Mao had the right idea. We should adopt the same procedure, starting with heroin and cocaine addicts. Then move on to paedophiles, murderers, and all other undesirables. I'm sure the list would soon be filled.
Given the available evidence, it would appear that anyone involved in the medical 'treatment' of opiate 'addiction' is morally indistinguishable from a street dealer. The only difference is self delusion. They're both making a living from smackheads' selfish desire to get high, regardless of the costs and consequences for anyone else.
While I'm about it, the benefactors of drug prohibition aren't much better. Magistrates at least have the excuse that you're not profiting from it, so I'll give you a free pass.
Either let the free market service the need in cost efficient way, or flog users and dealers casually until they choose to stop being so Goddamn selfish. Everything in the middle is just the State and its apparatchiks profiteering from a non-solution to a problem that they chose to create.
I'm also available for children's parties.
If you were to take the view that addicts "need" to have their addiction treated as a disease, then you'd expect market forces to lead to a cadre of people willing to receive payment for doing that; all you need then is to find people willing to make the payments (which of course may not be the addicts). Doubtless those who want to receive the payments will seek to sell their services to whomsoever might pay. Two approaches come to mind: set up expensive private clinics for those wealthy enough to pay and persuade governments to fund your programmes. Should, perchance, your treatments be ineffective, you'll also need a strategy to persuade those with the money that the lack of results is due to them not spending enough money. Just get the process started and a market-forces spiral will be close to inevitable.
This is a model that can't be difficult to extend to other "specialities".
Indeed. One might also argue that it's possible to treat and prevent criminality by incarcerating perpetrators repeatedly for short periods. One might even continue to be complicit in this delusional scam despite the plethora of evidence that any reoffending after the first such term is an indicator that the subject is embarked on a career, and that further short stays at Her Majesty's pleasure will be viewed as the cost of doing business rather than as a deterrant.
Under those circumstances, a rational person might conclude that repeat offenders should be jailed for a lengthy or indefinite period, or in Colonial parlance, three strikes and you, sir, are out.
I agree with Dalrymple and indeed have heard similar views expressed by others. They are too often paraded as victims in court and the media. I wonder how long the Winehouses of this world would survive if their publicity was extinguished?
Why do we give these people air time and how many more chances is Doherty going to be given before he is banged up? If her was from the wrong side of the tracks he would have been inside long ago!
Inblog - isn't that the basis of Scientology??? And look how many people are stupid enough to give them money!! Now where did I park my flying saucer?
> Now where did I park my flying saucer?
Behind the comet, maybe?
Or maybe I'm thinking of another crazy cult.
Inblognito-JP:
If you were to take the view that addicts "need" to have their addiction treated as a disease, then you'd expect market forces to lead to a cadre of people willing to receive payment for doing that; all you need then is to find people willing to make the payments (which of course may not be the addicts). Doubtless those who want to receive the payments will seek to sell their services to whomsoever might pay.
I fear - speaking as a psychologist as well as a magistrate - that the main reason that addicts seek to have their addiction defined as an illness is to have a smokescreen to justify continuing their addiction in the teeth of the repeated exhortations of family, friends and loved ones. No way are they going to pay someone to take their shield away!
On the other hand, if Dalrymple's views were more widely publicised - and I too have heard the comparison with flu before - we might avoid the burden of listening to hours of mitigation in any offence where the defendant is a user, blaming everything on his unfortunate addiction. We don't view alcohol intoxication as mitigation. Why should we be expcted to be sympathetic to drug misuse?
Reading this, I suddenly had that, all to rare, eureka moment.
I have always believed that Heroin should be available over the counter at supermarkets just as are cigarettes.
If you want to be a smackhead, that's your business and no more of a crime than being an idle useless thick pratt.
You may not hold down a job for long (like the thick pratt - and yes, I exclude some MPs) but you won't be smashing my car window for a £300 cd player that I'd have paid you more for than you got for it.
Then the lightbulb lit.
If Heroin was available cheap over the counter to people who might use it and be addicted then smokers and drinkers would rise against the indefensible taxes levied on the products of their legal addiction.
Government would be forced to levy an equitable tax on the Heroin, in effect making it unaffordable to the hooked, leading to continued crime in order to feed the habit.
'But hold on', you say, 'no one brought a defence of being addicted to cigarettes as a reason for committing a crime. No one suggested that they undergo expensive, extensive, touchy feely programmes to kick their pernicious habit and rid society of their criminal behaviour.'
And you are right. Addicts are addicts and criminals are criminals. Sometimes the two clash.
No addict should ever be allowed to use their addiction as an excuse or mitigation for their criminality. No addict should be criminalised for an addiction unless they are criminal.
I think I know what I mean but am rarely sure at this time of the day.
>Government would be forced to levy an equitable tax on the Heroin, in effect making it unaffordable to the hooked, leading to continued crime in order to feed the habit.
Is there any reason why producing heroin etc should be more expensive than producing tobacco. There's quite a lot of it in Afghanistan at the moment I believe.
John Low - Thank you for making my point (or did you miss it?).
Another record crop, I believe. There's no reason why opiates should be more expensive than aspirin, but Rod's point (well made) is that if the State stops giving dope away in an attempt to 'cure' smackheads, then it'd have to tax it just as usuriously as every other fun substance, just for consistency.
>we might avoid the burden of listening to hours of mitigation [...] Why should we be expcted to be sympathetic to drug misuse?
My question to you is why do you tolerate it? Is there some nuLabour hymn sheet that specifically requires you to consider drug 'addiction' as mitigation? If not, then it's your court, and presumably within your remit to tell Sally Sobstory to put a sock in it and take her licks.
Opiates are no more expensive than aspirin. Check the prices in the British National Formulary. Well, the fun ones, anyway. More complex, no-buzz ones like Tramadol, Buprenorphine etc. are more pricey. Incidentally, Buprenorphine is an extremely good treatment for addiction, acting as it does, as an antagonist to street opiates and staving off withdrawals. Sadly under-used though.
My question to you is why do you tolerate it? Is there some nuLabour hymn sheet that specifically requires you to consider drug 'addiction' as mitigation?
The defence advocate is entitled to make a submission in mitigation on behalf of his/her client. We listen to that submission, we take account of valid points and ignore the rest. No one - nuLabour or otherwise - is pulling our strings.
If a heroin addiction is mitigation for those stealing to feed their habit..
How come a thrill addiction isn't mitigation for those convicted of speeding?
Katie - I think payasoru answered it. He'll listen, yawn then hang you.
On the other hand, If you pleaded that your waters had broken and were rushing to the maternity ward he'd probably listen, yawn sympathetically and then hang you.
On the next hand, if you were a Heroin addict, the car wouldn't be yours, not taxed or insured, you wouldn't stop, probably smack (pun intended) a few innocent vehicles, trash the car by setting fire to it, run away, not be caught and not come up before him.
Some lawyers do trot out addiction as if it were mitigation but, there again, some of them also seek to mitigate their client's having half-killed their Mrs by saying they did it only because they were drunk. Personally I regard such feeble "mitigations" as aggravating, ot mitigating, features of the offence.
Sorry Rod, I did miss it (on both readings).
I agree with John-W. In fairness to defence solicitors, however, I don't recall ever hearing drug addiction put forward as mitigation (drunkenness, yes).
>The defence advocate is entitled to make a submission in mitigation on behalf of his/her client. We listen to that submission, we take account of valid points and ignore the rest.
Maybe they get paid by the hour, but you don't. Can't you drop them a hint to the effect that they're just wasting their time, yours and their clients by spinning a sad tale? Maybe by playing a tiny violin while they expound on how good intentions blah one thing led to another blah blah led astray rhubarb.
John Low - I'll try it in a different way. I'm not sober now so it should make sense. Proviso is, don't take the figures as accurate, just rough.
I'm an addict.
The fag that I'm puffing right now costs me 27.5p. It cost about 1p to manufacture and, if the company got more than 3p for it their shares would probably double. It's all tax.
I'm an addict
The Red Wine that I'm sipping cost pence to make and costs me pounds to drink. It's all tax.
I don't go out on burglaries because I'm addicted and being fleeced dry (and for any coppers reading this - I don't go out on burglaries at all).
I'm not a Heroin addict but if I were I'd have done my money on fags and booze, still want my high and felt that I should do anything criminal to get it because I would be taxed by the Chancellor of Illicit Importers and I've no dole left. So I mug Mrs X.
I'm now the Prime Minister.
How do I stop Mrs X being mugged by that depraved Heroin addict, Rod?
"Legalise it", says clever Rod, "it costs no more than an Aspirin according to some. There would be no requirement to mug."
"By George", says PM Rod, "that's a cracking idea."
"Hold on", says Chancellor Rod, "We'll have to tax it to buggery like what we do to those other addicts like Rod the smelly smoker and drinker. Otherwise he'll go to the ECHR and plead discrimination against his addiction or turn to Heroin instead which is cheaper and then he'll become even more useless than he is and probably turn to crime."
"But Rod doesn't go around mugging old ladies to feed his habit now", says PM, "Why would he start, he's not a criminal?"
"Precisely", says real Rod, "mitigation should only be available for crimes of passion and people who genuinely can't afford to pay their non-addictive bills because criminality, in general, cannot be mitigated at all"
On the other hand, it's criminal to say, "I don't like you, you're a tart." to a tart (twice).
I guess we're all criminals, really.
As far as mitigation goes there must be some nugget of truth in there for the defence lawyer to dress up otherwise surely it would be pointless to try and use it in the first place.
Like with the whole council tax thing, where old ladies are being sent to prison for not being able to pay the rises (or refusing in some cases)
Surely that`s then saying it`s illegal to be poor? We all know who to blame for that
You cannot be imprisoned for inability to pay council tax. There has to be 'wilful refusal' or 'culpable neglect' (eg buying a new car when teh tax is still unpaid).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...and/
6665033.stm
age of responsibility raise to 18?
any thoughts?
"The report suggested moving responsibility for youth justice from the Home Office to the Department for Education and Skills."
That's right - from the ones who can't deal with them to the ones who didn't deal with them.
Makes you weep.
I've changed my view, if I may?
After giving it thought, there must be instances where mitigation is appropriate such as self defence, self preservation of yours or anothers rights.
But not addiction.
I know that ignorance of the Law is not a defence but who can keep up with them, nowadays?
Rod,
You need to have another think abut the difference between mitigation and a defence.
Self defence, for example, can be and often is a defence to an assault charge.
Quote Rod: "I know that ignorance of the Law is not a defence but who can keep up with them, nowadays?"
Since 1997, a large number of statutes regarding civil behaviour and criminality have been passed by UK parliament. Almost all utterly useless statutes, because they just redefine conduct that is covered by existing law. Ordinary people don't have to keep up with new laws; they just need to remember the difference between right and wrong.
>age of responsibility raise to 18?
I believe that the age at which you can be charged with rape should be the same as the age at which you can consent to sex.
Bystander - For a moment I read 'you need to have another drink'.
I stand corrected, then. I must have been right in the first place. There is no mitigation for criminality.
@ Phil Beesley
I beg to differ.
If you look at the Harassment Act 1997 you will find that you can be arrested for 'upsetting' someone twice.
Who'd have thought that?
Quote Rod: "If you look at the Harassment Act 1997 you will find that you can be arrested for 'upsetting' someone twice."
One insult is sufficient according to pre-1997 statutes defining public order. It is called "disturbing the peace". No need for new laws.
Phil Beesley -
So, some things have improved, at least.
I live and learn. Thank you.
BTW, what is an insult? I think I get them every day, but I'm not sure there are enough cells to accomodate them.
Freedom from addiction requires a determination of the addict to achieve it.
It is quite shocking that, according to press reports over the weekend, prisoners who have succeeded in closed prisons are walking out when transferred to open prisons, because they then come under enormous pressure to take drugs again. The only way to avoid re-addiction is to force the hand of the authorites to re-incarcerate them in a closed prison.
"they just need to remember the difference between right and wrong."
Yeah. It's just that those differences have become subject to a little editing of late.
Using your judgement as to what constitutes a safe driving speed; wrong.
Sticking to arbitrary limit imposed for political reasons; right.
Demonstrating in front of parliament if unhappy with actions of the government; wrong.
Stealing less than 200 quid; right enough that the government merely taxes it...
Lying to parliament in order to gain popular support for a private expeditionary invasion; right.
Broadcasting information which proves the lie was in fact a lie; wrong.
Taking money from sports tycoons in return for helping their sport out and then merely returning the money when caught; so right you actually get to use it as proof that you're a pretty straight guy.
You can see how the British public, some of whom were born before 1997, might need some of these new rights and wrongs laid out a little more clearly for them.
The question is whether Theodore Dalrymple is alone in his opinion, or whether he can back it up with evidence, studies etc.
As MMR vaccines and a number of other scares have shown, unless medical theorems are subjected to independent testing then they are useless. However, inventing such a test for people who are known to be willing to cheat, lie and steal would be interesting to say the least.....
We could start with a small sample study in Parliament, and scale it up from there.
Addiction is a medical problem. It give you more pressing reasons and justification to commit crime but its not a given.
I was an addict, clean for 10 years. I had a minor criminal record as a youth but as an adult addict I rarely did anything illegal. I worked for my habit.
Oh and how i wish it was like flu, well, never again eh
Commenting by HaloScan
