Misuse of liberal well proven social inclusion policy or in the disguise of "liberal"criminology distort the facts.
"Bigger welfare state 'reduces hard drug use'"(guardian news, 2010/11/7)
The, above, article by Guardian UK is about a book by Alex Stevens "Drugs, Crime and Public Health" which is today put on sale in book stores.
I will write my concern about this article which may put anyone into confusion arose from its methodology which try to attribute "low levels of injecting drug use" to two utterly different hypothesic grounds: one is very much proven and another is rather very much unproven or say proven about its wrongness.
But before i write my concern about this article, firstly, what I would like to make sure is my fundamental position about social inclusion policy saying that better social security and better social inclusion policy work well especially for the people in poverty who commit crimes due to poverty, unfairness in or comparatively inferior social class and isolation in community.
Gov't that provides supportive policies for the people who committed crimes will work to make the ppl to be smoothly included to the society.
On the top of that, besides my fundamental positive stands about social inclusion importance and social security, at some points were concerned in the article.
As far as I read the study in the article in Guardian UK, the study seems to be found faulty in its methodology which failed to distinctively analyze the reason of “low levels of injecting drug use”.
The study revealed that in the nations where better social security and social inclusion policy with generous budget payment for benefits is implemented, "low levels of injecting drug use" is observed. Then, according to the study, according to the article, no relation between "low level of injecting drug use" and the hardness in penalty of criminal sanctions.
But even if the hardness of criminal sanction does not have any impact on lowering the "levels of injecting drug use", the types of criminal sanction and medical care for "drug" dependency via rehabilitation can be much more crucial when it could be tailored for each case. The article does, however, not seem care such tailored criminal sanction but decriminalization which just throw away those people who are exposed to "drug"poison dependency and its physical serious damage.
There are many, as I wrote above, studies that have proven that better supportive social security/social inclusion policy work well for reducing offences and making offenders included into their society smoothly.
There is, on the other hand, no specific methodology and/or reasoning that pinned down the route of how to reach such conclusion that decriminalization of "drug"poison offences is another reason of sustaining "low level of injecting drug use".
At least, from the article, it seems to me difficult for anyone the reason why the article concludes that decriminalization of "drug"poison offences is ALSO, at least according to the article, better for lowering the volume of "drug"poison injection...
That harder criminal sanction does not work to reduce the level of injecting drug use does not necessarily mean that no criminalization work to reduce the "level of injecting drug use.
Plus, as an opinion who is opposing to this study, Guardian UK introduced a study which won’t admit effect from social policy in terms of prevention of crimes.
So, if you are proceeding reading the article about the study, where you are going to reach to is intentionally manipulated, I suspect.
The tricky article in Guardian limits the goals as follows: u agree with gang-free world or oppose2liberal social inclusion policy that works well for the ppl in need and poverty.
Problem in Guardian UK’s hypothesis(?):
Guardian News, not only via this article but also does other articles in Guardian UK, seem sticking to their "idea" as follows:
Only if drug (poison) offences were decriminalized, crime itself were gone away, which is utterly a lie, or say, distorted fact serving for gang-free-world.
Simply because in gang community there have always been full of cruelty, devastative violence, killings, robbing, rapes, and all brutal assaults.
Gang community is apparently regulated by a "rule" of decriminalization of “drug”poison offences and any offences whereas brutality, exploitation and deaths reign.
Decriminalization might reduce in the number of “drug”poison offences and related assaults /deaths because no one knows how many people are dying in “drug”poison offences but it won't reduce the offences themselves.
Just like the deaths,killings,rapes and cruel assaults are uncountable in gang community..
The more "drug"(poison)offence is decriminalized, like gangs, the more killing/rapes cruel violent crimes r broadly every second seen, which is sheer cruel fact.
Gangs are seeking more money not only from their affordable income but also from social security benefits for poverty by decriminalizing "drug"poison offences...?
Or, just cutting the cost for criminal sanction on or rehabilitation for "drug"poison offenders is the hidden reason to try to put criminalization away from "drug"poison offences?
Is that what Guardian UK tries to bring to everyone on the bottom line in the article?
I hope not.
As article analyzed the study, and as the study correctly suggested, what people need is better social security and better social inclusion policy that tackle with their poverty and that is workable for reducing the level of injecting drug use is what the study concluded.
What gov't require are better social security benefit, better social inclusion and better criminology which can catch, stop or prevent "drug"poison feeding,selling, possessing, using.
Users who can be offenders under the influence of "drug"poison use are also important to be stopped him/her using "drug"poison for his/her life.
Users also grow "drug"poison feeder market whereas feeders also grow user market.
Therefore, social policy benefit, social inclusion initiatives and criminal procedures which provide tailored measures combined certain effective considering sanction with treatment such as rehabilitative measures for physical/mental damages from "drug" poison use and rebuild their financial difficulties from such situation.
Decriminalization cannot be any of answer for solution but cause of vicious circle.
Typical Guardian. Hey, ru there? OR,extremists occupy there?