Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Russia defies growing consensus with declaration of 'total war on drugs'

zidanguszidangus Veteran
edited June 2011 in Buddhism Today
I have just read this article. Anyone know if this zero tolerance attitude worked before in any other country ?
I think it has some good points such as sending drug dealers to labour camps and making them actually do work, I don't know about possibly jailing addicts if they have not committed any crime though, that seems to be a bit stupid. Anyway it seems they have a pretty bad drug problem in Russia, and their current measures do not seem to be working, so this may be an extreme measure to try and reverse this trend.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/08/russia-total-war-on-drugs

Comments

  • mugzymugzy Veteran
    Denis Broun, the Moscow-based director of UNAIDS for Europe and central Asia, told the Guardian that Gryzlov's proposals could make matters even worse.

    "It has been widely shown that criminalising people using drugs simply drives them underground and makes them much harder to reach with preventative measures," he said. "This is not an effective strategy for fighting HIV. Purely repressive measures do not work."
  • zidanguszidangus Veteran
    I really dont know the full history of Russias methods to reduce drug abuse, but I would hazard a guess that whatever it was it did not work, or they would not be looking at alternative methods now. If they do go ahead with this zero tolerance stance, then only time will tell if it will work or not.
  • TalismanTalisman Veteran
    IMO, this is not a good idea. It will feed organized crime and punish addicts more than dealers.
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    Maybe the result they want is to segregate (in mentality stigma) the drug using population from the non-using population by making it illegal. Thus keeping one healthy and cutting the other loose?
  • zidanguszidangus Veteran
    edited June 2011
    IMO, this is not a good idea. It will feed organized crime and punish addicts more than dealers.
    How will it feed organized crime if the dealers are getting locked up and made to do hard work and the addicts are being made to get help to stop their addiction ? :scratch:
    I do disagree with locking up addicts just because they are addicts, as I have said that seems stupid.
  • TalismanTalisman Veteran
    Making something illegal DOES NOT DESTROY THE MARKET FOR THE PRODUCT. Instead of the market being maintained and regulated by federal authoriy (such as the control of alcohol and tobacco) it becomes maintained by organized criminals looking to make tax-free profits off of addicts. It does not matter what the legal penalties are. The victims of this type of drug policy are always always the users and street dealers. The wealthy crime leaders profit off of the misfortune of those beneath them.
  • zidanguszidangus Veteran
    edited June 2011
    But drug dealing is already illegal in Russia, the Russian government are stating that they wish to make the laws stronger and clamp down harder on drug abuse and drug dealing. So I do not see how this would feed organized crime. If anything I would imagine that the profits organized crime gains from drugs would drop, tough the price of drugs would no doubt increase this would not be balanced by the decrease in the number of people taking drugs if these measures were introduced in my opinion.
    Anyway the level of corruption in Russia suggests to me that these laws/policies would be hard to enforce, so ultimately I think its just PR, there must be an election happening soon in Russia.
  • TalismanTalisman Veteran
    I'm talking about the war on drugs in general not the new possible legislation proposed in the article.
  • taiyakitaiyaki Veteran
    idk about zero tolerance. i do know about the war on drugs in america.

    if i wanted to i can get any drug i wanted within a matter of two phone calls.
    war on drugs? lol
  • TalismanTalisman Veteran
    ^^^ exactly, where are our tax dollars going?
  • zidanguszidangus Veteran
    edited June 2011
    I thought so, suprise suprise its the Russian presidential election next year

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_presidential_election,_2012

    not that it matters since putin and medvedev agree to take turns in charge. Now thats what I call democracy or was that dictatorship.


    :rolleyes:
  • genkakugenkaku Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
    Alcohol, which represents, as I understand it, the biggest single drug addiction problem in the United States, was banned between 1920 and 1933, a period called Prohibition. During that period, there was a rise in alcohol-related crime, some of it extremely violent. Whether the addiction rate rose or fell significantly I don't know. But arrests for public drunkenness rose dramatically in 1925 and thereafter... right in the middle of Prohibition.

    Nowadays, alcohol is mostly legal in the United States and the crime associated with it makes far fewer headlines. Sixty-six percent of the approximately 309 million Americans consume alcohol. By some estimates, 14 million qualify as addicts.

    I'm not sure if there is a sound inferential link or parallel to be made between alcohol's U.S. history and the sort of drug violence that has left so many innocent Mexicans (for example) dead. But if what are currently illicit drugs were decriminalized, maybe it is OK to guess 1. that a certain number of people would continue trying to blot out their personal reality (and continue to commit crimes in order to raise cash for their addictions) and 2. some of the violence associated with the current drug trade would abate.

    Just thinking out loud here.



  • SpacelessSpaceless
    That is the reason that Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva just has to enjoy his journey of liberating suffering beings as the bad realms are far from extinguishing. The best course of action is to institutionalize and intoxicate them with karmic education on retribution. Let's pray for the realization of this noble events to take place speedier :p
  • ZaylZayl Veteran
    For those people not getting caught? price goes up. Drug lords LOVE stricter drug laws you know. Why do you think government officials and the biggest drug lords in the U.S. are on the same side?
  • compassionate_warriorcompassionate_warrior Veteran
    I thought so, suprise suprise its the Russian presidential election next year

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_presidential_election,_2012

    not that it matters since putin and medvedev agree to take turns in charge. Now thats what I call democracy or was that dictatorship.
    This is SO interesting, zid! How time flies--I had no idea Medvedev had been President for nearly 4 years already. He seems like such a newb! Yeah, Putin is bad news. Ex-KGB, and all; he's used to getting what he wants by any means necessary.





  • zidanguszidangus Veteran
    edited June 2011
    CW, I think Putin and Medvedev have an agreement that while one is president the other will be prime minster. This has been going on for while now as the article below highlights

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables-medvedev-putin-russia

    However, their relationship may be souring as the article below suggests

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/01/medvedev-stay-russian-president

    but again take it with a pinch of salt, I think Putin still is the main man in charge, and Medvedev is his sidekick.
Sign In or Register to comment.