Posts Tagged War on drugs

Pope Francis endorses continuing the war on drugs

June 20, 2014 — Updated 1327 GMT CNN reports:
Pope Francis said “Drug addiction is an evil, and with evil there can be no yielding or compromise…”

According to the CNN report, Francis regards policies that support the legalization of marijuana “not only highly questionable from a legislative standpoint, but they fail to produce the desired effects.”

“To think that harm can be reduced by permitting drug addicts to use narcotics in no way resolves the problem,” he said.

Very well, Pope Francis, the floor is yours. Let’s hear your alternative to the police state nonsense that criminalizes and incarcerates countless millions of people worldwide over a plant; that leaves those peoples lives tainted by criminal convictions despite never having raised their hand in violence nor seized any person’s wealth by deception.

Put up or shut up, Pope Francis; should governments be sending law enforcement officers masquerading as soldiers into peoples homes screaming threats and brandishing fully automatic rifles at the inhabitants along with the concomitant risk of accidentally killing those inhabitants? How else should government set out to eradicate the scourge of burning a plant and getting all mellow?

Does Pope Francis truly find the violence involved in pointing law enforcement at wholly consensual activities preferable to offering the participants in those activities peaceful alternatives such as treatment or support?

Details, Pope Francis, Details. That’s where you’ll find the devil after all. What, exactly and in detail, practically speaking, should governments be doing to reign in the scourge of a plant?


Comments (1)

Are Drug Sniffer Dogs “Effective”?

Effective is an interesting word here.  If “effective” means do drug sniffer dogs have a low false positive rate when searching for drugs, then the answer is not only “no” it’s “oh hell no!”.  But according to Don Weatherburn, the director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, “effective” means nothing of the sort.  Apparently, by justifying the ritual humiliation of random citizens, the use of drug sniffer dogs prevents people from carrying drugs and is therefore “effective”.  Quote: “The question is how many people would carry drugs if not for sniffer dogs”.  It is likely true that ritual humiliation serves as a deterrent, but this is hardly a sound basis for a society which values dignity and freedom.

Increasingly, I’m thinking that our society regards human dignity and freedom not as blessings endowed upon us by our creator (That’s religious nutbaggery that only idiot Americans subscribe to dont you know) but as outmoded concepts which stand in the way of law and order.

Outmoded concepts aside, drug sniffer dogs are used to create an “articulable suspicion” that the individual might be in possession of drugs.  I’d be fascinated to learn if, legally speaking, there is any need for the “articulable suspicion” have a greater than 25% likelihood of being accurate.

Leave a Comment