World Health Organization Calls For Decriminalization of Drug Use 474
An anonymous reader writes: We've known for a while: the War on Drugs isn't working. Scientists, journalists, economists, and politicians have all argued against continuing the expensive and ineffective fight. Now, the World Health Organization has said flat out that nations should work to decriminalize the use of drugs. The recommendations came as part of a report released this month focusing on the prevention and treatment of HIV. "The WHO's unambiguous recommendation is clearly grounded in concerns for public health and human rights. Whilst the call is made in the context of the policy response to HIV specifically, it clearly has broader ramifications, specifically including drug use other than injecting. In the report, the WHO says: 'Countries should work toward developing policies and laws that decriminalize injection and other use of drugs and, thereby, reduce incarceration. ...Countries should ban compulsory treatment for people who use and/or inject drugs." The bottom line is that the criminalization of drug use comes with substantial costs, while providing no substantial benefit.
Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Informative)
The government profits from illegal drugs even more than drug cartels do.
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Interesting)
It might cause a few deaths but it also sustains the multi billion dollar prison industry and employs well over 1 million people in the US alone, and that it just counting the lawfully employed.
The government profits from illegal drugs even more than drug cartels do.
The reality is that law enforcement, and other areas of the government, used the war on drugs as justification for increased budget, manpower, weapons, laws (search & seizure), etc. Now that the justification has moved towards terrorism, both real and based on hype, and the drug war isn't needed any more. In fact, most law enforcement agencies now have bigger and more expensive toys today (i.e. drones, highly weaponized SWAT teams, etc.) based on terrorism.
As you said, the one lobby that NEEDS the war on drugs to continue is the US prison industry. From Wikipedia "Drug related charges accounted for more than half the rise in state prisoners. The result, 31 million people have been arrested on drug related charges, approximately 1 in 10 Americans." Granted, a good portion of this includes people who are violent criminals and are also booked on drug charges. However, there can be no denying that if 1 in 10 people are going to jail based on a single type of crime, perhaps it's time to re-evaluate public policies and whether these activities should be considered crimes.
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
But that number does not include the likely bigger number of people driven into other crimes because of the illegal nature of their drug addiction. The illegal drug trade not only puts some mostly innocent people in a compromised position, but also fuels the vast majority of crime.
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone breaks into a house, they should be in jail for breaking into a house. I know plenty of people who do drugs and *don't* break into houses or commit other crimes. Also, the high prices are driven by the prohibition of drugs. If they were more affordable, it becomes much less of an issue to break into houses or cars to get money.
Re: (Score:3)
The state supplies them with food, why not drugs? If they want to waste their life, why not help them?
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Informative)
I've never been sure about the truth of that argument. OTOH, it seems to be true about cocaine addiction. Many cocaine addicts start out quite wealthy, and some continue to be so, but many appeat not to. OTOH, some start out as already failures. Many never seem to get violent, but certainly some do.
Still, if cocaine were cheap enough, perhaps people would kill themselves before they begain harming others. And banning it causes so many additional problems that I think legalizing it is the lesser evil. But it should certainly be illegal to advertise it.
One drug that I think probably *should* be illegal is PCP. OTOH, I doubt that having it illegal is a big problem. Few people appear to be attracted to it. The reason that I think it probably should be illegal is that reports are that it causes people to become excessively violent without warning. (I.e., I don' t think it should be illegal to protect the users against themselves, but rather to protect bystanders.)
All that said, even if drugs were legalized that wouldn't solve the problem, it would merely mean that the main suffers would be the people who were addicts, not everyone else. Even then, if there were purity requirements, i.e. protection against contaminants, then the drugs would probably be not only cheaper, but less harmful. However it's definitely important to realize that "less harmful" doesn't mean "harmless". If you want to understand what removing legalization would result in, I recommend that you read "Diary of a Drug Fiend" by Aliestar Crowley. This is apparently a pretty accurate reportage by someone who was quite intelligent, if a bit unconventional ("Wickedest man in the World" -- John Bull).
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Interesting)
"One drug that I think probably *should* be illegal is PCP. OTOH, I doubt that having it illegal is a big problem. Few people appear to be attracted to it. The reason that I think it probably should be illegal is that reports are that it causes people to become excessively violent without warning."
1. If other, less intense drugs were legal, the attractiveness of PCP would be even lower.
2. It is highly likely that the so called reports that it causes people to become excessively violent are because, being illegal, people were confronted by police while on PCP, and freaked out. If PCP were legal and you didn't get arrested just for acting odd, then these people would not have freaked out and acted violently. Thus, the popular beliefs about PCP heavily distorted by confirmation bias. They are basically pure propaganda.
3. In a world of legal drugs where you can purchase PCP at a pharmacy or chemical supplier simply by signing a waiver that relieves the seller of any liability for the effects of your taking it, then information about the REAL effects, dangers, and value of doing and particular drug would be more freely available and factual. It is unlikely that PCP would be frequently used except by a tiny fraction of the population.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with your comments on this as well. What would we do with all the prison space currently housed by drug-related occupants? That would put a heavy dent in the income of the organizations that manage the prison systems (which are mostly cronies of the politicians). And once the dent is made in their profits, they would lobby to elevate the penalty of some other illegal act to put the profits back into their pockets, say jaywalking or driving while texting is a now mandatory 90 days in prison.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Interesting)
I had a silly idea regarding this while visiting California last year. If you've ever walked the streets of either SF or LA at night, you will undoubtedly have found an experience with the homeless similar to that of a zombie movie, except instead of chanting "brains" they're chanting "change". So, once the war on drugs has been ended, some prisons could be converted to compulsory overnight housing: if you do not have a permanent address, and are found unconscious in a public location (either due to sleep or whatever), you get a free bus ride to a former prison for a good night's sleep. The same buses could take you back to the city you were picked up in the morning if you so desire, or you can stick around for 3 hots and a cot (maybe some job counseling and medical care), grab a later bus, whatever. The only prison industry jobs lost would be guard-related. All the administrative, catering, medical, and transport jobs would be retained. Some homeless people have a slightly better life (many of them are too proud/stupid/mentally ill to ask for help but if forced, they'd accept it), and American cities would have an overall better quality of life for all involved.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Interesting)
That would put a heavy dent in the income of the organizations that manage the prison systems (which are mostly cronies of the politicians).
Everyone making money off the status quo will fight tooth and nail to maintain it. That's a given. New crimes are being defined all the time, the one that pops into my mind first is unauthorized use of computers. And just try to exercise your first amendment right to protest within earshot of the president.
Since Orwell's 1984 has been spot on so far, my guess is that the next activity to be made illegal is any attempt to maintain privacy. Seems to be the way the winds are blowing, anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
It might cause a few deaths but it also sustains the multi billion dollar prison industry and employs well over 1 million people in the US alone
None of those jobs help the economy. Why should people be employed in occupations that have no benefit to society whatever and are in fact detrimental to society?
The government profits from illegal drugs even more than drug cartels do.
Colorado's pot legalization and the multi-billion dollar alcohol industry shows that governments profit a lot more from legal, regula
Re: (Score:3)
They profit from them, but do not derive the same sort of power from them. That's why politicians and cops and prosecutors and corrections officers love criminalization of things everyday people do ... well ... every day.
Re: (Score:3)
Occam's razor. No need for conspiracy theories. Drugs are illegal because the vast majority of voters want them illegal, except in very recent times marijuana. And, no shocker, as soon as public opinion on marijuana shifted, so did the laws start to shift. And, no shocker, where public opinion shifted first, the laws shifted first. And where they have not yet shifted sufficiently, the laws have not shifted.
No need for conspiracy theories.
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if that's the case, how is any of that worse than what we have now?
Re: (Score:3)
I haven't heard much about shootouts over tax-free cigarettes. Not a lot of gang activity there either. Our jails aren't filling up with cigarette smugglers and people caught in possession of untaxed cigarettes.
The government is hardly the enemy of the cartels. The last thing the cartels want is an end to prohibition. It would destroy their obscene profits and ultimately put them out of business.
As far as use goes, it might increase a little, but it's not morals preventing most of the drug use now. If it wa
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Funny)
Hopefully we'll see an end to the insane war on drugs in our lifetime!
No no no! If you are even slightly "high" you can not be pure and one with God. We absolutely MUST fight against the recreational use of chemicals, any chemicals, that might in any way lead to a sense of euphoria. Life is pain. Pain is suffering. It is only through suffering that we can be close to God. Drugs and drug use is absolute evil. We must go to ANY means necessary to prevent their use.
Drugs are made more dangerous by being illegal
Who cares? It is only the evil people that will be affected. It will afflict them with suffering and as we already established, it is only through suffering that we can be close to God.
I don't know why so few of us in the United States didn't learn the lesson from alcohol prohibition.
In the 1920s we did not have Echelon and TIA. The NSA and FBI have it all covered now. You can expect a reinstatement of prohibition rather soon. The only lesson that was learned from Prohibition is that without effective enforcement, the evil sinners will continue to seduce the righteous.
Look, everything is in place for 100% enforcement. All of the sinners will be removed from society so that the righteous will not be distracted from becoming closer to God through suffering. 100% focus on work will ensure that the righteous never stray from the True Path. There will be Heaven on Earth... or Nuclear Apocalypse. It is up to you as to what happens. If you follow the one True Path, there will be pleasure in the afterlife when you have finished toiling and suffering in this fallen world. If you sin, this fallen world will be destroyed so that all may meet their Final Judgement soon.
All of this absurd talk of weakening the battle for your soul is the work of the devil. The fight will not merely continue, it will intensify! The fate of the entire world is at stake.
Re: (Score:3)
I would except the recreational drugs have to meet the same USDA and FDA standards for purity and safety for foodstuffs, legal drugs, and alcoholic beverages. In short, the cannabis you can buy legally must NOT have any potentially dangerous additives and THC levels per gram of cannabis have to be standardized. In short, welcome to the real world if you want to grow legal cannabis.
Re: (Score:3)
Not standardized, but labelled. Alcohol comes in various proofs, not at a standard proof. But it's labelled. This is reasonable.
As for safety...I don't think a drug being dangerous (to the user) is reason to forbid its sale. It might be reason to forbid it being an ingredient in something else, I'd need to think about that for awhile. But the danger needs to be clearly stated on the label.
What I'm not sure about at all is which drugs one should be allowed to advertise. I'm not sure that ANY should, bu
Re: (Score:3)
Drugs are made more dangerous by being illegal
Not really, it depends what you mean by "illegal". Bear with me... Personally think illegality sends a good signal for kids - drugs are bad, m'key? - but the *punishment* is the question. Allowing police to arrest a user means these things:
1. For young people, parents get to know what their child is doing
2. Police can get the name of the *dealer* from the user
3. The user can be placed in mandatory rehab as "punishment".
4. If rehab isn't necessary, then the only punishment is a small fine.
User gets a slap on
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Interesting)
HEROIN® brand diamorphine (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:HEROIN® brand diamorphine (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I have a 20's Sears catalog with heroin for sale fucking made by Bayer.
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with smoking is not that it harms your health, it's that it harms other people's health, and makes other people's environment less pleasant to be in. That's why smoking is (typically) banned in public places, or near public buildings, but not banned in the comfort of your own home (that said, even there, it can have severe impacts on children/other members of your family).
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't see a contradiction (although I'm not an American). I have no problems with people smoking, snorting, injecting, or otherwise consuming any drugs that they want. I do object if they blow smoke in public areas or leave needles (especially used ones) lying around in public places.
I would be in favour of banning smoking anything in public places (including places of work) and permitting people to take any drugs that they want in their own home. There are some difficult areas (for example, should people with children be allowed to smoke whatever they like at home around their children?) but the general rule of thumb should be that you can do whatever you want to your own body and mind, just don't do it to anyone else.
Re: (Score:3)
What happened to "forge your own destiny" and personal responsibility?
It may surprise you, but "poor" people are not necessarily dumb people. It may even more surprise you that there are no people (at least I never ever met any) who injected Heroin without absolutely and positively knowing what this will do to them. Yes, people KNOW that they will become addicted to the crap and STILL think it's more attractive to at least escape their life for the 15 minutes that will maybe give them.
When you're at THAT po
Re: (Score:3)
What evidence is there that smoking is healthier then using heroin? As far as I know there is none. Heroin when used correctly will make you constipated and sleepy, cigarettes will increase your odds of dieing by a large amount. They are both addicting with cigarettes usually being considered worse to quit but being addicted is not unhealthy as long as you have a steady supply which is the reason that highly intelligent, wealthy heroin users are productive members of society whereas poor heroin users are fo
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. What we do not understand, and it takes a great deal of empathic aptitude to consider this honestly, is that it is possible for some people's neuro-biological constitution to basically preclude them from ever experiencing much happiness or anything other than misery, boredom, and despair, from normal, everyday activities and forms of entertainment that are societal norms.
So they seek out drugs. These are people that perhaps cannot be fixed. We can't just shoot them (as some would advocate) or we wo
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Informative)
You are brainwashed with completely false propaganda.
You can live a normal lifetime addicted to pure heroin, even if injected, if using sterile needles and proper procedures, and suffer practically no adverse health effects. You can even hold a job. Just not one involving safety-critical activities like operating heavy machinery.
The same cannot be said about tobacco. It is far more harmful than heroin.
Even meth isn't so bad. If it were legal, more people would consume it orally and get educated about how to maintain their nutrition and avoid destructive binges and loss of sleep. They would become workaholics and help the economy. Over-doing it with meth for a long period of time IS harmful, but I'm certain that if it were legal, the harm would drop dramatically compared to what we have now with impure garbage consumed by people who are forced into a criminal lifestyle to get it, which is the reason for much of the harm. It is fully possible also to be a meth addict, yet manage it so that it isn't harmful to the point of severely shortening one's life or damaging to one's mental health.
Meth and cocaine addiction are actually self-limiting for most people. I went berzerk with coke for a few years, then one day decided that I would never touch the crap again because I never wanted to feel that depressed again during the come down. And that was the end of it. The same thing happened with meth. Ultimately, I decided to never take ANY rec. drugs again, including alcohol. They just aren't the answer for me anymore, and have remained out of my life for 26 years.
The hardest thing to quit though, was smoking. Fortunately I did quit, because that would probably have killed me with cancer. Same cannot be said about heroin, meth, cocaine, marijuana, LSD, or any other banned drug.
Alcohol can give you cirrhosis, and cause life threatening seizures upon withdrawal.
It's totally f*ing surreal, that the truly most harmful drugs: alcohol and tobacco, are the only ones that are legal! What a hell-hole of nonsensical contradictions we have created.
Re: Finally! (Score:5, Interesting)
Are they? Or is it rather the crap that is used to turn a gram of $substance into ten for higher profits?
There are drugs that are dangerous. No doubt about that. But one really has to wonder how many deaths are actually due to them not being available in a clean, regulated and reliable fashion. How many drug overdoses are due to addicts not knowing just how "potent" the stuff they buy is, and hence how much of it they should take? How many drug related diseases and deaths are due to the various shit cut in to maximize the profit and unsafe, unsanitary ways they are delivered?
I have a friend working with an organization that "tests" the drugs you can buy. They're basically working on a "don't ask don't tell" base, i.e. they don't give a shit where you got it from and they don't care what you do with it. What they do is analyze what you got and tell you what it is. You'd be surprised if not horrified to learn just WHAT kind of shit is being mixed into drugs. In a nutshell, the additives are usually BY FAR more dangerous than the actual drug itself.
To put it simply, making various drugs that are now "street only" available legally and reliably, regulated by law with strict requirements for companies producing them to ensure quality would by some margin lower drug related health problems. Even if consumption tripled.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, by that logic pretty much anything should be outlawed that you can do to your body. Including trans fats and crunch chicken skin. Both are very dangerous, especially in large quantity.
But... why draw the line at all? How is it my prerogative to tell you how to live and whether, how and when to kill yourself slowly by eating, drinking, snorting or even shooting something that's not healthy for you? And why no ads? Hell, I MISS the ads for cigarettes and booze! They were by some margin the most entertai
The war on drugs failed only.... (Score:5, Insightful)
...if its goal was to prevent drug usage.
Re:The war on drugs failed only.... (Score:5, Insightful)
...if its goal was to prevent drug usage.
It's been a rousing success for the law enforcement and prison industries though!
Re:The war on drugs failed only.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Talk to the Colombians and Mexicans to see how well that particular strategy has worked out
Re: (Score:3)
And even that I'd call blaming the victim. As I pointed out elsewhere in the thread, there is by now pretty much NOBODY that doesn't know, no later than at age 10, what Heroin does to you. It's absolutely addictive, it WILL ruin your life. People KNOW that. It's not that they're too stupid to understand that rather simple message. People FULLY AND ABSOLUTELY know what they are going to do the moment they stick that needle into their arm the very first time. And STILL they do it. Because that 15 minutes buzz
No public drug use (Score:5, Interesting)
No ads, no public displays of drug use, no public drug use, not even in designated public venues, and no brown paper bag bullshit either. Keep it private. No operating heavy machinery or participation in traffic while intoxicated. But yeah, the drug use itself should not be criminal.
Re:No public drug use (Score:5, Interesting)
No ads, no public displays of drug use, no public drug use, not even in designated public venues, and no brown paper bag bullshit either. Keep it private. No operating heavy machinery or participation in traffic while intoxicated. But yeah, the drug use itself should not be criminal.
No ads? OK, sounds reasonable. No public display? OK, we don't allow this for alcohol EXCEPT in designated venues. Do you see a problem with pot cafes? Or methadone clinics? If by public you mean on the street OK, but if you mean no consumption anywhere except the home this contradicts how we treat alcohol. No brown paper bag bullshit? Well you don't usually drink drugs, so OK. No operating machinery or participating in traffic while intoxicated? OK, although proving this for many drugs is much more challenging than alcohol. Example: marijuana.
Re:No public drug use (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, I see a problem with pot cafes. Drug use is not OK
drug use IS OK. drug abuse is not.
I see a problem with views like yours which shift the blame on the substance, righteously ignoring the root problems which are social and educational. this view solves nothing, perpetuates the real problems and just supports the status in quo in keeping the prohibition circus going.
Re: (Score:3)
>Drug use is not OK
Why?
>A concentration of drug use...will have a serious negative impact on the local community.
Why?
Re: (Score:3)
It's expensive because of sin taxes or black market status. Eliminate those and it's not at all expensive.
Excessive use is harmful to health, but so is jogging in the city. Your other arguments were predicated on being expensive.
Re:No public drug use (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, I see a problem with pot cafes. Drug use is not OK, just inevitable
What about cafes that serve coffee? You know, the beverage containing a highly addictive drug? Should we ban those too?
The issue with pot cafes is that it's hard for people to work in them without being exposed to passive smoke, but if you can address that then I don't see the difference between them and normal cafes.
Re:No public drug use (Score:4, Informative)
No ads, no public displays of drug use, no public drug use, not even in designated public venues, and no brown paper bag bullshit either.
Well, if you don't want to do any of that or pay attention to it, then feel free not to. However, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be banned.
Re:No public drug use (Score:5, Insightful)
The rationale behind "not in public" isn't that I don't like it but that drug use has significant deteriorating effects on society and can thus not be allowed to become normal social behavior.
Bullshit. Any truly free country would not infringe upon people's fundamental liberties in the name of safety. Also, have you ever heard of personal responsibility? If someone sees you doing drugs and wants to try them too, then that is *their* problem and no one else's. And I think there are constitutional problems with the drug war, and constitutional problems with banning public drug use.
I have a better idea: Stop trying to control people and just leave them alone. That way, maybe we'll move closer to becoming 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' rather than 'the land of the unfree and the home of the worthless cowards who sacrifice freedom for safety.'
Re: (Score:3)
I don't want your pot smoke filling my house every night.
If it's your house, then exercise your rights over your private property and make them leave.
I want to be able to go to the park and not have to breathe it in.
Unless you own the park, you're out of luck. Sorry. There's plenty of things I don't want to see--including your comment--but I don't think I can just infringe on other people's freedoms just because I don't like something. I don't want to smell cigarette or pot smoke any more than you probably do, but I deal with it.
My experience from living in a place with legalized marijuana is that it is great for people who smoke and not great for people who don't, and I think having laws (and more importantly, proper enforcement of the laws), like no public use, which protect non-users is a good idea.
What about laws that protect users from authoritarians like yourself?
Look, if you don't want to live
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Just banning In App Purchases would be a big move at this point in time.
Look at the descriptions in mobile games these days. One of the things many, many games boast of is being 'the most addictive game in the app store.' Like it's a good thing. A measure of success for the game's publisher.
Re: (Score:2)
i think they mean 'its so good that people just can't stop playing it' when they say their game is addictive. the addiction of heroin might be a completely different kind.
Free demo (Score:3)
Just banning In App Purchases would be a big move at this point in time.
Without IAPs, what's the correct way to provide a limited playable version without offering the first episode without charge and offering additional episodes as IAPs? This "shareware" model, where the prices for additional episodes are stated up front, worked for Doom.
CORRECTION (Score:2)
Re:No public drug use (Score:5, Insightful)
Disagree. The point of legalizing drugs is to prevent an underground supply. The rationale is quite simple: You're not going to stop people from taking drugs. Someone is going to profit from supplying those drugs, so there is either going to be a legal source or an illegal source. A legal source is better than an illegal source.
Anyone selling drugs should be required to inform the users about the risks and consequences. If you still want to take up an addictive drug, that's your own damn fault. It's been proven over and over again that you can't prevent people from taking drugs, so that cannot be the objective. The rational objective is to protect others from the effects of drug use (no second hand smoke, keeping intoxicated people off the streets, etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
Because obviously trying to increase the costs of the drugs, and throwing those parents in prison for years if they get caught in possession of a few doses improves the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
like tobacco in cigarettes?
or the 200 other ingredients in there to get you addicted?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Is coffee recreational or a building block of life? Either way, why do you hate coffee so much?
Re: (Score:2)
So you're in favor of banning alcohol, tobacco, sugar, and chocolate as well?
Safe injection sites (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Safe injection sites (Score:5, Insightful)
The obvious number one downside is the potential for an increase in number of addicts. I never really had the answer for how to counter that. Social stigma? Government monitoring program on those who buy from the "drug store" that encourages rehabilitation? But maybe if you make the harder drugs extra affordable in an outpatient setting like you describe, it offers a way out for the addicts, while making it inconvenient for dabblers and college kids to get into the really nasty stuff. You could still sell (and tax, of course) the less addictive/destructive drugs, as you would alcohol and tobacco.
And bonus points if this reduces violent crime rates by people trying to get money to fuel their need.
Re: (Score:3)
I've been thinking along these lines for a few years now. Make the drugs legal, regulate them, and possibly even have the government sell them. Use taxes on drugs to fund rehab programs. Give sex workers a way to get out from drug induced slavery. Cut the head off the cocaine cartel by growing it here or importing it from someone else. Take a blow to the coffers of street gangs as well as more organized criminals.
The obvious number one downside is the potential for an increase in number of addicts. I never really had the answer for how to counter that.
The number of addicts decreases when you legalize drugs. No need to speculate, look at places that have actually legalized drugs. It seems counterintuitive, but the reason is pretty simple. Right now if you're addicted to something and you seek help you have to basically admit to being a criminal in order to get help. If drugs are legal - no problem. So people are more likely to ask for help when they don't have to risk jail by asking for help. Makes sense when you think about it.
Drug use versus crime (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's very unlikely that the different crime would be as rewarding financially.
The current situation results in huge flows of money into criminal organizations to the point where it destabilizes governments and funds massive corruption. Particularly in South and Central America.
One of the major items in the current news is the flood of children from central america into the US. What is the root cause of this? The flow of money from the US to drug cartels in their countries of origin.
Fix the drug problem in t
Use of drugs (Score:2)
The use of drugs is not exactly confined in its impact to the immediate use, which is the theory behind why it was a crime in the first place. But the other bad effects can be made illegal separately. A lot of them already are, in the form of some variation of practising pharmacy without a licence. And if a huge pharmaceutical company creates a drug that has virtually no value other than to create addictions (and deducts all the research and marketing expenses on its taxes), then someone should be going
Re:Use of drugs (Score:5, Informative)
The use of drugs is not exactly confined in its impact to the immediate use, which is the theory behind why it was a crime in the first place.
No, the theory behind the first drug laws in the United States was that chinese immigrants smoked opium, so the consumption of opium via smoking was prohibited while oral consumption (the white peoples consumption method) remained legal. A racist law written by racist people to harm a racial group.
Drug laws continue to be completely racist, even though the excuses for the laws no longer are. When it wasn't racism against the chinese-americans, it was racism against the african-americans...
John D. Rockefeller, Jr. (Score:5, Informative)
- John D. Rockefeller, Jr., 1932
There is no magic bullet (Score:3)
Ending prohibition didn't kill the mob. They just switched from bootlegging to trafficking narcotics, and they reached the height of their power in the 50s and 60s, long after the prohibition ended. In the same way, while legalizing marijuana might reduce crime here in the US, cartels in Mexico are Too Big to Fail [nytimes.com]. They won't pack up their things and head home quietly if marijuana is legalized; they'll just start peddling something new.
As for legalizing highly addictive drugs like cocaine and heroin, I don't see how decriminalizing them good possibly be a good idea. The addiction rate for these drugs is 2.5 to 3 times that of alcohol. Heroin, etc. are dangerous and they weren't just banned because of moralizers.
Re:There is no magic bullet (Score:4, Insightful)
Heroin, etc. are dangerous and they weren't just banned because of moralizers.
The 'land of the free and the home of the brave' would not violate people's fundamental liberties for safety. These things are banned because of freedom-hating scumbags who despise the thought of living in a truly free country, and yet pretend that that is their goal. But we have the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, constitution-free zones, free speech zones, protest permits, DUI checkpoints, mass warrantless surveillance, unrestricted border searches, and a number of other policiies or agencies that violate the constitution and people's fundamental rights (thanks to people like you), so of course we've never been 'the land of the free.'
Re: (Score:3)
But we have the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, constitution-free zones, free speech zones, protest permits, DUI checkpoints, mass warrantless surveillance, unrestricted border searches, and a number of other policiies or agencies that violate the constitution and people's fundamental rights (thanks to people like you)
So the fact that you need a prescription from a doctor to get penicillin, is that a violation of your fundamental rights? Hell yeah, I should be allowed to eat penicillin and Oxycontin for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. No goddamn elitist doctor is going to tell me otherwise. Same with BAC limits for driving. I know how much alcohol I can handle and no goddamn state trooper is going to tell me that .08 is the "legal limit." Lets do away with speed limits and other traffic regulations as well. All they do is
Re: (Score:3)
Nice straw man you've built.
I don't like drunk driving laws because I don't care how much alcohol you've consumed so long as you keep your car in your lane and yield the right of way at intersections. As for speed limits? I've seen studies that suggest people drive more safely without posted speed limits. People drive to conditions and the pace of traffic rather than to some government contrived safe limit.
My right to mustard gas is protected under the second amendment dammit!
I believe that the people should be able to own any weapon the military and police are allowed to o
Re: (Score:2)
So if you're intending to convince me that it's okay for the government to ban people from ingesting things into their own body, you're wasting your time, authoritarian. It'll never work.
Re:There is no magic bullet (Score:4, Insightful)
As someone else pointed out: as counter-intuitive as it might be, the data is in since Portugal ran the experiment [time.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. I wish I could read the linked study, but it's blocked by a pay wall. The summary mentions that Portugal decriminalized all drugs, but then it goes on to just talk about marijuana. It does mention that there was drop in HIV transmission but concedes that these could have been due to expanded treatment instead of decriminalization. They also mentioned that there were "more drugs seized by law enforcement," which makes me wonder if drugs were completely decriminalized. Overall, I'm not sure that
Re: (Score:3)
As for legalizing highly addictive drugs like cocaine and heroin, I don't see how decriminalizing them good possibly be a good idea. d
It may not be a 'good' idea. It may simply be less bad that keeping them criminalized. Addiction is a medical diagnosis and it makes more sense to keep it in the medical sphere than the criminal one. Being addicted to anything is bad for you (that's inherent in the term). The consequences of that addiction can be modified by decriminalizing the drug (but keeping it regulated). Nobody but nobody is suggesting that we just drop cocaine packets from the sky. Well, perhaps a few folks might like that.....
The addiction rate for these drugs is 2.5 to 3 times that of alcohol. Heroin, etc. are dangerous and they weren't just banned because of moralizers.
C
Re: (Score:3)
Ending prohibition didn't kill the mob. They just switched from bootlegging to trafficking narcotics, and they reached the height of their power in the 50s and 60s, long after the prohibition ended.
Well... by this thinking, the mob continued because prohibition didn't end. They moved from one prohibited product to another, but always a product the people wanted, but couldn't get because of a prohibition, and the mob was in a particularly good position (with their organization and international reach) to supply.
In the same way, while legalizing marijuana might reduce crime here in the US, cartels in Mexico are Too Big to Fail [nytimes.com]. They won't pack up their things and head home quietly if marijuana is legalized; they'll just start peddling something new.
What might happen if the cartels' market dried up is, at best, speculation. Could be risky, change is scary. But doing nothing and maintaining the status quo is worse. The cartels continue t
Drugs were not always illegal in the US (Score:4, Insightful)
Legalize drugs (Score:3)
I was initially hesitant with the legalization of pot in California and the other states. But what's fascinating is that now people get their weed from controlled environments instead some back alley with a drug dealer pushing lots of other stuff as well.
I could be 1000% wrong as I have no data to back this up, but it made me think the streets have been safer in California since the legalization of pot. Anyone have any data to back that idea up? Any stats of declining use of other more serious drugs? Maybe it hasn't been enough time yet?
The problem is addiction, not the use of drugs (Score:5, Insightful)
You can be addicted just as easily to legal drugs as to any substance on the federal schedule. You can be addicted to behaviors like gambling and eating. This problem needs to be addressed medically.
Re:The problem is addiction, not the use of drugs (Score:4, Insightful)
Even addiction is not a problem. Back in the day when opium was legal, many people were addicted to it. But they had ready access to a cheap supply of their drug of choice, so they were able to function in society, hold down a job, etc.
Caffeine is another good example. Lots of people are addicted to caffeine, but function in society.
Even tobacco (evil though it is) has functional addicts.
The point is that it's not addiction itself that is a problem, but the stigmatization of addicts by society and the crimes they're forced to commit to feed black market pricing. Put an opiate addict on a methadone program, and they stop breaking into houses to feed their habit.
Addiction is not a *good* thing, but it should be a personal choice and health issue, not an excuse for ostracizing someone from society.
What do you mean, "no substantial benefit"? (Score:2)
It is like... (Score:3)
The WHO recommendation is like a drug cartel/warlord's worst nightmare come true.
Re:It's finally time to do it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's finally time to do it (Score:5, Insightful)
No, this is the old "Reefer Madness" mentality, meant to make happy both the Puritans and the prison profiteers while keeping the politicians in an elevated state of power.
What actually happens, and Portugal ran this experiment with a sample size of over 8 million people during the past decade, is that when drug use is decriminalized, the usage rate quickly falls to about half.
Most of those are people who are no longer afraid to seek treatment. Some are folks who wind up court-ordered to get treatment, and a few were drug users who were only doing it because drugs seemed cool because they were illegal.
At the end, though, the incontrovertible fact is that the community has half the number of drug users as it did under Prohibition. Prohibitionists are responsible for a doubling of the drug usage rate in the community. Does that seem counter-intuitive? So what? The data is in.
Re:It's finally time to do it (Score:4, Informative)
This is a great debate between Glenn Greenwald and GWB's drug czar and in it, reference to Portugal and studies related to that are made. From there, you can do your own searching:
http://vimeo.com/32110912 [vimeo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This is 100% irrelevant even if it is true. The 'land of the free and the home of the brave' would not ban people from taking drugs, even for safety, just like it wouldn't allow the TSA, the NSA surveillance, or any other freedom-violating/unconstitutional nonsense to exist.
Re:Can we have some Facts please? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Can we have some Facts please? (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, these are not facts, but pure fantasy. First, outlawing drugs does not reduce their usage. The alcohol prohibition indicates that the converse is true. Hence this prohibition increases harm. Second, the harm done is massively increased by outlawing drugs. Most drugs are actually relatively cheap to produce in medical-grade quality, with clear instructions and standardized quality, yet the dangerous low-quality stuff on the market fetches premium prices that then go to criminal enterprises. This situation is purely crated by illegality. Finally, people that are in prison for no good reason are unproductive and cost money as well.
The whole thing is nothing but a massively misanthropic effort by religious and other authoritarians to prevent people from deciding about their own lives and to punish those that have other ideas as heavily as possible. It has zero intention to reduce negative effects and zero effect in that direction. It does increase negative effects massively though.
Re: (Score:3)
The bottom line is that outlawing drugs reduces their use, and correspondingly reduce their negative effects on society.
Even if I were to accept that as true (I don't), I would still be 100% opposed to the drug war, because it violates people's fundamental liberties. Such a thing would never be allowed in any truly free country, safety or no safety. It's people like you who cheer on the TSA, the NSA surveillance, free speech zones, DUI checkpoints, etc. simply because you think they keep people safe, without caring that you're supposed to be living in a free country.
Re:Doctors @ WHO (Score:4, Funny)
There hasn't been a good one since David Tennant
Meth is already legal in the USA (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How about this? Marijuana (that stuff in the joint over there) is a DEA Schedule I drug - 'high potential for harm, no accepted medical use'. Marinol (concentrated THC, one of the major active ingredients in the joint) is a Schedule III drug (like low dose Vicodin*, Tylenol with codeine and a bunch of other minor pharmaceuticals).
Don't expect logic or rational thinking here. It simply not allowed.
*Yeah, I know, it's going to move 'up' to Schedule II soon
Re: (Score:2)
I hope this isn't what you actually believe, as it sounds like an authoritarian nightmare to me! What would happen in your little imagined scenario is that the powers of control would inevitably extend to all undesirable* behaviour and would one-day collapse under its own weight or civil war -- after millions suffered.
* Undesirable being defined by the same nutcases who put this law in to place and could include being homosexual, jewish or having drugs planted on them
Back in the real world, I firmly believe
Re: (Score:2)
Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need to make our nation any more unfree, and we don't need schools to become any more like awful prisons. Vanish, authoritarian scumbag.
Re: (Score:2)
So what exactly is the tax rate on Christians in your part of Iraq, "Jim"?
Re: (Score:2)
3 takers, let's see how many more you get :-).
Re: (Score:2)
I really, really had to look to find the "ageism" in the comment you referenced. And yes, by using my magnifier I could read the fine print.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't want someone who is drunk, either. Therefore, ban alcohol. Are you an idiot?
Besides, safety is not what matters. [slashdot.org] If you despise freedom that much, I'm sure North Korea would be happy to have you.
Re: (Score:3)
I've not had alcohol at all, but I still support other people's freedoms to drink it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not even extreme sports. Football, skiing, golf, jogging -- they all have dangers and people have suffered from accidents or repetitive stress injuries. Of course, sitting at home safe in your Lazyboy has its own health risks. Or driving -- that is probably one of the most dangerous things we do.
All of these people saying "I shouldn't have to pay for ...." fundamentally fail to understand that insurance about spreading risk, not concentrating it. Besides, there are risks in everything one does, and even