legalized and regulated just like liquor.You will never stop the flow of drugs be they legal oe illegal.Just research the history...at least if you regulate them the supply of illegal drugs will fall and Government will have some money for treatment programs.You can pass all the laws you want it wont stop drug taking or the business.Merry Everything Be Happy...It is Shorter than you THINK!

[Tiger Bay on 06.12.05 at 08:29]

I'm with Jake. Bermuda has a drug problem, and much of our crime is related to it. We must send a very clear message that antisocial behavior related to drugs is unacceptable in our community. This means testing, it means education, it means sports and activities for kids, it means enforcement, it means pursuing proceeds of crime.

I was interested in Wayne Perinchief's comments that a car dealership asked if he wanted to pay in cash. Surely this would qualify as a suspicious transaction? Shame on the car importers if they are laundering money in this way.

[Full Fullish on 06.12.05 at 09:21]

Interesting. I believe I'm for drug testing for MP's. At the very least it sets an example for everyone else. This being said, I'm not for random drug testing for ordinary everyday citizens.

I think specialised civil servant jobs should have them as well, Police, Fire, Ambulance and long that nature.

Cancundreaming - You can't have your cake and eat it too. If it's an illegal substance, then that's end game, end of story. As TJP so aptly put it, you don't like it make your voice heard and lobby to change the laws.

Jake - If you ever do anything politically to implement what you just wrote, not only do you have my vote, but any support I can give as well!

Limey - Having them willingly submit to drug testing would at least be one positive thing that might make people start to look up to them. It all starts somewhere, and to me something like this speaks volumes as I prefer action over words.

[Full Fullish on 06.12.05 at 09:22]

BBW - Yeah passing the laws won't do anything, but enforcing them will. Time to get tough with this epidemic once and for all.

[Two Cents on 06.12.05 at 09:39]

In drug cases, I agree wholeheartedly with Jake, especially regarding the "no jury" idea, that would stop these lawyers (and it always weems to be the same ones) who get up with the big song & dance regarding their client and how they were left by their father, didn't get enough love, etc.

People it seems aren't even interested in being responsible for their actions, knowing that with the right lawyer they'll walk away free at the end of the day

[Cancundreaming on 06.12.05 at 10:08]

hmmmm Cake... I like Cake...

Fullfullish, i actually don't know what your cake analogy was referring too, i didn't suggest anything in regards to how my personal opinion should be implemented in the law, i was merely expressing my personal opinion. We all do this calculation, as many of us break the law, "Yes, it's a yellow light, but there's no one around, Yes i should turn in the money i found, but etc." I was just expressing the point that i, and others i believe, don't use the law as an automatic barometer of what's right or wrong, as we know from our history and our present, that the law sometimes comes down on the wrong side of some issues.

In regards to what Jake said, it sounds good, feels nice, personally i think a part of all us would love to see the "just throw them in jail for 35 years" attitude. I think we all have had enough with serious crime...but the reason why i question it is because people who work in the field, professional medical and social civil servants, continually say that simply throwing them in jail won't solve the underlying problems. If we’re serious about tackling the proliferation of serious drugs, then let's have that discussion, but don’t be collectively fooled in believing that we would make a dent in Bermuda’s drug problem by simply throwing them in jail, any honest discussion about how to really tackle the problem doesn’t start with that 'solution'. If you think that Bermuda's “war” on drugs can be addressed in any meaningful way by increasing jail sentences, then I would point you the discussion here about the propaganda that also occurred in regards to the 'war' in Iraq.

[silencedogood on 06.12.05 at 10:30]

Are there any other countries doing this? It sounds familiar.

As to testing, I'm open minded but hesitate to jump to one side or the other since it is a privacy issue. I'd whole heartedly support a campaign to put political pressure on the MP's to do this voluntarily. Everyone thinks the church is all powerful in Bermuda--I'm sure they would get behind this.

I will also chime in my support for Jake's tough on crime stance and would also have tougher laws for all violent crimes. Of course the laws won't punish or deter anyone if the police and courts are lax in enforcement.

[jake on 06.12.05 at 12:01]

Cancun,

Years ago I may have sided with you, but I deal with people directly now. There is far too much choice.

I can actually have a conversation with a young person and have them try to convince ME that the penalty is outweighed by the penalty the street will mete out to them. Since when did the street run the country? Since we became afraid to punish people who fight against the country.

I am not saying throw away the key. I am saying that for those who believe they are so tough that they will not co-operate to help break the back of crime, they will remain locked up for most of their natural lives. It is a choice. Co-operate with the authorities or stay in the quiet lonely box. It works.

For those who commit serious crime the option of early release will not be available. Their level of comfort day to day can be determined, however. No visits or tv can have a huge impact when that is all you have. Punishment and protection are equally important concepts.

I don't support the death penalty, but I do support very tough conditions for people who choose to make Bermuda a worse place for us all.

The street cannot be stronger than the state.

[Full Fullish on 06.12.05 at 12:23]

Cancundreaming - Ah yes, the old "It ain't illegal until you've been caught defense." Sure we're all guilty of it in one way or another. However if caught then you have to be punished for it as society dictates.

You run a yellow light and get caught you get a ticket

If you get caught with a possesion that isn't yours then you get jail time or a fine.

You may not use the law as a barometer of right and wrong, however the society you are apart of does, and if caught, they will judge you accordingly.

Throwing drug offenders in jail actually can be a deterent if it's done properly. Bring back the rules where they have to contribute to the society that they took away from, this added with rehab would make a world of difference.

"The street cannot be stronger than the state" - Jake.

Well said!

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 06.12.05 at 12:38]

How about instituting random alcohol to blood testing for drivers? Shouldn't the punishment for this offense be harsher as well?

[~~~191~~~ on 06.12.05 at 13:05]

what happens when the street is the state? that is a question that makes far more sense...

along the lines of guilden's wonderful idea -- how about we allow government to stick gps devises up our arses so they can babysit us. that would solve all our problems...

the opinions regarding drugs in bermuda are absolutely archaeic as you can read above. its time to try something new. the war on drugs hasn't worked. clean sweep failed. drug use in bermuda is stronger than ever.

ask yourself why...

i think i agree with wolf on ths one...

[blovator on 06.12.05 at 13:07]

No, the law is not the law as written. The law is what it is when it is enforced. For decades violence against women was against the law but any punishment was easy to avoid. If may have been illegal but what did that matter? The violator was probably going to get off (sic).

So it is with drugs. Pot is tolerated. That is the law in action, just as a level of violence against women was tolerated. The law is not even rational. No one is talking about the rampant alchoholism in Bermuda. Some like to claim it is not a "gateway drug". Well Papa, it is. Another example of irrational drug legislation: In the US a person who drinks is at 8 times the risk of a pot smoker of getting into a traffic accident.

The idea that prison is a deterent should by now be eviserated - but no, we still have people claiming, with no proof whatsoever - that jail prevents people doing drugs. With a jail full of convicted drug dealers and users this arguement would seem palid to me. But not my fellow countrypeople. No, this tired horse of an arguement gets trotted out for a another attempt at the jump.

You want to fight drug abuse? Support families, single mothers, and education. Not very sexy solution and one that Bermudians can not seem to put thier little brains around but there it is.

[SmokingGun on 06.12.05 at 13:21]

I've been for stronger drug enforcement from the get go and fully agree with Jake's mindset. We discussed it under "Drug Czar" as to Wayne Perinchief being undermined by the fact he will import rum. I think he has read ALIB and decided he wants to set an example so no-one will discount him. If he will step up and have regular drug tests whilst he is a minister then I think he should expect all the others to do so. A badge of honour so to speak.

The trouble is a lot of big people get fed from Bermuda's drug world in one way or another. Maybe WP just wants to make sure Alaska Hall is not on the list of 17 crack houses.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 06.12.05 at 13:24]

Blovator,

I agree with you, clearly jail is not a deterant for drug use as is evidence by the fact that Bermuda has one of the highest usage rates per capita. I am not a drug abuse expert by any stretch of the imagination but when one becomes addicted to a drug he was initially using for recreational purposes, does this not become a condition that needs treatment, the same as an alcoholic?

Aside from the illegality is there any real difference between alcohol and narcotics? Is alcohol not a drug? Its amazing that a society will give an alcoholic innumerable chances to "get clean" but a drug addict it considered to be scum and should be locked up.

It wasn't too long ago that alcohol was an illegal substance, I guess it is political clout that allows one drug to be legal while the others remain illegal.

[tilti on 06.12.05 at 14:00]

"The way I see it, it's none of an employer's business whether their employees like to smoke a spliff or snort a line of coke every now and then - as long as it's not affecting their job performance"

Limey, I agree with you in principle, but I think that your principles are shaped by a belief taht rational people will not allow drugs to interfere with their working. But having worked in manual labour for a summer, I can assure you that drugs have a very serious impact on the productivity of workers. Working before 10:30 is snail paced and absenteeism on friday isn't unusual. It is a serious problem and it does affect business.

The PLP is a labour party that doesn't labour. They are party to a double standard and are essentially exempt from the rules that they make and are almost never productive. They are only leaving question marks about their ethics by continuing to impose draconian measures on drug use that only apply to the rest of society.

[Cancundreaming on 06.12.05 at 14:08]

Jake,

You missed my point, if you wish to engage in a frank and honest discussion of how to curb Berumuda’s burgeoning drug problem that's fine and welcomed, my point is that any real substantive policy to address Bermuda’s drug problem cannot be centered under a philosophy of “be tough on the criminals” I understand that feels nice, it should, but it won’t work. Any policy that has even a hope of success, does not center its hopes on the “put them in jail for 35 years philosophy”. Drugs problems, their causes and their effects for the community, are vast and complex and I really wished it could be solved by putting people in jail for an extended period of time. I wish that simple solutions can solve complex problems, but they don’t, and they can’t.

Now we may be talking about two different things, I'm talking about how do we as a community start to address our problem, you may be talking about how we treat criminals and general prison times. Now if that’s the case, then we should stop talking as we’re talking as we’re talking about different things. But if you’re also talking how we as a country start to deal with our drug problems, suggesting that we be “tough” on them, or the state needs to be stronger then the “street” or we should throw them in jail for 35 years, is a piss poor way to start and would be doomed for failure.

Fullfullish,

"Ah yes, the old "It ain't illegal until you've been caught defense.""

What are you talking about, are you even reading my posts? I didn’t suggest that the law should treat me or anyone differently based on their personal opinion of any particular law. I'm merely talking about how I, personally, define my own sense of what’s right or wrong, that it doesn’t automatically follow the law. Other then that, I’ll leave it to ‘man’ to follow the dictates of their conscience, beliefs and opinions. Although I do have to say that it is arrogant to suggest, as you do, that society uses the law as a barometer of right and wrong. I think, if anything, society uses the law as an indication of what is legal and illegal. Other then that i would dare to begin to state how "society" defines their sense of right or wrong..

[observor on 06.12.05 at 14:15]

Guilden

"It wasn't too long ago that alcohol was an illegal substance, I guess it is political clout that allows one drug to be legal while the others remain illegal."

Can you please refresh my memory regarding the illegality of alcohol consumnption in Bermuda?

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 06.12.05 at 14:22]

Observer,

I was talking about prohibition, not necessarily directly related to Bermuda. Why not meerly take the point I was making instead of trying to prove me wrong.

Does it always have to confrontational on here?

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 06.12.05 at 14:25]

The point is we are more accepting or alcoholism and drunk driving than we are with drug addiction. Yet they are both unhealthy and the impact on, work, family and friends can be devastating.

[silencedogood on 06.12.05 at 14:42]

"Although I do have to say that it is arrogant to suggest, as you do, that society uses the law as a barometer of right and wrong. I think, if anything, society uses the law as an indication of what is legal and illegal"
Posted by Cancundreaming on 06.12.05 at 14:08

Your post had a nugget of truth in it up until this part. All due respect, but you are missing the fundamental reason why things are legal and illegal. Laws aren't passed just for kicks. In the criminal context at least they are passed because a majority of society's representatives have deemed something wrong requiring a rule against that act/behavior/etc. and a punishment for violation of that rule.

e.g. Murder = wrong = law passed making murder illegal = murders go to jail for x years.

For years society thought homosexuality was wrong and outlawed it with anti-sodomy statutes. Society's views are changing and many no longer consider it wrong, thus the statutes are being eliminated.

Focusing on strict legality is overly technical and misses the spirit of the law.

If everyone followed your idea of "the law doesn't determine right or wrong" why have the law at all?

Let everyone act according to their conscience. Would we only follow the laws we, as an individual, deemed just? Should punishments only apply if we agree with them?

That philosophy is in breach of the social contract mi amigo.

I can appreciate that you might hold those views and still follow the law, but alot of people will use that type of statement to justify breaking the law. I doubt they are the philisophical type day to day, but they will be quoting some toga-dude named So-Krates 5min's before their court date.

[SmokingGun on 06.12.05 at 15:02]

"The point is we are more accepting or alcoholism and drunk driving than we are with drug addiction. Yet they are both unhealthy and the impact on, work, family and friends can be devastating."

Simply put yes. And there are laws in place to help control exesses.
If someone is driving drunk and is swerving hopefully a police officer will pull them over. However if someone is driving perfectly normal and keeping well within the speed limit I think it would be scary if the police had the right to pull you over and give a random test.

[Cancundreaming on 06.12.05 at 15:12]

silencedogood,

See this is what I don’t like, Do I write funny? I must.. I think I really do…

“Laws aren't passed just for kicks.”

Have I suggested something like that? Have I really said anything to make you think I think law are just passed for kicks?

“If everyone followed your idea of "the law doesn't determine right or wrong" why have the law at all?”

Didn’t say that, I said that the law doesn’t automatically determine what’s right or wrong for me. Do you see the difference between the two statements?

My point that you’re talking about, as simply as I can put it, was that I think society, i.e. it’s members are to individualized and complex to suggest that the law is an automatic barometer of their sense of right and wrong. There are some that the law does constitutes a moral right or wrong, for some it doesn’t for others it depends on the specific issue, etc…

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 06.12.05 at 15:12]

SmokingGun,

So where is the line to be drawn on mandatory testing? Is it just public service vehicle drivers? Is it just MPs and civil servants? Where is the line?

[silencedogood on 06.12.05 at 15:34]

Cancun,

No you don't write funny. I understood your point as you apply it to yourself. I do think you are right in that people can opt out of society's view. We all do at some time and when enough do, they change the law. Then society has a new definition of right and wrong.

But in your subsequent post you went on to say that SG was being arrogant to say the law determines right or wrong for society.

My point was that if your philosophy was allowed to control it would be ripe for abuse. While you may choose to opt out from society's determination of right and wrong it doesn't change the fact that the law is society's comment on the right/wrong issue.

Maybe our disconnect is in that you are speaking to a more narrow issue (you alone) and I'm looking at the effect that would have if everyone followed it. In any case, this is a minor point in the overall discussion.

[SmokingGun on 06.12.05 at 16:05]

Guilden, that's a good question. Where should the line be drawn? People in public service might very well have to be open to random testing as part of their job. Athletes as well if looking for steroids. If I owned a company that hired delivery personnel who spent a lot of time on the road I might very well seek to have a policy in place. It might help reduce the cost of our insurance. I cannot answer your question other than to say allowing a random test on a law abiding citizen is just wrong.

[SmokingGun on 06.12.05 at 16:14]

Silencedogood - that would be FF being accussed of being arrogant. Not SG. I'm only arrogant in the real world. :)

[jake on 06.12.05 at 17:09]

Cancun,

I am not disputing the cause and effect role that social issues play with drug usage, or even drug sales. What I am highlighting are the weaknesses in our current system that weaken our enforcment abilities. Too many people are in "throw our hands in the air in futility" mode because they think that jail does not work. In fact, in many cases it does. If did for me, in that I never want to go to jail, so there are all manner of things I will not contemplate on pain of imprisonment.

I think your approach of waiting until we can fix everything before we fix anything is flawed. If these methods have been proven to work against organized crime in other locations, I do not think our local variety of criminals will be able to resist for too long. Surely someone knows who some of these dealers are, and they will talk, by God or they will rot in a hole.

Can you not see that our Country is dying because of this? Why are so many of our children useless?

You may feel some comfort in the psuedo science that pretends to have all the answers with a teddy bear, but I am not.

Poverty has always been a major contributor to crime, but drug crime makes that far worse. It is drug crime that I would cut out like a cancer along with those that seek to profit from it.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 06.12.05 at 17:43]

Jake,

I agree with you regarding drug dealers but as you go about catching and prosecuting drug dealers you also need to rehabilitate users because as long as there is a demand for drugs from users there will be those willing to supply.

This is what I see as the biggest problem with the U.S. version of the so-called war on drugs. The government blames places like Colombia for producing and shipping the drugs. It spends $100 millions each year trying to stop the producers when they should have move emphasis on reducing demand.

The problem is we try to focus solely on the supplier and forget that once someone is addicted to drugs it becomes an illness.

Under your strategy do you also intend to lock up the users? If so, you better start building a new prison very soon as Bermuda has one of the highest per capita drug use rates in the world.

[Bill Cook on 06.12.05 at 17:49]

It would set a good example if Government members were drug tested, just as it arouses suspicion if they do not so greater credibility will go to those who have been tested.

It is unlikely that anyone can ingest a mind altering substance without it affecting their mind and therefore any employee using such WHILE ON THE JOB should be open for action by his employer.

Further if same employee is employed in a job that would involve the safety and welfare of the public then the law should be there to deal with them,with a view to protecting the public.

As to dealing with those involved in drugs and how the law should deal with them depends on their role in it.

I have no problem putting dealers and finananciers behind bars for 35 yrs and usually such people are not users at least the really big ones,

Small time users are victims of their own addiction,but are still answerable for criminal behaviour as the welfare of the law abiding public at large takes precedence.

It should be noted that there is no actual cure for addiction and prison time is unlikely to cure it.

Once a person commits a crime linked to drug use they should be checked periodically after release and put back in prison for observation etc.
It is important to get all serious users under some control as they will continue to wreak havoc in society so doing nothing to check them is wrong.

To get at the very roots of the drug business however is difficult due the amounts of money involved.

On one side you have ruined lives as Jake tragically and movingly illustrated while on the other side you have mothers and others benefitting from their sons drug profits and many local businesses selling cars expensive vacations jewellry even houses etc and are not overly concerned where the money comes from.

Stopping it means taking that away from them and they will resist.

If we cannot stop drugs coming into Westgate where there is considerable drug use we realise the difficulty,they even refused to permit a police raid with sniffer dogs.

Unless there is a special unit set up with wide reaching powers to seriously deal with this its unlikely much will be achieved.

We like to pontificate but do not want our privacy disturbed or anyone to take away our weed we hold so dear gateway drug or not.

There are controls over liquor sales and greater controls are needed.esp where public safety is concerned just as with drugs.

Liquor does not create the same criminal activity as drugs which result in being responsible for 75% of crime.

[jake on 06.12.05 at 18:26]

Bill,

That is a valid point. There are too many people who are the passive recipients of illicit proceeds, including family members and businesses.

"The problem is we try to focus solely on the supplier and forget that once someone is addicted to drugs it becomes an illness." - Guilden

Hey Guilden, I don't disagree with your sensitivity to drug addicts. Heroin addicts are indeed physically addicted and need medical attention to help them get through the withdrawal symptoms. I don't think that it has anything to do with better enforcement however. True, some dealers are users, but they tend to be self destructive in any event and will burn out after a few cycles. The true drivers of drug profits never get high on their own supply. Their's is an economic addiction. Whether there is a cure for addiction is irrelevant.

If you want to arrest and detain drug dealers, then my methods work. If you want to cure drug demand, that is someone else's department.

I doubt however that absent the senior drug dealers, the strung out addicts could unite to create a new supply chain, however.

[blovator on 06.12.05 at 18:26]

The War on Drugs is over and the dealers won. Anyone who thinks that the law has a hope of winning have been proven wrong over and over again. It is ironic that Smith gets accused of not having experience. No one has experience winning the war against drugs except for the dealers - and I imagine they will not be going for the job.

You can deal with the drug problem but its not as sexy as the pro-police method.

1. Fight poverty by educating children. Very boring and something Bermudians have no interest in but there it is.

2. Accept that human beings use mind altering drugs and deal with it as a human fact instead of as a portion of human - behavior you can somehow legislate out of existence. The selection and the strength of drugs is going to increase and if its all hidden behind a wall of law, we won't be able to handle it directly.

3. Legalize pot or make alchohol illegal. Having one illegal and the other not is unacceptable.

There is a very poor country in S. America called Bolivia. They have an election coming up. The person who will probably win is up from being a poor peasant farmer. What did he grow? Coca. This man has no intention of putting peasant coca growers in jail. He will not be accepting funds from the US for interdiction. He says the coca growers are a South American tradition and they are a people and they need protection.

He is absolutely right. For years the coca growers have been physically and economically pressured into coca growing. Now they rely on it. Most of the money doesn't stay in the country. The time has come for the rich countries to deal with thier problem and stop criminalizing the third world for growing what the developed world consumes in massive quantities. It's time for the developed world to accept that coca is part of the capitalist international financial system and that these peasants are getting ripped off by dealers and users and the developed world governments. They deserve a fair market price.

The same goes for Jamaica and marujuana. Its time these countries stopped accepting these abusive and unfair mandates from drug-market countries and started taking thier commodities seriously.

[Cancundreaming on 06.12.05 at 18:29]

Jake,

You have both misinterpreted and misrepresented my position. I did not say nor do I believe we must be able to fix everything before we fix anything. What am I suggesting is if we fix anything we should fix something that actually solves the stated problem, Bermuda’s drug problem. Your solution of increased prison sentences for drug cases and removing jury trials in the hopes of increases the conviction rate, while undoubtedly popular with the public, is doomed for failure. We can have half assed solutions like you’re suggesting, it’ll make us all feel good knowing that those druggies are in jail, where they belong, but it won’t put a dent into the problem, into the underlying causes or the underlying effects.

What’s interesting is that you actually suggested that state be stronger then the street, you were applauded, of course, because it’s one of those sounds bites that, on a cursory listen, sounds and feels real good. The street has never been stronger then the state, the coercive powers of the state are unrivalled, what I think you’re talking about is that the street is far scarier, meaner and far more dangerous then the state. In that respect you're defining strength.

This is what you suggest that the ‘state’ aspire to, please don’t interpret my comments in the way that I'm suggesting a prison be filled with lobster and steak, nice couches and fire places. However, if you’re defining strength as being scarier, meaner and more dangerous, then I don’t want my state to look anything like the ‘street’.

You asked an interesting question I thought.

“Can you not see that our Country is dying because of this? Why are so many of our children useless?”

I'm not sure if I have the answer, I don’t think I'm intelligent enough…But apply your suggestions to your own questions

“Can you not see that our Country is dying because of this?”

“I would start to implement 35 year sentences and mandatory no parole sentences. It would be very ugly for those who did not participate with the law and help out”

Posted by Jake on 06.12.05 at 00:24

Why are so many of our children useless?”

“There would be no statute of limitations on drug crimes either. No juries for drug trials - so save the tears and the theatrics for somebody who was not acquainted with the new rules of law. There would be isolation for convicted drug felons who refused to participate and help out.”

Posted by Jake on 06.12.05 at 00:24

Your suggestions won’t really solve the problems that caused these questions or prevent situations where these questions have to be asked… That my point.

[SmokingGun on 06.12.05 at 19:11]

"please don’t interpret my comments in the way that I'm suggesting a prison be filled with lobster and steak, nice couches and fire places."

Cancun - what's really scary is it's easier to get drugs in prison than a steak or lobster. Oh, yeah I forgot. You can still sneak out for a steak dinner once and a while.

I think you guys are approaching both sides of the argument and if there is to be success in reducing drugs and it's impact on Bermuda going forth then we need both strong enforcement and strong programs to keep people on the right track from the start. But you have to start somewhere and if Mr. Perinchief is willing to step up and lead by example then it's a decent start for all to see.

Could you imagine if P stated tomorrow that he was going to get tested. Ewart would have to do the same just to keep up!

[blovator on 07.12.05 at 01:30]

I'm telling you guys. The war is over. The strategies that you and the government propose have failed for three decades.

You just don't want to change.

But you will have to.

And the later change happens the worse it will be. In twenty years, if go on with the same lame solutions, this problem will overwhelm us.

We need to change the way we think about drugs.

[Jake on 07.12.05 at 10:52]

Cancun,

I did not intend to misrepresent your positions, but your statement that these methods do not work have no support in fact beyond your repeating them.

If you look at organized crime in New York or in Italy, these are the methods that were used to bring people more motivation in helping the country fight crime.

The solution to our drug problem is not one sided, and I accept that. That does not diminish the value of solid policing and an effective legislative program designed to improve the conviction rate of dealers.

The article in today's paper is interesting. Colin Coxall is being quoted as saying that he recognized the role the street pusher plays. Can you not hear the people in these neighbourhoods who are not associated with drugs calling for more policing? Do you live in one of these neighbourhoods?

I do. I came home and found a guy stashing drugs on my property so that he would not be holding them when the routine bust took place. Do you know how afraid I was that if it did happen I would be blamed - and I have never even smoked weed? That is what we are dealing with.

If you think that todays dealers (which has been the focus of my comments, and not the addicts, which I believe has been yours) are going to be motivated by social programs you are wrong. Today's dealers need strong policing methods.

I will concede that the potential dealers of tomorrow may benefit from greater social change, but I would like to hear from you, what you think those programs should be, instead of repeating that mine will not work.

[Bill Cook on 07.12.05 at 11:12]

Considering the gravity of the drug problem and its seemingly continued groth, I would appreciate that when someone who is civic minded and takes the time to contribute possible solutions to deal with this not to be insulted by having his contributions called half assed.

I would have hoped that this forum would have seen a more mature approach on this very important epedemic cancer in our society.

If we look at page 10 in the RG today it looks like we had a real chance to make considerable headway with Comm Coxall but for reasons that I have no real knowledge of he was terminated and cannot discuss it as part of his settlement agreement.

Surely this is such a serious issue that it transcends party politics and no stone should be left unturned to find the reasons this happened so it can never happen again.

It will take a mammoth effort to minimise drug use and we should approach it with humility honesty and most of all strength of purpose.

Frankly I think it is the number one problem in Bermuda because it destabilises our entire infrastructure including our entire judicial and law enforcement authority.

[Intrigued on 07.12.05 at 11:15]

In paraphrasing the hawks on here "The whippings will continue until moral turns around"

People get addicted to drugs as drugs become a coping mechanism with the anxiety of their lives. We have an increasing drug problem in Bermuda because we have an increasingly desperate lowe class. Locking up users is not going to solve anything. Sure throw the book at suppliers and you may make some headway, but the problem doesn't go away. As guilden points out the problem is a demand problem.

People need to address the bigger problems of people slipping between the cracks because the country has no social support system. No programs. No useful education system. And no plan for the future of the country.

If it were up to me: i) legalize marijuana and tax the shit out of it, and make any sale outside teh system a major offence to avoid a grey market (I obviously believe that marijuana is not a gatewy drug; ii) use some of the profits form marijuana to fund social programs; and, iii) fight the hardcore drugs.

The U.S. has tried forever, and speant billions of dollars doing so, to kill the suppply side and has failed. What makes us think that our useless government can succeed. Increase the fines/inprisonment etc. all you want, but someone who has nothing who can make "easy money" will still take teh risks, and as the penalties rise the profits will increas for the risk being taken, the trafficking will not stop.

[Point Finger on 07.12.05 at 12:57]

Where there is demand there will be supply, thus drugs will always be a problem. We have to think of ideas to limit and reduce it, it will never be eliminated.

You also have to draw the line somewhere, alcohol and cigarettes are currently legal, legalization of drugs will not solve the problem, imagine the debate on age limit for heroin and smoking weed! There still will be underage drug abuse if drugs are legalized . Thus back to Square one.

Tax alcohol/cigarettes more. Like Canada-smokers will say when a pack go above a certain price I will quit-they don't, but at least they think about it, that tax can then be used for health services.

Drug dealers are the current slave masters-their product enslaves the users and their families- this concept or a similar one needs to be projected to the youth, this above comparison would create a stir of conversation/debate and thought, which is what is needed.

Drug dealers know what they are doing and should be punished accordingly- seizure of assets- money is what will hurt a drug dealer. Sell off their assets, put there mugshot in the paper for all to see.The raised money can go to drug rehab centers, charities and low cost housing. Turn a negative to a positive. Seizure of property will raise eyebrows and get results. Hmmm maybe not such a lucrative profession if they seize all my assets that I have accrued?

Alcohol is regulated to a degree- there used to be road blocks back in the eighties- Cops would pull over all drivers regardless-police can test and prosecute for alcohol- if you are driving stoned I don't think you can be tested and prosecuted.

Drug addicts make the best liars- drug testing reveals the truth-all MPs due to their responsibilities to society should be tested. Hell when I worked offshore in the oil and gas industry we would have piss tests all the time-especially for Exxon- no one bitched, that was the way it is. If you wanted to work, you did not do drugs.
Exxon also tested subcontractors for alcohol, for land projects their tests would detect one beer with dinner the night before, if caught you were dismissed from the project, and then would have to deal with your boss to save your job.

Jake is right, guys I went to high school with smoked weed, no big deal. I saw a couple of them 10 years ago, and they were in a perma buzz state, don't be fooled that weed is harmless. Wonder what they look like today.

The courts need to get tough. When going to high school in Bermuda, if you did something wrong you had to pick up trash, they even cained your ass. If it was OK for schoolkids, why not apply to criminals?

Bare minimum- if caught drunk driving- the judge should make you stand for 2 days with a sign around your neck-stating you are a drunk driver, plus the regular fines- they do this in small towns in the US- tremendous result- humiliation is a good deterrent, would be so effective in a small community like Bermuda- plus the drivers going by can put a face to a statistic- and then think hard about consequences.
The one guy I saw walking around with the sign, had such an expression of shame and regret- on the sign he had actually killed someone drunk driving. I feel he will never get behind the wheel drunk again. This could also work for petty drug dealers.

Also in the US, work crews are put together-where they pick up trash on the road side, under police guard, for all to see. Had a successful client had to do this for a violation (no discrimination-does not matter what your standing is ), he said he kept his head low, in fear of seeing anyone he knew, while doing something positive for the community- it used to be a punishment for school kids in Bermuda- and no one bitched, why not have low risk law breakers perform it.
Novel concept- repay your debt to society!

Enforce drug laws, need education at school level, visible deterrent and punishment. A few of the above will make it much more visible, and help drive home the consequences of the choices that are up to the individual, and stress the consequences of your actions.

[silencedogood on 07.12.05 at 12:57]

I'm telling you guys. The war is over. The strategies that you and the government propose have failed for three decades.
Posted by blovator on 07.12.05 at 01:30

You are right--three decades of anti-drug laws and enforcement have failed to eliminate the problem. Now that I think about it, centuries of anti-murder laws have failed to stop the killing of one person by another. Theft too...and organized crime. Many of these things are helped along, if not caused by sociail problems. Let's legalize those things too.

While arguments for the legalization of marijuana have some merit there is a difference between it and alcohol. A person may have one drink of alcohol and not become intoxicated. Most people don't even have to smoke one joint before getting stoned. From a public safety point of view that creates a much bigger problem. And like it or no, weed is worse for your ability to function. A person who drinks every day can sober up without serious long term mental effects (depending on their severity). A person who wake'n'bake's every day is fried for life. I know many a person.

Legalization of other drugs, i.e. cocaine, lsd, pcp, heroin, etc. is just stupid. Physical and psychological addiction rates are much higher than alcohol and the negative effects are worse. These are the drugs that destroy lives.

Jake's suggestions aren't a cure all, nor are they meant to be. A complex problem requires a multi-faceted approach. Harsh punishment promotes cooperation with the authorities to get the kingpins. This disrupts the distribution channels and removes expertise on how to evade the law. The ring may function but at a lesser level.

Addressing demand should also be a priority, but you have to start somewhere. Combine that with the teddy for addicts and you're getting somewhere.