Is it left wing to tolerate crack dealers?

[bristol_citizen]

Yes, but you have to admit there are certain types of liberal, as set out by LLETSA in post 42, page 2 of this thread here: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=3939285#post3939285
which do pretty much behave in this way. The sort that moves to an area blighted by drugs and crime because it is blighted by drugs and crime and sees this as "jolly exciting!". This particular type will fight tooth and nail any attempt from the local population to get the problem solved.

Even if these people exist they have absolutely no power and a very limited say in how communities are managed. I've personally yet to encounter any kind of organised 'say yes to drugs and crime' campaign in any community anywhere.
Those controlling and managing the current policies are the police supported (often unknowingly) by housing, regeneration, social services etc. professionals.

 

[Jo/Joe]

Personally, having witnessed the deliberate demonization of the 'L-word' (as it became known) in successive American elections, I'm convinced that 'liberal-bashing' is specifically designed to appeal to people seeking to affirm their masculinity in public. The association of repressive attitudes to crime with machismo is of course one key to the success of the far-right in both Europe and the USA. Being 'tough on crime' is willy-waving in (a very threadbare) disguise.

Crack out the bubbly phil, I agree with you. New Labour are very good at this, e.g. Blunkett or Clarke, and it's definitely a display of machismo and an appeal to that part of the electorate who need a hardman. The term 'liberal' is not as misused here as in the US, yet, but the dismissal of intelligence that this approach implies exists.

 

[Chuck Wilson]

Even if these people exist they have absolutely no power and a very limited say in how communities are managed. I've personally yet to encounter any kind of organised 'say yes to drugs and crime' campaign in any community anywhere.
Those controlling and managing the current policies are the police supported (often unknowingly) by housing, regeneration, social services etc. professionals.

I am afraid that's not my experience of being in Manchester in Hulme, Fallowfield and Whalley Range where this sort of graduate living in the heart of darkness mentality was rife for years. Hulme , once a solid working class area became a squat infested area in which the non paying bill fraternity promoted it as the 'Amsterdam' of the NorthWest. You couldn't swing a cat without some Home Counties crusty trying to talk like the hairdressers in Cutting It and arranging battles of sound sytems before buying up new properties when it was redeveloped.

When seven young local black youth were killed in drug gang wars in two years we still had the chattering de-classes talking about how dealers were some sort of social services in disguise.

Blaming the state and capitalism and trying to excuse drugs as 'recreational' and crime as 'fighting back' still pervades much of those who like to live on the 'wild side' in cities before becoming an accounts manager in Saffron Walden.

And much of the debate on drugs is dominated by the social worky 'peopel have to be motivated to cahnge man' attitude that many of the drugs proffessionals repeat ad infinitum.Probably because they have been recruited after being undergraduates in t'city.

 

[Blagsta]

I'm not so sure about that. There's a good case to be made that the US heroin epidemic of the late '60's was the FBI's riposte to the civil rights movement.

Yes, that's entirely possible. However, heroin was around way before the 60's, so to say that it was introduced by the state is just plain wrong.

 

[Blagsta]

I think the problem people have is that drug workers are basically promoting a very liberal model of social care, which is perfectly reasonable.

Maybe you can explain what you mean by "liberal" in this context.

However when they attempt to promote this social care model as a political solution to the wider issue of drugs it begins to look threadbare and weak.

Maybe you can explain what you mean here as well.

 

[Blagsta]

And much of the debate on drugs is dominated by the social worky 'peopel have to be motivated to cahnge man' attitude that many of the drugs proffessionals repeat ad infinitum.Probably because they have been recruited after being undergraduates in t'city.

I don't know anyone working in substance misuse on the ground who fits that. In upper management, yes, but not project workers.

 

[LLETSA]

But the fact remains, there is only one solution to the drugs problem: legalization. Treat other drugs as alcohol, perhaps the most dangerous of all drugs, is treated. Tolerance, as long practiced in Amsterdam and more recently in much of southern Europe and South America, is a good first step on the road to legalization. Parroting the hateful cliches of the mass media, which obviously serve a reactionary agenda, is stupid, hysterical and will get us precisely nowhere.

The zeal with which many advocates of complete legalization flog their dead horse always amuses me. Most of them would doubtless mock the advocates of, say, capital punishment, for doing the same with their chosen panacea for certain social ills.

Legalization may or may not have the effect claimed for it, although those who push for it do not all sing from the same hymn sheet and can be no more certain of its benefits than anybody else. However, phildwyer again fails to take into consideration the facts that it is a long way off, may never come about anyway, and that falling back on a 'wait for legalization' attitude offers no solutions for those who suffer the immediate consequences of the drugs epidemic on their own doorsteps. That he can look upon the idea of, say, the highlighting of areas where old age pensioners are afraid to leave their own homes due to the antics of the dealers and addicts in their midst as 'a cliche which serves a reactionary agenda,' is proof enough that he wouldn't recognixse a truly progressive one if it came up and bit him on the dick.

He still hasn't explained the mechanism by which the profits of the dealers become 'a vital source of income for the whole community,' either.

 

[LLETSA]

Yes, that's entirely possible. However, heroin was around way before the 60's, so to say that it was introduced by the state is just plain wrong.

Is it really inconceivable that the secret state might see advantages, in certain political circumstances, in introducing hard drugs to areas where their use was previously on such a small scale as to be almost insignificant?

The people running that arm of the state wouldn't actually tell anybody else about this. That's why it is secret....

 

[Blagsta]

Is it really inconceivable that the secret state might see advantages, in certain political circumstances, in introducing hard drugs to areas where their use was previously on such a small scale as to be almost insignificant?

The people running that arm of the state wouldn't actually tell anybody else about this. That's why it is secret....

Hmmmm. As I said, there it is true that the secret state has been involved in drug running, but problematic drug use has been around for a lot longer than the 60's. Drug problems are a symptom of social and emotional problems, and while the state might encourage use, I don't think they introduced these things. As I said on the crack legalising thread on the drugs forum - substance dependency exists in a social context with this context playing a large part in how drug use is experienced and perceived. Its a complex issue that can't be reduced down to this cause or that cause or simple solutions - at least not when I'm posting on urban in my lunch break.

 

[Chuck Wilson]

I don't know anyone working in substance misuse on the ground who fits that. In upper management, yes, but not project workers.

Must be something in the water in London then, up here drug projects are full of them.

 

[Blagsta]

A lot of project workers I know in London have come through being in treatment themselves.

 

[Chuck Wilson]

A lot of project workers I know in London have come through being in treatment themselves.

Just might be being cred Blagsta like Probation Officers who make out they were jack the lads.

 

[Blagsta]

Just might be being cred Blagsta like Probation Officers who make out they were jack the lads.

Nope. I know it for a fact.

 

[bristol_citizen]

I think the problem people have is that drug workers are basically promoting a very liberal model of social care, which is perfectly reasonable.

Maybe you can explain what you mean by "liberal" in this context.

Damn. You've put me on the spot...
Put very simply and quickly: as I understand it, a leftist would believe that capitalism is inherently flawed and contradictory and makes slaves and victims of us all and therefore needs to be replaced by something else.
A liberal believes that capitalism simply needs improving a bit to help the victims and the losers in the system.
A rightist believes that capitalism and markets are perfect and that any victims or losers are simply flawed people.
If you were to place drug treatment organisations somewhere in that spectrum, it would be in the liberal section.
Personally, I'm yet to come across a politically revolutionary drug treatment organisation.

However when they attempt to promote this social care model as a political solution to the wider issue of drugs it begins to look threadbare and weak

Maybe you can explain what you mean here as well.

What it says on the tin really. What may make sense and be just and fair at the level of treating and supporting individuals with drug problems, may not work as a means of solving the problems of a community or society.
In many people's eyes drug treatment programmes are not the complete solution to the drug problem or a solution to communities experiencing the effects of drug problems. Nor are they meant to be.

 

[Blagsta]

Damn. You've put me on the spot...
Put very simply and quickly: as I understand it, a leftist would believe that capitalism is inherently flawed and contradictory and makes slaves and victims of us all and therefore needs to be replaced by something else.
A liberal believes that capitalism simply needs improving a bit to help the victims and the losers in the system.
A rightist believes that capitalism and markets are perfect and that any victims or losers are simply flawed people.
If you were to place drug treatment organisations somewhere in that spectrum, it would be in the liberal section.
Personally, I'm yet to come across a politically revolutionary drug treatment organisation


What it says on the tin really. What may make sense and be just and fair at the level of treating and supporting individuals with drug problems, may not work as a means of solving the problems of a community or society.
In many people's eyes drug treatment programmes are not the complete solution to the drug problem or a solution to communities experiencing the effects of drug problems. Nor are they meant to be.

Right. I thought it was something like that. In that case - I think your argument is completely missing the mark. Of course drug treatment agencies aren't politically revolutionary. They are either statutory (funded by the state) or voluntary (charities, partly funded by the state and not able to engage in overtly political activity).

Personally I see drug problems as symptomatic of a wider malaise in society, to which capitalism is a major contributor. I'm aware of the fact that all drug services can do is to act as sticking plasters, repairing the damage to people done by this society and (especially in my role as a P2W worker) making people back into productive workers again. However, what can we do? Not do our jobs? Discount drug treatment altogether? Or work in the way that I try to work which is to bring up discussion of class and the wider issues in meetings with managers, facilitate service user groups so service users can have a say, try and fight the conditions that the jobcentres set etc?
Given that the working classes suffer disproportionately from not just the crime that comes from substance misuse but from actual substance misuse itself and the lack of treatment provision, shoudn't the arguments on this thread be widened out to debate how communities can have more control over treatment options? Which is what I've been trying to do on this damn thread in the first place.

 

[William of Walworth]

I am afraid that's not my experience of being in Manchester in Hulme, Fallowfield and Whalley Range where this sort of graduate living in the heart of darkness mentality was rife for years. Hulme , once a solid working class area became a squat infested area in which the non paying bill fraternity promoted it as the 'Amsterdam' of the NorthWest. You couldn't swing a cat without some Home Counties crusty trying to talk like the hairdressers in Cutting It and arranging battles of sound sytems before buying up new properties when it was redeveloped.

When seven young local black youth were killed in drug gang wars in two years we still had the chattering de-classes talking about how dealers were some sort of social services in disguise.

Blaming the state and capitalism and trying to excuse drugs as 'recreational' and crime as 'fighting back' still pervades much of those who like to live on the 'wild side' in cities before becoming an accounts manager in Saffron Walden.

And much of the debate on drugs is dominated by the social worky 'peopel have to be motivated to cahnge man' attitude that many of the drugs proffessionals repeat ad infinitum.Probably because they have been recruited after being undergraduates in t'city.

I don't know anything about Manchester, but this description doesn't LOOK very objective -- understandably not if what you describe is true, but I suspect you may be exaggerating it, and indulging in caricature to some extent ...

 

[bristol_citizen]

Right. I thought it was something like that. In that case - I think your argument is completely missing the mark. Of course drug treatment agencies aren't politically revolutionary. They are either statutory (funded by the state) or voluntary (charities, partly funded by the state and not able to engage in overtly political activity).

Personally I see drug problems as symptomatic of a wider malaise in society, to which capitalism is a major contributor. I'm aware of the fact that all drug services can do is to act as sticking plasters, repairing the damage to people done by this society and (especially in my role as a P2W worker) making people back into productive workers again. However, what can we do? Not do our jobs? Discount drug treatment altogether? Or work in the way that I try to work which is to bring up discussion of class and the wider issues in meetings with managers, facilitate service user groups so service users can have a say, try and fight the conditions that the jobcentres set etc?
Given that the working classes suffer disproportionately from not just the crime that comes from substance misuse but from actual substance misuse itself and the lack of treatment provision, shoudn't the arguments on this thread be widened out to debate how communities can have more control over treatment options? Which is what I've been trying to do on this damn thread in the first place.

TBH we're pretty much in agreement. Except...

shoudn't the arguments on this thread be widened out to debate how communities can have more control over treatment options?

It's not just about treatment options. Communities - not the police, not professionals, not anyone else - should be able to decide whether their communities are used to tolerate a certain level of drugs activity.
ATM this is not the case.

 

[Blagsta]

TBH we're pretty much in agreement. Except...

It's not just about treatment options. Communities - not the police, not professionals, not anyone else - should be able to decide whether their communities are used to tolerate a certain level of drugs activity.
ATM this is not the case.

I agree, with this caveat - treating the symptoms (dealing, crime etc) without also looking at and having an understanding of causes is doomed to failure.
Apart from that, we have consensus. Woohoo!

 

[JHE]

Communities - not the police, not professionals, not anyone else - should be able to decide whether their communities are used to tolerate a certain level of drugs activity.
ATM this is not the case.

OK. Who counts as a community? Not, I bet, humanity as a whole. Nor, I bet, any nation. You're looking for something more local. Fair enough - but give us a clue. Are we talking about a city, an area covered by a local council or a street? If none of those, what?

 

[Blagsta]

OK. Who counts as a community? Not, I bet, humanity as a whole. Nor, I bet, any nation. You're looking for something more local. Fair enough - but give us a clue. Are we talking about a city, an area covered by a local council or a street? If none of those, what?

This is a good question, but worthy of another thread maybe.

 

[Chuck Wilson]

I don't know anything about Manchester, but this description doesn't LOOK very objective -- understandably not if what you describe is true, but I suspect you may be exaggerating it, and indulging in caricature to some extent ...

You'll have to come up William. Manchesters volume drug trade was always based on students and those that stayed on to live in the 'inner city' until they moved back home or to Chorlton.There are two Manchesters, the one that holds the Commonwealth games with its vibrant night time economy,loft dwelling apartments in coverted mills, the Northern Quarter, tram system,graduate opportunities and fast rising property prices and then there are the estates.

I think you will find that attitudes towards drugs differ within the two.

 

[LLETSA]

You'll have to come up William. Manchesters volume drug trade was always based on students and those that stayed on to live in the 'inner city' until they moved back home or to Chorlton.There are two Manchesters, the one that holds the Commonwealth games with its vibrant night time economy,loft dwelling apartments in coverted mills, the Northern Quarter, tram system,graduate opportunities and fast rising property prices and then there are the estates.

I think you will find that attitudes towards drugs differ within the two.

The trouble with Manchester's estates is that the residents lack the ambition to model themselves on Manhatten's lower east side.

 

[Chuck Wilson]

Actually Baltimore is quite an interesting example about how a local council tried to tackle drugs and drug related crime with public support.The TOGETHER asb campaign (soon to become the RESPECT agenda) was partially modelled on Baltimore Believes.

 

[phildwyer]

Actually Baltimore is quite an interesting example about how a local council tried to tackle drugs and drug related crime with public support.The TOGETHER asb campaign (soon to become the RESPECT agenda) was partially modelled on Baltimore Believes.

Rıght. And ın Baltımore, 10% of the populatıon ıs addıcted to heroın, so whatever they,re doıng ısn,t workıng.

 

[William of Walworth]

You'll have to come up William. Manchesters volume drug trade was always based on students and those that stayed on to live in the 'inner city' until they moved back home or to Chorlton.There are two Manchesters, the one that holds the Commonwealth games with its vibrant night time economy,loft dwelling apartments in coverted mills, the Northern Quarter, tram system,graduate opportunities and fast rising property prices and then there are the estates.

I think you will find that attitudes towards drugs differ within the two.

That wouldn't surprise me -- I live on an estate myself

But I wonder whether these affluent people you're describing are just being slackly, unthoughtfully tolerent of 'drugs' (in their minds, just pills n weed?) without even THINKING about the implications of the crack trade?

I think there may be a difference between that, slack attitude though it is, and actively approving of crack and related crime. Or even encouraging it, as has been half-suggested.

I'd be astonished if any of these affluent transients really had an actively pro-crack attitude.

 

[William of Walworth]

The trouble with Manchester's estates is that the residents lack the ambition to model themselves on Manhatten's lower east side.

Yeah, lazy scrounging lowlife cunts eh?? x 100 ....

 

[LLETSA]

The, follow, thread. Etc.

Yeah, lazy scrounging lowlife cunts eh?? x 100 ....

Never mind, Willie lad.



Sigh.

 

[LLETSA]

Still waiting, phil baby....

Rıght. And ın Baltımore, 10% of the populatıon ıs addıcted to heroın, so whatever they,re doıng ısn,t workıng.

Given that you had such a lot to say earlier in this thread (although it quickly degenerated into laughable 'I'm at one wid de brudders in da ghetto' posturing), don't you think you should come back on some of the questions that have been put to you regarding your attitude on this issue?

Not least among these is that explanation you've repeatedly been asked for as to how the profits of the drug dealers become 'a vital source of income for the community,' and, while we wait for the legalisation that will solve all problems in one fell swoop, what happens to alleviate the problems of those whose lives are blighted by the actions of dealers and addicts on their own doorsteps on a daily basis right here and now.

 

[LLETSA]

I'd be astonished if any of these affluent transients really had an actively pro-crack attitude.

More likely they'd be indifferent to it as long as it didn't intrude on them personally.

 

[Herbert Read]

I am afraid that's not my experience of being in Manchester in Hulme, Fallowfield and Whalley Range where this sort of graduate living in the heart of darkness mentality was rife for years. Hulme , once a solid working class area became a squat infested area in which the non paying bill fraternity promoted it as the 'Amsterdam' of the NorthWest. You couldn't swing a cat without some Home Counties crusty trying to talk like the hairdressers in Cutting It and arranging battles of sound sytems before buying up new properties when it was redeveloped.

When seven young local black youth were killed in drug gang wars in two years we still had the chattering de-classes talking about how dealers were some sort of social services in disguise.

Blaming the state and capitalism and trying to excuse drugs as 'recreational' and crime as 'fighting back' still pervades much of those who like to live on the 'wild side' in cities before becoming an accounts manager in Saffron Walden.

And much of the debate on drugs is dominated by the social worky 'peopel have to be motivated to cahnge man' attitude that many of the drugs proffessionals repeat ad infinitum.Probably because they have been recruited after being undergraduates in t'city.

You dont really have any experience of addiction do you chuck, every recovered addict i know and i count a lot among my friends got off gear when they were motivated to themselves with support. Im not a great champion of therapising peoples problems but some ones motivation is stark ravingly obvious.

For years they were forced into detox and abstinence and got back on gear time and time again. You only change when you want to, but support can and does help as can a script.