If you read the article partially quoted from the ‘Washington Post’, you will be surprised to see that “Drug users generally aren't violent. Most simply want to be left alone to enjoy their high.” Of course they do! Just ask anybody who has been bashed and robbed so that these gentle, easy-going crack-heads can get drugs so that they can just be left alone to enjoy them.

Drug users, just like dealers, are capable of anything, and most are dangerous, nasty blights on society. While the two responsible for this garbage in the ‘Post’ are said to be police officers, that doesn’t make their nonsense any more valid than the same nonsense coming from Joe Bloggs. Their concern for their own safety is understandable, but danger is part of the policeman’s lot. The ludicrous call for legalising of drugs – which has been old hat for years – is no answer to anything.

Now, let’s see how this author comes by the notion that legalising drugs and leftism comes from the police and army. The whole idea seems ludicrous, given the strictures on both organisations when it comes to public comment, in Australia at least.

The truism that the people most anti-war are professional soldiers has been known since the year dot; nothing new – the best thing for armies is to be trained and ready to deter war by their presence alone. Nobody wants to go to war for the hell of it! But, so far, Andrew Carr hasn’t shown how this is particularly a left-wing thing, or that police and army are “promoting” a “liberal/left agenda”. Nor has he shown that “Human Security” (a la Wikipedia) is a particular virtue of the Left.

..............

..........

The author also claims that: “Conservatives often take for granted that police favour harsher measures against criminals, and that the defence force wants to cruise the globe in search of foreign monsters to destroy.” Now, that might be his opinion, and he is entitled to think anything he wants to think. But, as a ‘persuader’ and PhD student, he should at least be TRYING to back up claims that many will regard as immature and wild.

And, talking about immaturity, what about the idea of politicising the military and the police – “Liberals and the New Left need to begin to work to give voice to these institutions, to encourage their contribution to the debate”!

Mr. Carr’s contentions about very important and honourable institutions remain unproven – thankfully. I find his ideas insulting to both the military and to the police.

Hi Leigh, thanks for your comments. To respond:
1) If we are to understand what's happening then learning from those actually involved on the ground is critical. I'm not seeking to politicize these institutions, but where educated alternate views emerge policy makers need to hear them. You claim to honour these institutions, yet you immediately tried to ridicule the police officers & sideline their views. I just want to listen to them.

2) "Nobody wants to go to war for the hell of it" - True, but conservatives have been willing to deploy the army to solve just about every foreign problem. Yet it's often far cheaper and saves lives to put money into aid & stabilization efforts before a problem emerges.

3) I dislike using wikipedia but I figured most people wouldn't know the term. There's lots of interesting literature on Human Security, but it's not always the most concise or easily accessible. I've lectured on International Relations, so to be sure my knowledge of it extends well beyond wiki if you were wondering.

Cheers

28January 2010

Andrew Carr,

Thanks for your article.

Drugs-pushers penetrate school yards where they initiate pre-teens kids.

Drugs are the major cause of police corruption.

Keeping their prohibition and refusing to regulate their availability and price through controlled channels must be of some advantage to our politicians; otherwise, deregulation would not have been introduced here. It came from America, you know

Honest Police don't like the war on drugs because it is extremely harmful to society, increases drug use and abuse (*NOT* the same Leigh!) and corrupts the entire law enforcing establishment.
Any honest cop who sees this will be against an ineffective, costly harmful practice. However...it is also responsible for 75% of crime, therefore crime fighting budgets and resources are massively increased by the Drug Wars.
After all, the modern era of prohibition began right after they abandoned alcohol prohibition. The huge, now unnecessary resources had to be used for *something* and power in society is rarely relinquished voluntarily. The fact the Hemp was banned to avoid competition with Cotton also highlights the commercial aspect to prohibition.
The Right as a political force is essentially a gun for hire irrespective of truth (as post 911 shows), so when the vested interests need to bribe and cajole their way into getting support, the Right is there.
Similarly when the US military/industrial complex needed a war, the Right were the obvious ones to sell the spin. Of course solders don't like unjustified, un-winnable wars. It is however a perfect environment for mercenaries (sorry "contractors") where "commercial in confidence" can be used to hide the waste of taxpayers money.
Prohibition enriches the scum-bags, gives solace to holier-than-thou hate bullies and puts some of the most dangerous substances into the control of criminals.
Look at the stats: US has highest drug consumption, the youngest junkies and the biggest crime. More tolerant states have less drug use, and *much* less damage due to the use that occurs.
Why does the Right want to avoid real data and resort to rhetoric? (Like "sending the wrong message") Simple, they don't want any real discussion because they are profiting too much. Where profits are king (such as the drug trade), the Right will be there!