Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Drugs chief: I quit after ministers failed me

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 11 November 2007
THE police chief spearheading Scotland's war on drugs quit his post last night, blaming bureaucracy, under-manning and lack of co-operation.
Graeme Pearson, head of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency (SCDEA), took an explosive sideswipe at ministers and fellow police chiefs as he left office more than two years early, declaring he "would not apply for his own job".

Pearson complained that his agency had never been fully staffed, revealed some Scottish police forces refused to release experienced officers for anti-drug campaigns, and suggested there was a lack of ambition at the highest levels in dealing with the menace of drugs.

Pearson, one of Scotland's most experienced and respected police leaders, also condemned the chief constable of North Wales as "crackers" for suggesting all illegal drugs should be legitimised. Pearson added that alcohol was the biggest drug of concern in Scotland, saying many drug addicts started by binge-drinking aged 11 or 12.

Last night, one leading politician said Pearson's departure was a great loss that would "delight the gangsters". Although Pearson announced his resignation earlier this year, few expected him to deliver such a devastating verdict on progress in the drugs war. His post as SCDEA director-general is unlikely to be filled for months.

Pearson took up the job in March 2004 and he was not due to step down until 2010. He is credited with turning around the fortunes of the SCDEA, which seized Class A drugs worth more than £60m in the past 18 months.

Explaining his reasons for stepping down in an exclusive interview with Scotland on Sunday, Pearson said: "The agency has never been fully staffed and I would say, on average, is about 10% down on what it should be.

"One of the problems is that some of the forces find it difficult to release staff to us because the pressures, at force level, encourage forces to keep them there.

"The support has been willing but the reality has been weak. It is the attention to detail which the agency needs. We need the top people because of the job we do. Let's get the resources in to do that. The agency needs the best to be the best, and that has to be recognised."

Pearson also criticised the Scottish Police Services Authority (SPSA), an umbrella body set up by ministers to take overall control of the drugs agency, criminal records and fingerprinting. It was created to streamline the police, but many believe it has only led to new layers of bureaucracy.

Pearson said: "My estimation for the agency is not matched by the ambition of the SPSA. I think it is best for me if I go and a new director-general comes in. I could not guarantee that in two-and-a-half years' time I would look back and see I had achieved what I wanted to."

A police insider close to Pearson said: "The agency is at the forefront of fighting serious and organised crime and is held in extremely high regard both across the UK and abroad.

"But because of the SPSA, the agency is becoming locked into bureaucracy. If the agency had not been working well before the SPSA took over then that would have been a different matter, but it was."

The insider confirmed Pearson was also frustrated that some chief constables in Scotland were reluctant to commit their own top officers to the national battle against drugs.

Pearson also used his interview to reiterate his opposition to any moves to legitimise illegal drugs, a call recently made by the chief constable of North Wales, Richard Brunstrom.

Pearson said: "Richard Brunstrom is crackers to say a thing like that. The Misuse of Drugs Act was put in place because it appeared that drug use in Britain was out of control. He has not thought it out at all.

"Will we have drug stores on every high street? Will you have medical professionals handing them out to the public? And what is a legitimate drug? Is it Ecstasy, cannabis, heroin, crack cocaine? Anything?"

Pearson also highlighted alcohol as "the biggest drug of concern in Scotland".

He said: "I regularly visit inmates at places like Polmont [Young Offenders' Institute] and I ask them: 'Is there a gateway to drug abuse?' And every time the answer comes back: 'Yes, alcohol.'

"I talk to the prisoners and so many of them tell me that they began at the age of 11 or 12 years old, binge drinking before moving on to drugs, starting with cannabis and then heading into other drugs. They end up skipping school and then, eventually, they are kicked out and they end up without any qualifications and before they know it they are unable to do anything with their lives."

Paul Martin MSP, Labour's justice spokesman, said lessons had to be learned from Pearson's decision to quit early and the reasons behind it.

He said: "Scotland needs people like Graeme Pearson. He understands the situation. Not only did he show determination, he showed real leadership to get rid of some of the worst criminals in Scotland. News that he is going will delight the gangsters.

"Bureaucracy needs to be kept in check. The bad guys do not work with bureaucracy but we never seem to be able to take bureaucracy out of the mix. The Executive has to show initiative and do something about this."

Bill Aitken, Scottish Conservative justice spokesman, said: "The SCDEA was starting to cut off the heads of the [drug] trade and was exceptionally successful in doing so under Pearson's leadership. Police forces have got to realise that the agency's activities are pivotal in the fight against crime and there has to be a wider sense of engagement. And the role of the SPSA has got to be examined."

A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "While most of the points raised relate to the previous administration, the new Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenny MacAskill has already hit the ground running and has made significant progress in the first six months of government in addressing these concerns."

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 10 November 2007 10:49 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Drugs policy
 
1

,

11/11/2007 00:25:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

,

11/11/2007 00:33:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1133219, Article id was mapped to record!
3

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 11/11/2007 00:46:55

Obviously he's a man that's very full of himself.

And quite happy that prisons are now packed with druggies and shoplifters. I'm not.

Is this now police training --- this po-faced pompous solemnity that they think is in anyway sense? Enter John Vine.

From the great english regional school of corruption and back-handers.

Meanwhile they drive about in black BMWs and executive Range Rovers.

The Police that is.

4

Stephen101,

Impossible job 11/11/2007 00:48:51

Prohibition is a hell of a tough job. Totally impossible even.

Pearson was obviously an empire builder who wanted more and more public money to do what is just not possible.

The sooner we follow advice of NorT the better. Save us all a fortune, and it would also mean we didn't have to listen to lectures from self righteous holy joes like Pearson.

5

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 11/11/2007 02:26:10

Man at the 'Top'? what can we say?
'Diddums-Sticks'!!

6

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 11/11/2007 02:27:18

'Sick that in your pipe and smoke it!'

7

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 11/11/2007 02:28:11

'Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

8

Mad King Bambo,

Roon at Flabskin's bit 11/11/2007 03:00:50

The more 'successful' our Drugs Czars are at seizing drugs, the more the street price is forced up, the more crimes the junkies have to commit to feed their habit...

As Ralph Waldo Emerson said:

"One sure sign of stupidity is to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result..."

9

brian mcc,

the arctic 11/11/2007 03:31:45

High ranking official resigns post in war on drugs. Was he threatened by some maniac? Or maybe he sees a no win situation. How does an 11 or 12 year old binge drink?

10

,

11/11/2007 03:39:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1133387, Article id was mapped to record!
11

frank mcbride,

lusitania 11/11/2007 05:27:59

I agree with a lot of posters that alll drugs should be legalised.

Prohibition, everywhere that it has been tried, has failed and, lead to a higher, and more violent crime, crime rate.

However, even legalisation will have only a limited effect if the social problems which breed it - poverty, marginalisation, extraordinarily high salaries inter alia, are not addressed, at the same time.

It should be remembered that it's not only the poor and maginalised who misuse drugs, but also the rich. Indeed, misusers are in every stratum of society.

12

Pete39,

tassy 11/11/2007 05:32:36

Maybe if he could birch a few he could be persuaded to stay on. It must be frustrating to spend a lot of effort catching the bu**ers and see them given a smack in the hand for ruining the lives of generations of youngsters. Personally I am more into hanging , but too old to apply for the job.

13

Sean G,

11/11/2007 05:46:41

I am in the legalise and tax it camp-however Pearson is right that alcohol abuse is the root of a far bigger problem.

Every time I return to Scotland on leave I am shocked by the sights on view in our city centres at the weekends - The Alco-Pops generation at play: young women completely pissed out of their heads -surely a contributory factor to the number of rapes and sexual attacks and violent young men also out of it!

Scotland is a nation of substance abusers whether it is alcohol or other drugs. Reading the above comments attacking Pearson-shooting the messenger- rather than addressing the issue confirms to me that many Scots are largely still in denial about this and dont like to hear the truth about their own addictions-far less contemplate taking the necessary actions!

14

An Beal Bacht,

Travelling in Nihlon 11/11/2007 06:07:01

The function of prohibition is not to get rid of the prohibited substance but to enhance its value. Who benefits from this?

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ0EVf_AFM0

15

beeree,

11/11/2007 07:19:05

A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "....the new Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenny MacAskill .................. has made significant progress in the first six months of government in addressing these concerns."

S/he would say that wouldn't s/he.

16

frank mcbride,

lusitania 11/11/2007 07:42:38

Another contempuous SOS headline.

17

Anonym,

somewhere 11/11/2007 07:47:22

#14 Sean

What you fail to realise is that Pearson is not just 'the messenger', rather, it was his job to 'address the issue'... and his attitude towards this was and is that the 'misuse of drugs act' (cica 1970 something) was and still is relevant.

Throwing more and more resources at the 'menace' of drugs is sheer stupidity!

Scotland is not a nation of substance misusers! We probably do have more than our fair share of problems, caused by a hopeless minority of weak willed neer-do-wells, but most people here are sensible about alcohol and drugs.

I think it's a bit strange that you think addicts are in denial because they don't take what you deem to be the necessary actions! Their definition of necessity revolves around the next supply of their drug. They certainly are not in denial about that.

Control and tax drugs, and watch as young people decide for themselves that they are not so interested in drugs.

The current approach (Know the Score) claims to give young people facts, without being preachy or condescending, so that they can make up their own minds, but it is completely blatant which decision they want you to take, and it is both preachy and condescending!

The whole attitude to drugs by the authorities is completely warped and wrong, and hasn't changed since the 70's, when they got it completely wrong.

Pearson's absence from his very well paid job will change nothing. As for Mr. Martin's coment, get real politician! The gangsters don't give a stuff who heads up the SCDEA!

18

Donart/NZ,

11/11/2007 07:57:04

Yes lllegalise everything. I'm pleased I do not any longer live in such a sick society. Scots were once the standard that evreryone hoped to equal!

What ever happened to "Scots wha hae"??

Forget "Braveheart" - "Trainspotting" is your daily standard.

Hail Caledonia

19

Donart/NZ,

Alastair 11/11/2007 07:59:02

Yes lllegalise everything. I'm pleased I do not any longer live in such a sick society. Scots were once the standard that evreryone hoped to equal!

What ever happened to "Scots wha hae"??

Forget "Braveheart" - "Trainspotting" is your daily standard.

Hail Caledonia

20

frank mcbride,

lusitania 11/11/2007 08:02:48

#19, Donart.

Can you give one example of Prohibition working?

It doesn't even work in totalitarian states.

21

Carel,

Isle of Skye 11/11/2007 08:19:17

It's possible to be opposed to the present prohibition (as disasterous as most posters here have said) and not support 'legalising everything'.

Pre the nightmare started by the Misuse of Drugs Act heroin was not on sale to the public. Not for over fifty years. BUT, anyone who in whatever way became an opiate dependent could go to his GP or a hospital clinic and they would be given a PRESCRIPTION for heroin.

Sorry about cyber-shouting, but I want to get something across to people who think that they are """ pleased I do not any longer live in such a sick society. Scots were once the standard that evreryone hoped to equal!""" Donart NZ comment 20. ------------------- At the time you are talking about, the time when you lived in Scotland, when it was all so good, the way opiates were handled WAS to give prescriptions to all and any persons who became addicts to opiates.

I am certain that it was that policy that kept the heroin epidemic from our streets for fifty years longer than the US. There is a form of semi-prohibition that works - it's medicalisation, and it has a fantastic track record.

NB, That's for opiates. Just as we don't have the same laws governing alchohol and tobacco each of the drugs that are currently illegal need a legal frame fitting the particular problems it causes - my guess is that 100% prohibition is the frame appropriate to very few or none of these.

22

Josi,

Lenzie 11/11/2007 08:39:31

Maybe he left cos he didn't like his new boss...?

23

Boy Wonder,

11/11/2007 08:42:35

I got a threatening phone call through the night. I was barely asleep when the phone rang and I grabbed it up before my daughters and LOML were awakened. Then I heard a string of swearing and dog's abuse coming down the phone, ending with "I'm coming to get your life savin's ya f****** radge b******!" I said nothing and put the phone down, realising it was a wrong number and didn't give it another thought. I was too knackered!

But what has that to with the article, you ask? Because I suspect it was all about drugs ... and the consequences of what goes on because they're illegal. Even innocent people get caught up in these things!

I'm all for this Czar going. He did nothing to stem the tidal wave of illegal drugs and no-one ever will. I said before ... we lost that war years ago. It is just another of those "fear" things the Government of the day likes to hang over our heads to get us to do what they want!

Tinme to legalise and try to control it drugs that way, I think. Tax it like cigarettes ... I don't care. I hardly even do legal drugs!

All banning anything ever does, is push the offenders underground, where the criminals rule with a harder fist than even the law. It also criminalises people who should not be in that position, like sufferers of debilitating illnesses.

Governments have to more mature enough to recognise now that they have lost the war. Time to shape the victory!

24

Boy Wonder,

11/11/2007 08:43:39

*apologies for typoes ... not had black pudding rolls yet!!!

25

Phil C,

11/11/2007 08:45:36

Bureaucracy is a disease. The Labour party love rules but voters seem to allow them to tell lies.

Legalise the stuff and let the druggies decide for themselves if they want to to ruin their lives. If they affect other people, bang them up for good, four to a cell with one syringe, a bit of powder and a good supply of methadone!

26

david team,

edinburgh 11/11/2007 08:51:28

i have just read numbers 2 and 3

what stupid comments from i suspect stupid people

27

david team,

edinburgh 11/11/2007 08:54:29

does't it make you proud to live amongst people with such attitudes a 2 and 3 ?

fortunately they are of no consequence to socoety as a whole but they can play with comments sites such as this and they do

28

Phil C,

11/11/2007 08:55:25

#28 Kenny

It would save money. At the moment we have to 'understand' and 'sympathise' and let them beg, borrow and steal from everyone else.

29

Ted,

11/11/2007 09:05:41

This guy sounds like a total banana. Good riddance.

30

Ted,

11/11/2007 09:10:34

Oh, and who says "hit the ground running" anymore? Purely marketing consultants from Romford.

Oh, and #2, that's clear and correct: prohibition has failed. All the "arguments" against you in this thread amount to "Oh noes!!1! Drugs bad, surely?!"

(Yes, I mean you, #5, #28, #29, #30)

31

Rodster,

Glasgow 11/11/2007 09:18:09

I must state at first I have never used drugs (excepting alcohol and tobacco)
as was proved with alcohol in america in the 30s prohibition does not work ,it only opens the door for gangsters to control supply and all the resultant crime that ensues ,so it is with drugs .
Legalise it all and regulate it then as with tobacco and alcohol over a period of timer use education to reduce the consumption .
just as we will never eliminate tobacco and alcohol abuse ,at least now criminal gangs are not controlling the sales of such product.
Remove the gangsters and you reduce crime ,prison population ,burglaries etc and there is more money for education etc etc .

32

Quiksilver,

London 11/11/2007 09:33:42

Looking at comments #2 and #3 and others in that vein, it is clear to everyone why Scotland is the leading region for drug and alcohol abuse.

33

Colin B,

Bearsden 11/11/2007 09:37:14

While Wallace and Jamieson were useless Kenny McCaskill is also falling into the trap of lettgin faceless, wishy wasy civil servants run the Justice Department- 6 months in and he has still not announced the mcKie Enquiry remit, no doubt under pressure to protect his predecessors and Boyd, Elish, Orr, Rae.
At least Pearson was prepared to take a high profile role- Willie Rae hid from the public. Alex should sack MCCaskill and fast.

34

Ataloss,

Bathgate 11/11/2007 09:47:04

Humans have been using substances to get out their faces since before we came down from the trees. Legalise and regulate everything and so take the money away from the gansters.

35

Yada,

11/11/2007 10:57:55

"Bureaucracy needs to be kept in check. The bad guys do not work with bureaucracy but we never seem to be able to take bureaucracy out of the mix. The Executive has to show initiative and do something about this." -- quote, Labour's Justice Spokesman,

Pot ---- kettle.
On whose watch was bureaucracy multiplied to the extent it has been, please?

36

MtnKat,

11/11/2007 11:07:52

Oh yes, let's legalize everything:
Murder
Rape
Assault
Drink Driving
Robbery
Prohibition doesn't work.
Anarchy does?

37

Toast,

11/11/2007 11:08:26

No 2.Totally right,total legalisation is the only sensible answer,control,tax,remove the criminals and help the users,anybody who cannot see this is totally out of touch with reality.

38

Homo Sapiens,

11/11/2007 11:19:02

The frustration of Chief Pearson is understandable, and should ring a loud alarm bell for the people of Scotland.

The fact is that addictive behaviour (of every kind) has its roots in unhappy, and even tragic circumstances experienced by people while growing up. Mostly related to feelings of lack of love, support, experience or fear of abandonment, child abuse (emotional, physical, sexual), lack of empathy and sympathy etc. Loss of parental attention (or loss of a sustained relationship with a parent through divorce). Most addicts try to "fill a hole" or emerge from their pain by replacing the pain with sex drugs and alcohol (and other addictive behaviours and substances).

There is no amount of policing that will reduce the pain and agony that an addict feels inside. No police measure will make an addict raise his level of self-esteem, confidence, or ability to deal with the cause roots of his/her addiction. Consequently, using police to restrain and reduce addiction is as efficient as using a trucheon to heal a heart attack!

Legalisation and liberalisation of drug and alcohol abuse is not the answer either. It will only help pour more petrol on the fire of the lost souls.

The solution lies in a combined therapeutic (psychological, psychaitric, sociological) approach, and a policing approach to limit access to drugs and alcohol. The most important way to deal with drugs and addictive behaviour however is through prevention. The only thing that can help prevent drug addiction is better stabler family life as a child and youth. Being raised by BOTH parents (even after divorce), who are caring and fit parents, who will consider raising their own children the greatest challenge of their lives (and not the accumulation of posessions, or "things"). A government that will support the family and fatherhood, rather than single parent households, and fatherlessness... these are the measures that will reduce drug and

39

MtnKat,

11/11/2007 11:19:38

44 Toast
Are you saying that once legal the users are going to miraculously have the money to purchase.
They can't work because the drugs are illlegal or because they're too stoned to do the job?
What is going to change is that they will arrested for the acts of violence instead of the drugs.
You are the one who is out of touch with reality.

40

MtnKat,

11/11/2007 11:27:52

45 Homo Sapiens
While I respect your obvious compassion, I question your summation.
If true, then every child in a familywould walk that road. According to my observations it is usually one 'problem' child who consequently has all of the attention, resources and concern of the rest of the family bestowed upon them.

41

frank mcbride,

lusitania 11/11/2007 11:28:58

#43 MtnKat.

Thank you for your perceptive extrapolation from a number of posts.

42

Brick V. Tamland II,

11/11/2007 11:34:44

As long as prohibition continues, drug dealing scum gangsters will continue to make life miserable for communities across Scotland. The police know who the dealers are, rarely do we read of a drugs cache being found in the posession of someone who isn't on the police radar.

It's an easy option for the lowlife's a couple of grand invested in smack, a pyramid scheme of £100-£10 bags of scag dealers and users and within a short time, there's a new X5, new villa on the outskirts of town a villa in Spain and a ready made excuse of gambling earnings and investment in a laundering Taxi company, security firm, tanning salon or social club.

Legalise at the softer end of the scale and introduce harder, longer sentences coupled with complete confiscation of all assetts. After all if our beloved anti-islamaphobes are keen on deporting the families of terrorists why not apply similar punitive measures to the families of drug dealers?

43

MtnKat,

11/11/2007 11:39:13

48 frank mcbride
What I think needs to change are societal attitudes.
We need to make a life well lived more attractive than 'being cool', which by it's very nature, is fleeting.

44

Nellie,

Liverpool 11/11/2007 11:44:29

# 2 et al. If you read what Pearson says, it is that drug USE is out of control; therefore, legalising drugs isn't going to reverse the over use of drugs. It probably wouldn't even put the drug barrons out of business - they's simply use their ill-gotten funds to some other use, quite possibly to buy into legitimate businesses selling legalised drugs! (That's what the Bootleggers did in the US, and what the UK "blackmarketeers" did after the war.) The solution to this is not to legalise but to reduce the demand for drugs, which means spending money on fixing the social and health problems that drive people to drugs in the first place.
#10 How do kids become binge drinkers? Easy. They get adults to buy the booze for them, steal the stuff or buy it themselves from a minority of greedy, immoral licensed sellers who are prepared to break the law just to make a few quid profit.
#45 - well said. The voice of sanity at last.

45

MtnKat,

11/11/2007 11:47:52

Re #50
Perhaps I should have said was: We need to redefine what is and isn't 'cool'.

46

JUSTICE FOR ALL,

GREENOCK 11/11/2007 11:55:47

I KNOW WHERE 2NorT AND 4 ARE COMING FROM, BET THEY'RE FIRST IN THE QUEUE FOR THEIR METHADONE EVERY DAY

47

MtnKat,

11/11/2007 12:14:25

56 FlyinHigh
There are no victims of the drug culture?
Babies born with birth defects and/or suffering withdrawal.
Murder and robbery to support the habit.
Families torn apart.
Just to name a few.

Yes, patently 'absurd'.

48

JayJay,

Right here 11/11/2007 12:33:26

Today the Sunday Times reports that the police are talking about introducing fines/points for people caught smoking at the wheel. This comes hard on the heels of plans to double points penalties and raise fines levied on motorists.
Why is this relevant? Because it is in complete contrast to the activities of our boys in blue when confronted with the menace of the drugs trade. It would not take Sherlock Holmes to figure out who the Mister Bigs are in this rotten trade. The police, and most estates, know only too well who is involved. They typically run taxi firms, cash only petrol stations and saunas/tanning booths. They typically have giant houses, full of security cameras, yet seemingly have no visible sources of income.
And yet, faced with people growing very rich on what must be a multi billion industry, we find the Drug Enforcement Agency trumpeting that they have seized some paltry sum from some low ranking officer in the drug business.
One of the key problems in this whole business is that people are very firmly of the view that the Mr Bigs are above the law, and the actions of the police to date tend to confirm that....if only we could persuade these guys to light up a fag at the wheel. Then we'd have them!

49

MtnKat,

11/11/2007 13:15:41

59 FlyinHigh

I disagree that it is a direct result of prohibition.

You made a point that many of the items on my list can be assigned to alcohol abuse as well.

Consider the possibility that the age of majority precedes by a number of years the age of maturity.
We are allowing children who are barely beyond the age of puberty (a more unstable developmental period doesn't exist) adult privileges before they are capable of adult responsibility. Do you not think that is a contributor to irresponsible drinking habits?

As to your query regarding medicinal use, I believe it should be available by prescription.

50

MtnKat,

11/11/2007 13:19:18

61 addendum
I believe cannabis is available by prescription in the US to relieve the nausea associated with chemotherapy. I wasn't aware of it's use as a painkiller being more effective than opium based prescriptions.

51

comprehensive,

govan 11/11/2007 13:19:47

Graeme Pearson is a great detective and no doubt will have detected a great job with some quango to give him another pension on leaving the police

52

Ms Fiona,

11/11/2007 13:52:52

I am totally selfish in this matter. The "war" on drugs costs a fortune and will never be won. And the uncalculated costs to society through crime, worklesness, and intervention when they have kids could probably pay for 10.000 more Police and class sizes of 2. I don't care why they become junkies, just deal with them. And if that means prescribed heroin or whatever then do it. The majority of people don't take drugs apart from cigarettes and alcohol,but we pay taxes they don't.

53

MtnKat,

11/11/2007 15:23:52

65 FlyinHigh

You bring up many good points, just not enough to convince me that legalizing something because we are running out of cells is the answer.
It doesn't solve the problem of antisocial behavior. We would be giving a nod and a wink to a lifestyle that is self destructive and undermines society as a whole.
I'm not saying I know the answer. I'm throwing some of the flaws I perceiveout there for your consideration.
And on that note; When are parents going to be held accountable?
Which brings me full circle to this being a societal problem. What was it, two or generations ago, that we were held to standards of conduct by our parents and our peers?

54

Carel,

Isle of Skye 11/11/2007 16:15:52

IF you simply leagalised heroin (which won't happen) then it would be dirt cheap. It costs almost nothing to produce. The price is the 90+% the cost of subverting the law, rising to 99% at times when the war on drugs is having "successes".

What "success" by drug enforcement means is:- (A) interdicting large consignments, pushing the price up, and thus redirecting more of the world oversupply of illegal heroin in our direction and (B) pushing more addicts to more desperate measures = more property crime, dealing, HIV spreading, etc.

"Success" for someone like Pearson = more deaths, ill health, addiction, gangsterism, corruption of politicians and police: Pearson et al think that's nonsense, but that's 'cos they believe the nonsense that a war on drugs can be won. 37 horrific years prove that it's the war on drugs itself that spreads heroin use.

Before '70 we had 5000 addicts in the whole of the UK. Now we cerainly have 50000 in Scotland alone. Is a greater failure possible in any social policy?

GO BACK TO WHAT WE DID BEFORE '70, PRESCRIBE HEROIN TO ALL ADDICTS.

It wasn't better parenting that kept heroin at bay then, it was a sensible pragmatic policy. In the 50 years before we started this nonsense the US was already on total prohibition of heroin prescription for addicts. They had hundreds of thousands of addicts throughout those years when we had 5000. US parenting was no worse than ours between 1920 and'70 - it's the POLICY that was different, we prescribed to addicts, they didn't. When we moved to their policy in '70 we got the problems it had brought them.

55

Spacepimp,

Edinburgh 11/11/2007 17:13:36

#2........What an idiot......I am saddened that we live in the same society.

56

Carel,

Isle of Skye 11/11/2007 17:41:48

Comment 70, Spacepimp.

It wasn't clear from your post if you meant that Pearson, the resigning drug tzar, or NorT, the author of Comment 2, was the idiot who makes you sad that you live in the same society as him. Which?

57

Ayrshire Scot™,

11/11/2007 18:14:42

#2 Great post, agree fully.

58

Dr. James Wilkie,

11/11/2007 18:29:18

I cannot imagine any non-drug-user working up quite the level of vehemence displayed by some of the above posters. Methinks they doth protest too much. I agree with Carel on differential regulation of different drugs, and on treating addicts as medical and social cases (which has been the case for a long time already), but I would beware of harking back to the "good old days" when the problem could be kept within bounds by prescribing heroin legally to what were then social outcasts.

The world is a different place now, drug use has attained a far higher level of social acceptance within a wider range of age groups, and above all the supply side is now in different and more ruthless hands. Previously, it was simply a lucrative trade in drugs by organisations like the Camorra, but now the supply is primarily in the hands of others like Al Quaeda, for instance, who regard it simply as a means of financing political activities extending to terrorism, murder, and overthrowing democratically elected governments. That is the reason why the free supply of these substances for recreation is banned worldwide, and not simply in the UK. Nobody has ever legislated against their medicinal use.

I would be all in favour of legalisation if I thought it would solve the desperate social problem, but having seen the latter from a wider perspective through the United Nations I just don't see it happening. I have memories like being accosted on the streets of Bangkok by an obviously stoned 14-year-old with the invitation "I go weeth you?" (I gave her some money and told her to go home to her mother.)

One thing that would make a real difference would be effecting a change in public attitudes to make recreational drug use socially unacceptable at all levels. This is something that can be brought about, beginning with coke-snorters at middle-class dinner parties, and encouraging peer pressure at school level. It has to be made clear that the

59

Kristena Crosmen,

11/11/2007 18:37:43

hey guys this has nothing to do with this article but is it possable to grab hold of some one one here like for example Charles Linskaill man your impossable to find love yea honey buttons

60

Kristena Crosmen,

11/11/2007 18:42:52

and Suzi B I LOVE YOU TOOO..no Charles i aint cheaten lolz but is there nyway to contact either of you??

61

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 11/11/2007 18:54:17

~75. Kristena Crosmen, I am here, dont see you post on here very much, but maybe I missed them, put some info in the Location box, Like where you are from. x

62

Yacker,

West of Scotland 11/11/2007 19:19:04

Most of posters today have exposed their ignorance of the drug culture prevalent in Scotland.
Graeme Pearson is understandably frustrated at the increase in bureaucracy and lack of cooperation and I regret that he is standing down. I've met him on a couple of occasions and have been impressed by his passion to clean up organised crime in Scotland, including drug supplying. The proceeds of crime monies confiscated go back into communities to bring about some good.
However, it's also understandable (although rather selfish) that Chief Constables would want to keep their best detective officers in-house rather than allow them to go on loan them to the Drug Enforcement Agency as the statistical game played nowadays means they have to keep their crime clear up rate as high as possible.
We need the very best police officers and other specialists (eg accountants to track money laundering and fraud) to beef up the team that will do the business of breaking the criminal gangs and traffickers.

63

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 11/11/2007 19:59:31

#2 NORT I 100% agree with your sentiments here. There is a severe lack of vision among the authorities and many reactionaries who are looking at the drugs issue in completely the wrong way.

64

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 11/11/2007 22:27:56

#74. Kristena Crosmen, found you babes! on the cartoon talk, just last week or somid, sorry you confused me loc Canada, don't think Suzi B, does much chat on the political pages very much, its the more 'NUT'S' issues we are usually on, I don't study politics very much, so my input on pages such as this would be a waste of time, not being able to hold strong views and most likely non coherent, mind you are they ever? :-D

65

,

11/11/2007 23:15:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
66

whatsyourname,

12/11/2007 00:19:51

Really what a mess, I think this man is soooo right,# 2 and some of the rest of you must be doin drugs to ever think of making it legal,Our world is in enough mess without making this legal the kids growing up dont stand a chance, and as for making it legal so the pushers dont make that much money from it, I would say a lot of them are selling it because wages dont come up to the price of living,so why is it the Goverment not doing something about that .alcohol and drugs has been around for a long time what is making people want to do more of it ?

67

Senga Jean,

Scotland 12/11/2007 00:24:41

I regret to say that prohibition is the friend of organised crime. Legalisation is such a defeat but so is Iraq and both need "ending"

68

scotsdoc,

Nanaimo BC Canada 12/11/2007 00:55:24

For the 25 years from the mid sixties I was fighting drugs in the Canadian Armed forces.
About 1970 Canada held a massive Inquiry into drug use, headed by Justice LeDain.

The upshot was a recommendation to ease up on the criminality of drug use specially in regard to Cannabis. As can be imagined this caused a lot of feathers to be ruffled in the Halls of Power in Ottawa and the issuance of the report was DELAYED
FOR ABOUT 18 MONTHS(excuse, difficulty translating technical terms into French - the other 'official language')
In the event it was finally released just after Christmas when the population was engaged with other things! It ended up on the shelf and was completely ignored!!
Things have gone from BAD to WORSE since and now I am convinced THAT DRUG USE MUST BE LEGALIZED. and SUPPLY MUST BE CHEAP(to stop smuggling) in pure standardized dosage.

HOWEVER DRUG USERS WHO ENDANGER OTHERS WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS MUST BE HAMMERED!!

Out here in British Columbia gang warfare is rife, with a multiple shooting (6 dead) the other day bringing the UNSOLVED NUMBER OF DEAD YOUTH to about 100. The money the drug trade produces in this Province, is worth more to the economy than the entire Forestry Industry.

Control must be by education and propaganda starting at a very early age when kids are taught about the dangers of crossing the street, riding bicycles, cigarettes or unprotected sex.

This control is slowly working for tobacco It will work for drugs too!

69

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 12/11/2007 04:32:20

Hello All,

Well, if any of you 'let's legalize it' aren't too stoned to read this and comprehend, allow me to point out that the 'collateral damage' from illegal drug use is horrendously high: from a personal/family point of view to a business point of view.

You lot must be on drugs to write the bullhockey that you have done. You think that legalizing it will stop crimes? What utter nonsense!

Just because a drug is legal doesn't stop the negative effects from the drug; thefts will STILL occur, because addicts CAN'T HOLD JOBS. Heroin addicts, Crack addicts, Coke addicts, Hash Addicts, simply can't hold meaningful jobs, and the menial jobs they do hold from time to time, at them they wreak total havoc!

Addicts steal from employers while employed (before getting fired for being UNABLE to do their jobs and then stealing from the businesses), they commit crimes (because they can't hold a job), and they are pretty much out of their minds while high.

How many times does it take, before you loony people get a clue? A newspaper article explaining yet another homicide, rape, or beating, usually states that the criminal was a Drug User/Addict, and was 'out of his head' when he/she committed the crime.

Then all you ballyhoo pro-legalization loons cry rivers of tears against Society trying to protect itself, by putting away such a person for the rest of their lives, for committing such crimes (or long stretches for crimes less than murder).

What do you want to do? You want to excuse such behaviour, LEGALIZE the methodology which leads to such crimes, and then think yourself morally superior for your 'enlightened position.'

What hogwash!

Families torn apart, children abused, starved, beaten, and killed, neighborhoods destroyed, businesses crippled because of lack of productivity, and even driving down the street or walking to the market, becomes a real life hazard; all because you lackluster lot want to engage in your pers

70

Pete39,

Tassy 12/11/2007 05:38:37

Personally I would legalise all present illegal drugs but only available through prescription. I would hang major importers, give extremely long jail sentences to the next level down in distributors and continually birch the ground level distributors to a level that threatens their health. Whether you realise it or not, you are at war with unknown forces outside of Scotland. You cannot win it by pussy footing around.

71

Thomas P,

Scotland 12/11/2007 09:51:44

If the SDEA has been such a success in its war on drugs why has the price of Heroin on our streets halved since its inception?

72

Jay Kay,

Burntisland 12/11/2007 13:17:30

I say legalise the whole thing, the more these f*ckers OD the less of them there will be to place unnecessary stress on the NHS, the prison service and the police so go right ahead with purer stronger cocaine and heroin.

All drug users are welcome to participate at your leading brand of Boots.

73

Dr. James Wilkie,

12/11/2007 20:51:39

Get the logic straight. The USE/ABUSE of drugs is already bordering on legal, because criminal action is not normally taken in respect of private use. Nor are addicts persecuted in any way.

The SUPPLY of drugs is another matter, and cannot be legalised because of a whole series of international treaties that forbid any such step.

There are very good reasons for this international law, which is now observed by all governments worldwide. Such is the extent of the social and economic problems caused by drugs that anyone caught with a supply of addictive narcotic substances can expect no mercy - justifiably, since the misery caused by peddling these wares makes it one of the most damnable crimes imaginable.

74

Haleakelaman,

Auld Grey City 13/11/2007 19:54:54

I've worked on building sites and I've worked around tradesmen. I'm now an employer and am saddened by the amount of "pot" smoked by so called tradesmen at work. I've also seen young apprentices and labourers still out of their heads on whatever. What is the H&S Executives' stance on this never mind the head of SCDEA. I don't think this is isolated to the trades either.
If I ask a prospective job applicant to take a drugs test then apparently I'm breaking the law. Why is that? The oil and aero industry do it as standard. Would it not be good to have simple drug tests taken on an annual basis upon employees. Or is Scotland too scared it will lose half it's workforce?

75

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 13/11/2007 21:18:56

Hello Haleakelaman,

You've hit the nail on the proverbial head: people have become addicted to Political Correctness so intently, that they're willing forego what little common sense may still exist, and quite literally endanger our families, friends, and neighbors.

The PC crowd think that requiring workers to be sober and straight at work, is being 'judgemental'. I've actually had arguments with Libertarians on this side of the Pond, whom believe that it would be ok for an airline pilot to fly a plane full of passengers, AFTER doing 'a few lines of coke.'

No, unfortunately, I'm NOT kidding.

The PC Crowd/Pro-Drug Legalization bunch are totally detached from reality and the real world consequences of what widespread drug use does to people.

Mind you, the same bunch are absolute death on driving while drunk, but move to the drug issue and lo and behold, all of a sudden they change their tunes to 'don't be judgemental.'

Meanwhile, business suffers, families and children suffer, our communities suffer, productivity tanks, all the while the pro-legalization lot will NOT address a single argument about such suffering.

They act as if such suffering does NOT even exist.

I have first hand personal knowledge of how badly drugs devastate individuals and their families, and how very permanent that destruction is to all involved.

Unfortunately for us all the cowards on the pro-legalization side won't discuss such issues; they know that if they did, they would lose the argument from the get go.

Take care.

Cheers from the Rockies

76

dave luzon,

close to china 14/11/2007 11:17:28

i find it strange when i here people like Neanderthal75 come online from the states were some states allow you to have legal automatic weapons! so you can defend yourself?
and tell us how to do it in Europe! like there doing a good job in the states!
yeah right!! drug Prohibition has been a disaster there. as many who live there will tell you that outright.even ex police who witness the TWOD first hand!
wasting some 87billion last year. on what?
and you imprison a huge percentage to but it does nothing to stop the problem.which goes on and on.
you say like dragonhead that the death sentence on a Chinese model is the answer for cannabis etc.
but i live close to china at the moment and all the hard drugs are coming from china along with most of the big time dealers here to.
so obviously there policy of death isn't working! sorry to burst your bubble!
better if your country stays out of UK affairs. before the US lead war on drugs.
drugs were almost unknown by 90% of the UK population when they were treated as a health problem.
look at the mess now! 30 years later!
yeah the war on drugs is a huge success!!

77

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 14/11/2007 16:56:12

Hello Dave Luzon,

Well, what can I say about such ignorance as you present in your post?

Just another European attempting to present an illogical argument, using less than a thimble full of knowledge and a Cruise ship worth of bias and ignorance.

Many states allow private citizens with the proper federal Class III licenses to own and operate fully automatic weapons. Point of fact, some of those automatic weapons includel, but are not limited to, 40mm full auto chain guns, 105mm/120mm howitzers, 105mm recoiless rifles, flame throwers, mortars, etc.

Having said this, since 1927, when private ownership of full auto weapons without a federal license was outlawed, NOT A SINGLE legally owned machine gun has ever been used in the commission of a crime. Approximately 500,000 full auto weapons are owned by private citizens, while appx. 90 million Americans own some 200 million guns.

Despite these large numbers, only some 10,000 people a year, from a population of 300,000,000 people, die from non-police/non-legal involved handgun deaths.

Compare those 10,000 deaths from handguns, to the appx. 26,000 deaths from alcohol related traffic accidents on American highways. In other words, alcohol related fatalities occur 2.6 times more often then handgun related deaths.

Yet I don't see anybody trying to reinstitute the 18th Amendment (Prohibition against alcohol), or a similar prohibition in Great Britain.

Since you anti-gun folks are always chanting the mantra of saving 'innocent lives' why don't you come out for outlawing booze, to save all those people from dying because drunk drivers kill them?

Your hypocrisy and illogic is astounding.

Further, you sir must either have been stoned when you wrote your post, or you simply like to lie about what I have written. I did not include cannabis in the list of hard drugs (since cannabis isn't a hard drug) for which severe punishment should be meted out.

I noted that HASH

78

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 14/11/2007 17:05:04

Hello Luzon Continued,

I hate to burst your bubble, but trying to blame the USA (though why not, most of you anti-US Lot blame us for everything, it makes your fantasy world so much easier to live in, neh?) for drugs in Great Britain and Britons using those drugs (what, don't Britons have any self control?), is a complete non sequitur.

I take it that you've never heard of the Opium Wars in China? I do believe that little affair was completely a British driven event, neh? Nary an American in sight to complicate matters during all that hoopla!

What people like you never address are the facts pertaining to drug use, the ramifications of drug addiction, and the negative impact on all of society, even in countries where drugs were made legal.

Holland is a prime example of allowing people to shoot up in public, even giving them flop houses to shoot up, free needles, etc. Guess what? The Dutch concluded after a few years of implementing such idiocy, that the problems associated with drug use/addiction, only got WORSE by using public funds (it was like pouring water on a floor and then setting live wires down into the poor of water; the amplification was tremendous as was the lethal results).

But neither you nor your compatriots will address that fact. Nothing new of course, but profoundly sad.

Cheers from the Rockies

79

dave luzon,

16/11/2007 10:41:32

i can see from your reply you know nothing on the subject.
lets look at the facts and figures on the net for holland v USA:
Comparing Important Drug and Violence Indicators
Social Indicator Comparison Year USA Netherlands
Lifetime prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+) 2001 36.9% 1 17.0% 2
Past month prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+) 2001 5.4% 1 3.0% 2
Lifetime prevalence of heroin use (ages 12+) 2001 1.4% 1 0.4% 2
Incarceration Rate per 100,000 population 2002 701 3 100 4
Per capita spending on criminal justice system (in Euros) 1998 €379 5 €223 5
Homicide rate per 100,000 population Average 1999-2001 5.56 6 1.51 6


Source 1: US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Volume I. Summary of National Findings (Washington, DC: HHS, August 2002), p. 109, Table H.1.

Source 2: Trimbos Institute, "Report to the EMCDDA by the Reitox National Focal Point, The Netherlands Drug Situation 2002" (Lisboa, Portugal: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Nov. 2002), p. 28, Table 2.1.

Source 3: Walmsley, Roy, "World Prison Population List (fifth edition) (London, England: Research, Development and Statistics Directorate of the Home Office), Dec. 2003, p. 3, Table 2.

Source 4: Walmsley, Roy, "World Prison Population List (fifth edition) (London, England: Research, Development and Statistics Directorate of the Home Office), Dec. 2003, p. 5, Table 4.

Source 5: van Dijk, Frans & Jaap de Waard, "Legal infrastructure of the Netherlands in international perspective: Crime control" (Netherlands: Ministry of Justice, June 2000), p. 9, Table S.13.

Source 6: Barclay, Gordon, Cynthia Tavares, Sally Kenny, Arsalaan Siddique & Emma Wilby, "International comparisons of criminal jus

80

dave luzon,

16/11/2007 11:41:53

those people must go to prison for a long time for pot. while i see your government smuggles in tons of the stuff. but that fine??
you said many were harmed from drugs maybe its your government bringing them in?

'In 1998, CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz published a two-volume report that substantiated many of Webb's claims, and described how 50 contras and contra-related entities involved in the drug trade had been protected from law enforcement activity by the Reagan-Bush administration, and documented a cover-up of evidence relating to these activities. The report also showed that the National Security Council was aware of these activities. A report later that same year by the Justice Department Inspector General also came to similar conclusions."
as for having nothing to do with foreign policy of other country's drug wise?
you need to do some research and find out before you speak. or your just a born lier?
all poor countrys have to do what the US tells them if they want foreign aid. and that includes drastic local policy's on drugs.
right now were iam the US is training the local police in US methods for dealing with marijuana.
and donating huge amounts of money for the fight on top of the constaint political pressure to arrest more people.
Mexico were going to change there laws, but changed there mind after a call from bush threatening trade sanctions.
the same was true with Canada they were also promised long delays due to unnecessary inspections.
in the UK we had a successful heroin treatment plan in Liverpool by Dr marks that was not only reducing crime but addiction to. this was stopped after loud protests from the US embassy.?
you just dont get it do you! your government just cant admit they got it wrong and just bully everyone else thats why people hate your government wake up.
as for having nothing to do with UK drug policys!
again your lieing you know mr nixon pres

81

dave luzon,

16/11/2007 12:11:14

you say:
"The death penalty is actually useful in
WINNOWING the number of drug dealers, drug distributors, and even drug users (partially as a result of the ever dwindling supplies), so that a greater focus of man power and finances can be centered on the fewer people involved in the drug trade."
ever dwindling supplies eh! thats why the price is going down and anyone can score drugs! LOL what planet do you live on??
The most optimistic reports show that you only interdict 10-15% of drug traffic! amazing success right!!
Holland has not legalized any drug pls get your facts correct! they just turn a blind eye to hash and grass
keeping people away criminal drug dealers a very successful policy.
Holland catches more big time dealers than any other place in Europe. and has the biggest port in Europe to police FACT!
must dutch people support the dutch policy to drugs unlike in your country were the overwhelming majority think its a waste of time and money in US polls.
you give some questionable facts on gun crime.
ONLY 10,000 dead. ONLY? well that's jolly good isnt it?
how many people died of smoking hash ? no one! yet you support the death penalty for them?
all i can say is this, id rather live next to a pot grower or in Holland than next to your house with all your guns.
you sound truly messed up and unaware about drugs and whats really going on


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Should needles continue to be handed out to drug addicts?
Yes, it’s better than re-using old needles
Yes, but only if used needles are returned
No, this just keeps addicts hooked on drugs

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.