The Death Penalty doesn't solve the root of the drug problem
-
The root of the drug problem is not the traffickers; it is the producers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NYT June 3 2004 OP-ED
North Korea's Drug Habit
By VICTOR CHA and CHRIS HOFFMEISTER
Reaction to last month's meeting between Junichiro Koizumi, the Japanese prime minister, and Kim Jong II, the North Korean leader, was nothing short of underwhelming. Critics said Mr. Koizumi gave up too much — millions in medical aid and thousands of tons of rice — to secure the return of five children of Japanese citizens abducted by North Korea more than two decades ago. He also failed to obtain a definitive commitment from Mr. Kim to dismantle North Korea's nuclear weapons programs.
The critics notwithstanding, Mr. Koizumi's diplomacy should be judged a success. The lesson the United States and Japan should learn from it is that moderate pressure on the North Korean regime works — and can be used to limit the North's ambitions not only in weapons development but also in the drug trade.
After all, Japan has been pressing for the release of its citizens and their relatives since the day two years ago when Kim Jong Il admitted North Korea had kidnapped them. Yet it was not until Japan made clear it was prepared to curtail trade with the North — cutting off financial remittances to the North, imposing an import ban on North Korean goods, banning Japanese ships from making North Korean ports of call — that North Korea made any concessions.
International commerce is clearly important to North Korea, and threats of trade sanctions obviously get the regime's attention. Yet there is an even better reason for the United States and Japan to employ this strategy: there is increasing evidence that in recent years North Korea has expanded its role as producer, shipper and trafficker of narcotics throughout East Asia and Southeast Asia.
According to the Pacific Forum of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Pyongyang has directed North Korean farmers to produce opium poppies since the late 1970's, with cultivation areas expanding exponentially in recent years. These farms are thought to produce as much as 40 tons of opium annually. Government-subsidized factories process the opium into heroin, which is then distributed through companies and diplomatic conduits. According to some sources, North Korea now ranks among the world's largest opium and heroin suppliers.
Because the North Korean state is so secretive, it is difficult to prove any direct links between the regime and drug trafficking. But there is some evidence that the government may be taking over and enlarging the trade, as it has done in other areas of the North Korean economy. A 2003 report from the Congressional Research Service cited nearly 50 arrests or drug seizures involving North Koreans in more than 20 countries since the early 1990's, with at least 11 documented cases involving North Korean diplomats or intelligence agents. In the last five years, both Russian and German police have detained North Korean diplomats on counterfeiting or heroin smuggling charges. And between 1999 and 2001, more than one-third of all drug seizures by Japan and China were methamphetamines en route from North Korea.
This problem is likely to get worse. In part, this may be the unintended consequence of other diplomatic policies. The American-led Proliferation Security Initiative, for example, which began almost two years ago and aims to block trade in nuclear and other weapons, may have caused Kim Jong Il to rely on drug trafficking and counterfeiting to try to compensate for lost revenues. North Korea's foray into illicit activities has been further spurred by United States efforts at taking customers like Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Libya off North Korea's missile sales roster, which has cut the North's revenues in this area to one-tenth of their usual volume.
As they continue their on-again, off-again diplomacy, the United States and Japan may find that North Korea's drug trade is a more visible component of the regime's threat. The good news, for the United States and its allies, is that the North's growing drug threat means that diplomacy aimed at eliminating its missile exports is working. The bad news, for North Korea, is that continued drug trafficking is not likely to be tolerated by the region.
If it continues to increase its trade in drugs, North Korea is likely to become the eventual target of a regional initiative to restrict the drug trade — which, in conjunction with the American-led curbs on its weapons trade, will put moderate yet deliberate pressure on North Korea. And if Japan's recent experience with abductees is any indication, such patient but comprehensive diplomacy may be the key to attaining Mr. Kim's flexibility on nuclear disarmament.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/03/opinion/03CHA.html?th -
i don't get the message?
-
so what's your alernative?
-
Wat has your attachment anything to do with death penalty ? External policies to curb drug abuse is to condemn countries tat produce drugs while internally they deal directly with importers. Both have to work at the same time.
-
Where there is demand there will always be supply.By having the death penalty to deter those taking drugs and those actually pushing it,we are infact getting rid of the demand side.Thus with no demand there wont be a need to supply.If there is a demand die die there will also someone out there who will supply 1.
-
and vice versa. One thing that Henry Ford learnt when he invented the assembly line was that as long as a supply is present, you can always create a demand, no matter how hard. Remember, the point about this is that teh Death Penalty looks like the miracle cure, and traffickers are supposed to sell drugs to innocent, pure people, but the other aim of this business is to sell drugs to drug abusers. In the USA (and most probably in SEA), addicts are given drugs as salary if they act as subsidiary pushers. You execute the subsidiaries, the Big Boss goes away unharmed; the most damage you do to him is irritation.Originally posted by |-|05|:Where there is demand there will always be supply.By having the death penalty to deter those taking drugs and those actually pushing it,we are infact getting rid of the demand side.Thus with no demand there wont be a need to supply.If there is a demand die die there will also someone out there who will supply 1.
As an example, look at Microsoft. Israel's and China's rejection of it gave it a shock, but the real thing that sent it reeling was the recent EU condemnation of its business practices.
the pikamaster -
You execute the subsidiaries, the Big Boss goes away unharmed; the most damage you do to him is irritation.
Ahh... then how do u propose we catch the "big boss" ? So u r suggesting all drug pusher and trafficker get away with any punishment when they r caught ? Does removing the death penalty improves or worsen the problem ? -
Addiction to anything presents a problem. What is interesting to ask is whether harsh penalties against drug addiction is a good (though never perfect, cos nothing is perfect) solution to the problem.
Is the war against drugs being won in Singapore? It seems not, judging from the number of people still addicted to them. America also institutues tough penalties against drug users and traffickers, and America's prisons are filled to overflowing with drug-user inmates who, in the view of many, have committed victimless crimes.
The Europeans have taken a radically different approach to the problem. The attitude towards drug use is much more liberal and they close one eye to (and in some cases even legalise), the use of soft drugs such as marijuana and ecstasy. We would think that European society would go to the dogs by now, but no, life still goes on.
We could learn a lot from the American and the European attitude towards the drug problem.
Perhaps we should simply legalise all drug usage, allowing individuals to decide whether they wish to be addicted. This may not seem as outrageous as it appears. We leave it to individuals to decide whether they wish to consume alcohol or cigarettes, which are both addictive substances as well, after all. If all countries do this, the black market for drugs would disappear overnight, and the link between drug abuse and crime would be practically severed.
Still, difficult for Singapore government to let go because it does not trust in the wisdom of the populace enough and deems any relaxation of the drug policies as anathema to the nation. Part of the price of belonging to a small nation with almost no natural resources perhaps. We are a paranoic people. -
Singapore is doing fine with Capital punishment. Well, Big Boss is never in this country, so we can't really do a lot of it.
The concern is preventing the country in becoming the export/import centre to the ring, because the citizens are the ones getting its side effects.
We can do more though, but capital is a good deterrant. -
right, and terrorists also not in our country, but we do alot in trying to help Indon and USA in tracking down terror big boss. SO why not try searching for Big Boss of drugs. Besides, we already know who the Boss is- it's in my article, so why don't just deal with it by stopping all imports from NK, as in a combined ASEAN effort. If we can do that for terrorism, we can do that for drugs.Originally posted by ziezoe:Singapore is doing fine with Capital punishment. Well, Big Boss is never in this country, so we can't really do a lot of it.
The concern is preventing the country in becoming the export/import centre to the ring, because the citizens are the ones getting its side effects.
We can do more though, but capital is a good deterrant.
Are we really doing so fine in Capital Punnishment? Your attitude toward this matter seems a trifle too simplistic.
If you want to prevent the drugs from reaching locals, then just confiscate the drugs: no fuss, no pain, everybody gets what they want. What differs Capital Punnishment from the horrors at Abu Ghraib?
And anyway, how many people caught with the drugs are actually traffickers, and how many are just poor innocent fools who happened unluckily to end up with the drugs in their possession (esp. pplw who are caught in the airport)?
And here's some more food for thought: In NZ, number of drug-trafficking and murder (serious crimes) cases has decreased consistently since the abolishment of the Death Penalty in 1985.
the pikamaster -
Originally posted by pikamaster:
we have no diplomatic relations with Pyongyang. assuming that Kim Il Sung was cultivating poppies and exporting dope, it would not show up in our ports with DPRK flags stamped on them.
right, and terrorists also not in our country, but we do alot in trying to help Indon and USA in tracking down terror big boss. SO why not try searching for Big Boss of drugs. Besides, we already know who the Boss is- it's in my article, so why don't just deal with it by stopping all imports from NK, as in a combined ASEAN effort. If we can do that for terrorism, we can do that for drugs.
if it was trans-shipped to or smuggled through China as a transit point, are u gonna stop ALL trade with China?
and if a north korean diplomat brings in dope in a diplomatic pouch, are u gonna risk an international incident by strip searching him?
who's being simple-minded here? -
me, i still don't get his pointOriginally posted by CX:who's being simple-minded here? -
well....there is this thing called international diplomacy and relations, politics and understanding. we do our best INTERNALLY to curb drugs etc but we cannot do the same to other countries. we could of cos exchange intel etc, there is a country's soveriegnity to maintain.
-
Addiction to anything presents a problem. What is interesting to ask is whether harsh penalties against drug addiction is a good (though never perfect, cos nothing is perfect) solution to the problem.
Does Europe have a problem with drug addicts now ? It seems tat countries with a lesser control of drugs have a proportionally lesser control of the number of addicts.
Is the war against drugs being won in Singapore? It seems not, judging from the number of people still addicted to them. America also institutues tough penalties against drug users and traffickers, and America's prisons are filled to overflowing with drug-user inmates who, in the view of many, have committed victimless crimes.
The Europeans have taken a radically different approach to the problem. The attitude towards drug use is much more liberal and they close one eye to (and in some cases even legalise), the use of soft drugs such as marijuana and ecstasy. We would think that European society would go to the dogs by now, but no, life still goes on.
We could learn a lot from the American and the European attitude towards the drug problem.
Perhaps we should simply legalise all drug usage, allowing individuals to decide whether they wish to be addicted. This may not seem as outrageous as it appears. We leave it to individuals to decide whether they wish to consume alcohol or cigarettes, which are both addictive substances as well, after all. If all countries do this, the black market for drugs would disappear overnight, and the link between drug abuse and crime would be practically severed.
Still, difficult for Singapore government to let go because it does not trust in the wisdom of the populace enough and deems any relaxation of the drug policies as anathema to the nation. Part of the price of belonging to a small nation with almost no natural resources perhaps. We are a paranoic people.
Can we really allow all goods to be freely distributed in a country ? If we allow drugs to be in, we might as well legalise guns and explosive substance. Wat is the end effect ? More drug addicts, more people died in gun fights, more explosion going around the country. When the drugs is in, it can only harm society and never benefits it. Why support these vices ?right, and terrorists also not in our country, but we do alot in trying to help Indon and USA in tracking down terror big boss. SO why not try searching for Big Boss of drugs. Besides, we already know who the Boss is- it's in my article, so why don't just deal with it by stopping all imports from NK, as in a combined ASEAN effort. If we can do that for terrorism, we can do that for drugs.
They can easily "export" out their drugs by traffickers. As long as any country or any area in the world produce drugs, it will end up in other countries. How r u going to stop it ? Fight a war and totally crush them ?If you want to prevent the drugs from reaching locals, then just confiscate the drugs: no fuss, no pain, everybody gets what they want. What differs Capital Punnishment from the horrors at Abu Ghraib?
Wow.. then I am going to import as much drugs in as possible. If I got caught, confiscate lor ! They r just grass mah... If I try 1000 times and I manage to get in 1 batch, I had already ruined the lives of many people and earned tons of money.And anyway, how many people caught with the drugs are actually traffickers, and how many are just poor innocent fools who happened unluckily to end up with the drugs in their possession (esp. pplw who are caught in the airport)?
How many then ? Have u watched too much shows ? -
Stupidissmart wrote: "...Can we really allow all goods to be freely distributed in a country ? If we allow drugs to be in, we might as well legalise guns and explosive substance. Wat is the end effect ? More drug addicts, more people died in gun fights, more explosion going around the country. When the drugs is in, it can only harm society and never benefits it. Why support these vices?...
My reply:
You are confusing the issues. We are talking about drugs, not weapons. I did not suggest that the free import of weapons should be allowed. Don't muddy the water.
By the way, cigarettes and alcohol are drugs too. Why are they freely imported into Singapore? Think about that. -
it is a matter of relative extents of the effects of addiction and withdrawal i think...Originally posted by witness:Stupidissmart wrote: "...Can we really allow all goods to be freely distributed in a country ? If we allow drugs to be in, we might as well legalise guns and explosive substance. Wat is the end effect ? More drug addicts, more people died in gun fights, more explosion going around the country. When the drugs is in, it can only harm society and never benefits it. Why support these vices?...
My reply:
You are confusing the issues. We are talking about drugs, not weapons. I did not suggest that the free import of weapons should be allowed. Don't muddy the water.
By the way, cigarettes and alcohol are drugs too. Why are they freely imported into Singapore? Think about that.
nicotine addicts suffering from withdrawals at WORSE, suffer from a runny nose and slight lethargy. ( trust me... been there...
)
alcoholics have a more extreme withdrawal.. they end up with shaking hands and sometimes violent dispositions... but it takes quite a lot of alcohol over a sustained period of time to get THAT far gone.
narcotics are MUCH more powerful drugs in this respect... u get hooked much faster and heroin withdrawals are VIOLENT... addicts end up puking, shivering and the addiction is so strong that they often end up losing all vestige of their humanity to satisfy the craving... theft and prostitution are not altogether seperate from drugs.
if we want to take your approach to the extreme, nicotine is naturally occurring in vegetables what shall we ban all green leafy vegetables too?
not helpful to "muddy the water" by suggesting that nicotine and alcohol are the same as narcotics... -
well, we have no diplomatic relations with Pyongyang, but our neighbours (eg. Vietnam) might have, so we should, as the Big Brother of ASEAN, get them to engage in talks with NK.Originally posted by CX:we have no diplomatic relations with Pyongyang. assuming that Kim Il Sung was cultivating poppies and exporting dope, it would not show up in our ports with DPRK flags stamped on them.
if it was trans-shipped to or smuggled through China as a transit point, are u gonna stop ALL trade with China?
and if a north korean diplomat brings in dope in a diplomatic pouch, are u gonna risk an international incident by strip searching him?
who's being simple-minded here?
Strip Searching? do police do that when they confiscate drugs?
as for simple-minded, it is rather insulting for you to call others that.
the pikamaster -
Originally posted by pikamaster:
if Pyongyang was secretly selling dope, do u think they'll admit to it to ANYBODY? would it be open to negotiations? and given the state of their current economy, missile parts and dope probably form a big part of kim jong il's household expenses... why would they stop? u wanna pay them off to make them stop growing opium? like ther americans tried to make them stop their nuclear weapons program?
well, we have no diplomatic relations with Pyongyang, but our neighbours (eg. Vietnam) might have, so we should, as the Big Brother of ASEAN, get them to engage in talks with NK.
Vietnam and the DPRK are not close... not all communists stay best friends. i don't know where u read your current affairs, but it is insultingly simple minded and naive.
none of your options are viable. what is truly viable, is to do what we can and intercept all shipments we catch and punish the trafficker who so blatantly and flagrantly flouted our laws.Strip Searching? do police do that when they confiscate drugs?
2 favoured methods of traffickers:
(a) swallow it
(b) strap it to your inner thighs
first method, u basically gotta x-ray the guy... it is very dangerous for the trafficker cos if the capsules bursts, its instant death. only attempted by the most desperate of mules.
second method can be sniffed out by dogs. when escorted into another room, a police officer of the same sex as the subject conducts a thorough bodily search.
in order to "confiscate" the drugs, u gotta find it first and the only way to find it when it is hidden underneath the trafficker's clothes, is to remove the clothes.
telling a diplomat travelling on a diplomatic passport to get naked is a big no no... it is a direct breach of the Geneva Convention, the UN Charter and just plain not smart. 2 words: Diplomatic Immunity.as for simple-minded, it is rather insulting for you to call others that.
pple are what they are. a valid observation is no insult. -
You are confusing the issues. We are talking about drugs, not weapons. I did not suggest that the free import of weapons should be allowed. Don't muddy the water.
The reason why I want to use the analogy of weopons and explosive substance is because u mentioned tat individual should be leave with a choice, allowing individuals to decide whether they wish to be addicted. If tat is the case of "leaving choices for the individual", why not do it for weopons and explosive substance as well ? Why banned them too ? Do it like the american and allow people to have their own guns. I need to ask tis question again, when these drugs is in, it can only harm society and never benefits it. Why support these vices ?By the way, cigarettes and alcohol are drugs too. Why are they freely imported into Singapore? Think about that.
I think CX reply is excellent
Maybe another good question to ask is, why does virtually no nations banned alcohol or cigerrettes while drugs is virtually banned in most countries. They do not implement tis policy just to follow the crowd... -
CX wrote: ...narcotics are MUCH more powerful drugs in this respect... u get hooked much faster and heroin withdrawals are VIOLENT... addicts end up puking, shivering and the addiction is so strong that they often end up losing all vestige of their humanity to satisfy the craving... theft and prostitution are not altogether seperate from drugs...
not helpful to "muddy the water" by suggesting that nicotine and alcohol are the same as narcotics...
My reply:
Not all drugs are the same. Some are more addictive than others. Many publications, including Encyclopedia Britannica and the Lancet Magazine have openly stated that marijuana for instance is not more harmful or addictive than cigarettes or alcohol. And yet trafficking in marijuana beyond a certain amount can result in one being hanged in Singapore.
Are you seriously suggesting that alcohol is less dangerous than drugs? Ample evidence exists to show that this is not the case. Countless lives have been ruined whether directly or indirectly through alcohol addiction. America tried to ban alcohol once, but did not succeed. America has been trying to wipe out drug use for years now, but it is not succeeding.
Is the water getting clearer? -
Stupid wrote:
"The reason why I want to use the analogy of weopons and explosive substance is because u mentioned tat individual should be leave with a choice, allowing individuals to decide whether they wish to be addicted. If tat is the case of "leaving choices for the individual", why not do it for weopons and explosive substance as well ? Why banned them too ? Do it like the american and allow people to have their own guns. I need to ask tis question again, when these drugs is in, it can only harm society and never benefits it. Why support these vices?"
My reply:
Why do you persist in arguing irrationally? I say let individuals decide whether they wish to become addicted to drugs. You say, why not allow weapons into the country? The two issues are not related. You may as well say since I advocate choice on the issue of drugs, why not let people choose to commit rape or not? It is an absurd way to tenuously connect two different issues by citing choice as the factor.
Also, I am not advocating people to be addicted to drugs. Substance abuse is undesirable. But it is a growing problem. How does one solve the problem in the best way possible? My contention is that just imposing draconian measures against drug users and traffickers may not be the best way to handle the problem. -
Originally posted by witness:
it is not quite accurate to suggest that marijuana and other "soft", "non-addictive" drugs are altogether harmless...
Not all drugs are the same. Some are more addictive than others. Many publications, including Encyclopedia Britannica and the Lancet Magazine have openly stated that marijuana for instance is not more harmful or addictive than cigarettes or alcohol. And yet trafficking in marijuana beyond a certain amount can result in one being hanged in Singapore.
one needs to take a balanced stand on it. marijuana has been clinically proven to be good for rhumatism and is a much better painkiller than morphine when used on cancer patients... generally less side effects.
but healthcare and clinical use is DIFFERENT from widespread social proliferation. i am sympathetic to grey old aunties smoking a "joint" to ease their joint pains... but i do not feel the same way about a bunch of young punks smoking it to get "high" and getting into all kinds of trouble. there is no physical dependence, but it is acknowledged that there is a psychological dependence that can be just as powerful and destructive.
the line is drawn between "use" and "abuse" . its not the same.
studies have also shown that abusers have a tendency to "graduate" to using much stronger drugs as well.
once u're hooked, i think the choice of whether to get addicted or not is no longer yours to make the choice to quit is still yours but nobody pretends that its an easy path to take.
and not to mention the social problems generated by the pushers over their "turf". we don't have much of these associated problems here because we take a firm position on drugs and try our best to choke the supply side of it within our borders.Are you seriously suggesting that alcohol is less dangerous than drugs? Ample evidence exists to show that this is not the case. Countless lives have been ruined whether directly or indirectly through alcohol addiction. America tried to ban alcohol once, but did not succeed. America has been trying to wipe out drug use for years now, but it is not succeeding.
any substance used in excess is harmful... nothing is ever 100% safe. if u eat nothing but carbohydrates, u'll get beri beri... if u take too much vitamins, carotene poisoning is a likely consequence.
i did address alcohol earlier... it takes A LOT to get THAT far gone. i can spend an evening with 2 jugs of beer and all it'll give me is a full bladder. try that with straw of heroin... 2 good straws might cause u to O.D and die already...
the characteristic of each substance is just not the same and some substances need to be more closely guarded than others.
as for outright prohibition, i would venture to suggest that it is impossible not because it is undesirable, but simply because the world we live in today is far too connected, the demand is present and pple eager to profit from supplying it are willing to take the risks involved.
the realistic route is not to pretend that "we banned it, therefore it doesn't exist" . but to remain vigilant and keep the demand small through education and deterrent, and supply tight, through effective enforcement and tough laws.Is the water getting clearer?
u tell me... -
In reply to CX:
I would definitely agree with education and supplying people with information that would allow them to decide whether or not to indulge in substance abuse.
As it stands however, I do feel that our laws against drugs, particularly against users of drugs such as marijuana are over-strict.
Many studies have shown that marijuana has effects that are not more detrimental than cigarettes or alcohol. People can and do function normally, just as cigarette smokers do, after smoking their joints.
Many government campaigns emphasise the heavy costs of drug abuse. Part of the costs includes the heavy penalties inflicted by the law. Ironically, these draconian penalties are meted out to protect people from themselves.
Housing thousands of prisoners who have committed victimless crimes is no way to build a compassionate society. The cure may be worse than the disease. -
------ Deleted-----------------
Sorry.... unintended double posting. -
(Double posting deleted)