Thread: Global war on drugs 'has failed' say former leaders

So is it time, or right, to decriminalize drug taking in your country?
Should it be all or just some drugs? Or should we continue the fight?
BBC report Here

I also noticed that one of the comments to this story asked why all the signatories to this report are saying this AFTER their stint in power?
Why didn't they realise it whilst they were on watch?
Hypocrisy, politics or corruption (prohibitionism is the dealers best friend.....)

At the cost of 1 U.S. dollar I hope this stuff never arrives in the U.S.

Crack can often be purchased in $20 bags/rock, more often in $10 bags/rock, and occasionally in $5 bags/rock.

At $1 exists crack addicts with $3 in their pockets and in a state of fiending while coming down, would be swept up.

Full story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/02/oxidado-new-drug-sweeping_n_870352.html?icid=maing-grid7|maing11|dl1|sec1_lnk2|67736

Oxidado: New Drug Sweeping Brazil 'More Toxic Than Crack' (VIDEO)

Brazil struggles to contain the fallout from a new drug sweeping the nation that is cheaper and more lethal than crack cocaine.

I saw this in yahoo news.

Many former presidents of other nations and former cops in the United States are calling for an end to criminalization to drugs and approaching the problem as a health issue similar to alcohol.

I think Portugal already does this. A cat from Portugal told me courts offer - but don't force - drug addicts into rehab. (that would save tax payer dollars on financing constant re-lapses).

Former President of Brazil Cardosa is one of the former world leaders calling for a global shift. He's also internationally regarded as an intellectual and I believe the only sociologist in the world to have ever been a President of a country.

I'm not for drugs, but I don't think something like Pot is any worse than cigarettes. So, if one is legal, logic would dictate the other should be legal as well.

Coming from a country with state welfare and health care programs, I'm not particularly engrossed with the idea of paying financially for the fallout many will experience from use of harder drugs. I don't want to pay for them being un or under-employed, and I don't want to pay for any health issues related to their use. I feel the same way about drinking and smoking-related conditions, but since they're legal see why they are lumped in to the public coverage.

I am in favour of state-sponsored rehab programs. It's in our best interests long term to assist anyone that wants to kick the habits.

So for me, it comes down to this: I don't believe we should cover health and financial problems related to drug use, but I also don't think we should turn down any member of society in need. So as a society I don't think we should legalize drug use. We should not be complicit in an activity for which we do not want to take responsibility for the fallout.

The problem with this so-called 'War on Drugs', is that it's given ad-hoc application, often applied stupidly & excessively. Much of this application is done on political whims, and little of it actually seeks to reduce the problem. In fact, I'd suggest that much of this so-called 'War on Drugs', is actually designed to ensure that the problem continues. For instance, when a mule operation is discovered, authorities simply cut the mule part & don't even attempt to find those actually behind the operations. I can't believe it's done out of stupidity, so I have to wonder why don't they seek to catch the main players.

Lets call it a failure after we've actually had a proper effort to deal with the problem.

Originally Posted by Capulet

So for me, it comes down to this: I don't believe we should cover health and financial problems related to drug use, but I also don't think we should turn down any member of society in need. So as a society I don't think we should legalize drug use. We should not be complicit in an activity for which we do not want to take responsibility for the fallout.

Restrict freedoms so that we (as a society) don't have to fit the bill for the idiotic choices of some of our citizens and also don't have to make the choice to deny members of society in need. Don't you think that argument could be used to make alcohol, eating out, and cigarettes illegal?

Is it just that you can get away with keeping "drugs" illegal and you would, if you otherwise could, make the other things illegal as well? Or is there something intrinsically different about "drugs" for you?

Originally Posted by DuKane

So is it time, or right, to decriminalize drug taking in your country?

It was never time, or right, to criminalize drug taking in any country in the first place.

U.S. drug laws alone have wreaked havoc on other nations as well as our own. Really, the last thing we want to do is to continue to provide the most vile among us, sociopaths, with a multi-billion dollar a year industry. And for those who suffer the freaking tax payer syndrome, try calculating the cost to humanity resulting from such laws.

All drugs should be legalized now, some prescribed.

Originally Posted by Capulet

So for me, it comes down to this: I don't believe we should cover health and financial problems related to drug use, but I also don't think we should turn down any member of society in need. So as a society I don't think we should legalize drug use. We should not be complicit in an activity for which we do not want to take responsibility for the fallout.

Most often, the fallout is incarceration and nothing else. So let’s remove that part from the equation and we’ve resolved 90% of that problem. Most drug users, like people who drink, are functional. Is it NOT necessarily irresponsible to use drugs? I've smoked or used weed, opium, acid, shrooms, ecstasy, speed, coke, wac and a few other things (but not crack). I’m also a father, a husband, a brother, a son, a productive citizen and a dope smoker. So, should I be taken out of society and locked up? Do I need rehab? I'm still a father, a husband, a brother, a son and a productive citizen, what more do you and your kind expect?

I don't blame Capulet for not wanting to foot the bill for unemployed drug addicts.

But I don't know how Canada works - how much of a welfare state it is - but in the U.S. I don't really know any drug addicts (but for one but her unemployment ran out) that are on unemployment.

There are some health related cost to drug use. That depends on the drugs itself. Though addiction to prescription drugs is on enough of an increase in the U.S. that it's had Congress discussing what can be done about it. A friend of mine - the one that was on unemployment but it has since ran out - was addicted to smoking crack on cigarettes. She got over that by switching hardcore to powder cocaine which made her a functional addict. She then got hook on prescription drugs and became dysfunctional again. However, unlike crack or powder cocaine prescription drugs has had her in the emergency room more than once, tearing her body up in the inside (I believe even coughing up blood but I'm not sure - I've never taken her to the hospital but only picked her up once from it with her cousin who has taken her several times to the ER).

Obesity is so large a problem in the U.S. the medical doctors have said that if the U.S. Government had to foot the bill for taking care of all the health related issues around obesity it would bankrupt the nation.

On the other hand... I regularly out perform 15 and 20 year old people running etc.

That's not to say crack has not impacted my health. It has - in more than one way. The most significant I think is my head and back of neck region. I can tell my body is at significant vulnerability for a stroke - or should I say my brain is? I adapt and reduce stress. I've known two people I've went to grade school with (same class), one male and one female, both basically my age, neither used cocaine or hard drugs, both had strokes (but recovered). The male has passed on last year - he died from complications related to diabetes.

Plus, if cocaine and heroin were taxed and sold by legit corporations not only would the states derive revenue (like it does on gambling and lottery now) but the financial costs would plummet related to cartel and drug gangs murdering people. Plenty of people in my neighborhood go to the liquor store and get beer or liquor on credit from the owner they know, and when they pay late she does not send goons to shoot them in the head or bury their children in a ditch.

It's also impossible for Governments throughout the Americas to stop cocaine and heroin from moving through or into their nations. Take a look at how geographically massive nations like the U.S. and Brazil are. Even crossing from Tijuana into San Diego it would be impossible for the U.S. to check every truck and vehicle entering the country. That would shut down too much trade. It's impossible.

Is it NOT necessarily irresponsible to use drugs?

It's not necessarily irresponsible to use drugs. But most people I know who are over 30 who use them are irresponsible. They don't think it's a problem, but try asking the people they're close to what they think and you'll probably get a different answer. Of course, it's the same deal for people who drink for the purpose of getting drunk. There's often a fair amount of denial going on.

As far as treatment is concerned -- success rates are abysmally low, so I'm not too keen on paying for it either. If the success rates were higher, it might be worth it to foot the bill. And people have to want to get clean, so forcing addicts into treatment as an alternative to prison almost never works.

I think not using drugs or even not drinking is always the smarter choice, but some people will use them regardless. Given the failure of the war on drugs, the next logical thing to do is try decriminalizing or legalizing them.

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

But I don't know how Canada works - how much of a welfare state it is - but in the U.S. I don't really know any drug addicts (but for one but her unemployment ran out) that are on unemployment.

Canada's a welfare state in that we won't let anyone starve or anyone bleed out. That's why I don't agree with legalizing drugs for a lot of reasons, the chief one being the tax burden shouldered by everyone else, regardless of if they are users themselves.

I understand there are functional addicts out there, but if we were in "He's Just Not That Into You" I would say they are the exceptions, and not the rule. I don't have numbers, but I'm fairly confident in saying there must be a significantly higher ratio of non-functioning addicts. I'm talking actual "illegal" drugs, and not those abusing prescription drugs. Those drugs are already legal, and people are abusing the system; that's an entirely different discussion.

For me to come close to supporting legalization of drugs like crack, cocaine, meth, and other substances, there would have to be licensing and government control, all paid for through direct taxation on the products.

This licensing information will be available on security checks, police checks, insurance medical appraisals, etc. Police, employers, and other vested interests have a right to know if they could be dealing with a liability.

Vehicles registered to licensed to drug users can be stopped and impairment tests performed, employers can refuse or terminate employment based on drug use, and insurance companies can refuse or raise the rates of policies based on the same.

Legalizing drugs won't remove the negative effects of them, nor the stigma, nor the eventual costs associated with them. If it is to be legal then let it be legal at the appropriate financial and social costs.

Originally Posted by AA

Restrict freedoms so that we (as a society) don't have to fit the bill for the idiotic choices of some of our citizens and also don't have to make the choice to deny members of society in need. Don't you think that argument could be used to make alcohol, eating out, and cigarettes illegal?

Is it just that you can get away with keeping "drugs" illegal and you would, if you otherwise could, make the other things illegal as well? Or is there something intrinsically different about "drugs" for you?

You could certainly make an argument for alcohol and cigarettes illegal. There are also controls around food and their additives, so that battle is being fought as well. I mention I can't see why pot is illegal and cigarettes are not. Frankly, both should be allowed or banned, and I'm open to either. If I had to choose, I would legalize pot over cigarettes.

Nothing in life is black or white, and you do have to give people the freedom to live their own lives. But as a society, you also set controls in place to assure the continuation of the whole, and the protection of the individual. Everyone is going to have their own thoughts on where they think that line should be. I think the most I could support would be booze, cigs, and pot. But in that I also think the costs associated with their misuse should be born more by the users than society.

I also feel the same way about bungee jumping related injuries.

Originally Posted by Capulet

Canada's a welfare state in that we won't let anyone starve or anyone bleed out. That's why I don't agree with legalizing drugs for a lot of reasons, the chief one being the tax burden shouldered by everyone else, regardless of if they are users themselves.

Well the United States doesn't allow anyone to starve either.

I'm not sure what "bleed out" means?

But city, state, and federal government does not pay me money and I'm not "unemployed" but out of the work force altogether by federal statistics. I also don't collect food stamps because I'm enrolled full time in university and in Wisconsin you must work at least part time as a college student to qualify for food stamps (if unemployed or out the workforce and not in college you qualify for food stamps).

I still fail to see how me being thrown in jail saves tax payers money as opposed to not being put in jail and left to my own devices? And I don't see how throwing me in jail and keeping drug cartels employed in business (as opposed to legitimate corporations that would take people or governments to court rather than assassinating people) is some how saving Mexico tons of money?

And to my knowledge alcohol kills more Americans through health related illness/disease than heroine or cocaine. I had 3 grandparents that were alcoholics and one of my grandmothers died a painful death resulting from her kidney being severely damaged from years of alcoholism.

I just don't see the sky falling if cocaine and heroine are legalized (same with prostitution). In fact I believe cocaine and prostitution were once legal in Milwaukee and most the United States. Maybe I'm wrong about that. I know Milwaukee used to have open brothels though (like many U.S. cities).

I think there would be less stigma in the U.S. if cocaine were legalized but that is not really my point nor my concern. I'm not running around harming the police or U.S. citizens when I'm on cocaine (when I'm drunken on the legal substance of alcohol is another matter as I'm far more prone to violence). And I don't suggest what I do is right nor moral nor even reasonable and sane. But neither is being a porn star or aborting your child or riding your motorcycle at high speed with a club patch that reads "Hell's Angels MC."

And I think people underestimate what alcoholism does to an alcoholic. I know I did. For years I envied alcoholics (less stigma than being a crackhead) because I figured they were not as bad off as crack addicts. Then I began developing a drinking problem. They both come with their own special curses. I never blackout on crack. I frequently blackout drinking and live terrorized the next day wondering what I did. You can murder someone, blackout, and not remember a thing. You could rape a child - your own child - and not remember it.

With crack I'm going to sell my possessions and remember doing it. And why is that your problem?

Well seriously speaking a person should be allowed to do what he wants to do as long as it does not harm another person. People who take drugs are perfectly functional and sometimes better than other people at what they do. I dont even understand why drugs are illegal at all, people use them and people dont stop even if we throw them in jail. Its completely ineffective and they don't really harm anybody at all other than their users. I have had countless arguments about my views on this matter and not one person has convinced my why these should be illegal. It is just a huge drain on any countries funds (people in prison, war on drugs, polcie investigations) and that money could be used on so many other things. Also the drugs that are moving illegaly across the borders could be taxed instead and money gained. Now this money goes to people that are bad (a very good general word).

The famous conservative publisher and commentor, William F. Buckley Jr was a staunch advocate for the legalization of drugs, often arguing his case on his weekly PBS TV program Firing Line. In this video he explains his views on the budgetary and deterrant issues associated with decriminalization. Some one's tarted up this clip with some overly dramatic music, but there are more and longer ones of him discussing this on utube.

http://youtu.be/w3OH6SDGqcM

Sorry, I haven't figured out how to embed this. Maybe I don't have a high enough clearance. pp

This is part one of a better version of the same interview:
http://youtu.be/qDWpdLEbc1s

PS very good footage of the famous forehead action.