Commission tells Obama war on drugs failed, weed should be legal
By Virginia SmithJune 2nd, 2011, 10:00 amComments (64)
The Global Commission on Drug Policy has officially concluded what a lot of you probably already knew, that the "war on drugs" has been both expensive and a failure. The commission, whose members include Kofi Annan, is officially urging President Obama and other world leaders to put a stop to "the criminalization, marginalization, and stigmatization of people who use drugs but do no harm to others." In other words, these very official non-hippies think it's time to legalize.
"We simply cannot treat them all as criminals," the Commission's report says of the approximately 250 million people across the globe that use illegal drugs.
Before anyone gets too excited, both the Obama administration and Mexico's government have already rejected this recommendation, and an administration official said, "Making drugs more available — as this report suggests — will make it harder to keep our communities healthy and safe." Instead, we'll keep spending millions upon millions of dollars on this. Glad we all checked in!
Commentarium (64 Comments)
Look, it'd be great if some drugs were legal but the fact of the matter is that they are not. The "people who use drugs but do no harm to others" are in fact causing a myriad of problems. I've suggested before that people should google 23 seconds of the Mexican drug war and watch the video. It's the real images of the innocent people slaughtered and their wailing families that need to be on the billboards if we want to educate the "people who use drugs but do no harm to others" until something can be done legislatively.
You apparently don't understand the effects of prohibition. There were people killing people over alcohol during alcohol prohibition, and suddenly they stopped when prohibition ended. Creating a black market by making something every wants illegal is what leads to violence. Hence your hysterics about the brutality of the mexican drug cartels is meaningless, as they would lose money and power were their business model completely destroyed by legalization.
So until you understand what you're talking about, you should probably refrain from spouting the same propaganda that the people who financially benefit from the war on drugs do. The cartels. Both the drugs cartels, and the "law enforcement" cartels.
I'd like to point out that I NEVER said prohibition was working or a great thing. Also if you read the discussion you'd quickly understand that I think the laws need to be changed.
The "hysterics about the brutality of the mexican drug cartels" I don't think is something that is all that hysterical. Go there or ANYWHERE someone, especially innocent, was killed by drug violence and try putting your thoughts to them. It sounds like you still have 'rebellion' issues and want to take it out on me because you think I'm "the Man".
The problems across borders and within borders absolutely have bearing on one another. The problems do not just stop at a country border or a state border within the US and the debate certainly takes these conditions into consideration. There is a reason the cabinets of Barack Obama and Felipe Calderon have been continually meeting.
As to "accusing people's close friends of being criminals, or of supporting violent crime, directly or indirectly", to be technical it IS criminal to sell illegal drugs and the indirect effects are there whether you like it or not.
The decriminalization of pot may be a step in the right direction and as you pointed out it has been shown that the ease on the laws have produced positive results. My argument NEVER included the idea that marijuana should be strictly illegal and everyone possessing it should be put in jail and the key thrown away.
Drugs ,marijuana in particular, but all drugs nonetheless are illegal, were made illegal, and only remain illegal because of a ridiculous logical fallacy. These laws have never been about actual harm to society, as they at the time they were made illegal, did not do any great harm to society at the time. They have never been anything more than an egregious example of malum prohitum, wrong because they are prohibited. Never because of of the drugs were themselves evil or did societal harm.
The US is not Mexico, and while you say at one point, "each state can regulate independently, in fact each county and town can regulate within each state", yet apparently see no contradiction in also claiming as you did earlier that, "The problems across borders and within borders absolutely have bearing on one another". How can you possibly hope for a law that considers primarily the conditions relevant to the society which creates it. If the law must also consider the conditions and relevant issues of a society discrete from, and distant to it. You can not possibly be so massive a dunderhead as to not see the plain and simple contradiction in your two claimed positions.
And you continue to promulgate the logical fallacy that drugs cause crime. But a syringe of heroin never robed, never raped, never murdered a person. Only a person under it's influence, or addicted to it. This is not causation, it is correlation, statistic owing it's existence to circumstance. And you need not look far to see evidence of it circumstantial nature. Prior to alcohol prohibition, alcohol, and by extension use, while problematic of course, "caused" far less crime than it would while prohibited. By making something that was previously, and should never have been, a crime, the law had the effect of simply creating more criminals. And not less crime, nor less societal harm. Now ask yourself, really ask yourself, then go and look for yourself, how much crime was originally "caused" by heroin, cocaine, etc etc, then how much societal harm. And then take your own advice and go look at those headlines. In not a single instance, will you see prohibition actually reducing crime, least of all violent crime. At the same time, the prison population increases, as does the cost to society. These facts directly attributable not the simple consumption consumption, though undoubtedly some violent crime is caused by it, while under it influence, or the addiction caused. But the bulk, the vast majority you will ultimately find is caused however, by groups which traffic in such substances. These groups owe their existence, everyone of them, lock stock and barrel, to drug prohibition. Were these substances legal, do you think these groups none of which earn more than a billion or so a year in revenue from their illicit activities could long compete with an entity like Monsanto, Cargil, RJ Reynolds, Coca-Cola. The smallest of which command resources and incomes orders of magnitude greater than any cartel.
To finish, correlation is a poor foundation on which to base an argument on internet message board or comment section. To use it as the basis for a law, an agency of law, or the removal of person's freedom, or confiscation of their property, flies hard into the face of a the concept of a just society.
To start where you ended, correlation is exactly what is used when determining regulations. Following on the same point you made earlier about "a syringe of heroin never robed, never raped, never murdered a person", the same statement has been made with regard to gun legislation as well; guns don't kill people, people kill people. The fact that inanimate objects can't commit crimes has not stopped leaders and legislators from requiring permits and instituting other forms of regulation based upon, as you point out, correlation and I'm glad because of it. In the same way that most people don't want to see someone shooting up heroin in a restaurant, most people don't want to meet a stranger walking down the street brandishing a gun, let alone a fully automatic assault rifle.
The contradiction you supposedly think I made, is not a contradiction at all. The inhabitants of a particular area have the right to legislate where they live and work and they absolutely look at what is going on in neighboring communities and cities when considering their future. It is a black and white view you've taken when there are many shades of gray. These issues are not completely isolated but rather quite interconnected.
There was alot I thought to type here. But really, you've made every argument for me. So I'm just going to point out one last little tidbit, provided by you.
"In the same way that most people don't want to see someone shooting up heroin in a restaurant"
That is pathetic, utterly, and incomprehensibly pathetic. How many other things might we outlaw, for no better a reason, than the weak, and simple minded, do not care to see it. The law does not now, nor has it ever existed to protect your peace of mind. Now grow up. Or I'll outlaw self contradicting simpletons, who fallaciously claim that theirs is the position of logical and rational position, even while they blatantly violate every notion of those things.
I guess we'll have to make it legal for you to flash children in public because it's wrong to outlaw it "for no better a reason, than the weak, and simple minded, do not care to see it", as you point out. Bull. Law is absolutely about what the public deems wrong. Yes, I agree, it can be taken too far but I'd say, for the most part, most people are happy with a lot of these protections.
By the way, don't take offense to the example I gave. It wasn't meant to insinuate you in particular had ever done that. It probably would be more fit in response to your reply to say someone eating their lunch naked in a restaurant, which too most could do without when eating their meal. The point is that just because the offender thinks it's not right for the public to admonish their actions, it does not guarantee that the public is "weak" or "simple minded".
"that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." - Thomas Jefferson
In order for a law to actually be just and justified it is nessary that the law actually works to prevent harm to individuals, their liberty, or society. It can easily be shown that restrictions against exposing yourself to children is harmful. No such evidence can be demonstrated in support of anti-drug laws. As the vast majority of the harm drugs do, is the result not of their simple use, but of their trafficking. The act of making them illegal makes any drug many many times more profitable than almost any legal commodity. Prohibition makes them so profitable that it now warrants in some people's minds to use violence to defend their illicit profits. Profits only possible because of the illicit nature of the substance.
Nicely put and I enjoyed the Jefferson quote.
I think we agree that law should be primarily based and enforced to "prevent harm to individuals, their liberty, and/or society." It has been shown that the use of marijuana does not have any real detriments, except the health risks from smoking it, and, again, the emphasis should be put on reducing consumption to lessen risk even more. Hard drugs, on the other hand, like heroin or those of the variety that "kill all forms of creativity", as the lesser known, non-historical figure John Lydon put it, have been proven to do harm to the individual and society, regardless of its legal status. The only absolute time heroin can provide any good is when it is administered, in an extremely controlled environment, to terminally ill cancer patients. In the same way that I'd be against oral chemotherapy being used for recreation if it were somehow popular, like gasoline sniffing was at one point, I am against the abuse of hard drugs and would advocate for regulation. The effects on a normally healthy person are detrimental and render the individual unable to function properly.
I feel the same way about alcohol and I'm glad that it is illegal to drink and drive in the US and most of the world because it is a danger to the individual and society. The implications of its legality on the individual's liberty mean nothing to me, or a lot of other people, if anyone was killed from drinking and driving.
As I've said, the laws need to change and a lot more focus needs to be put on reducing consumption. It is sad to see so much loss and the way laws are written presently, they have, without a doubt, contributed greatly to it. I hope it is evident though that some form of regulation is necessary to protect individuals and society.
Quote: "The people who use drugs but do no harm to others are in fact causing a myriad of problems."
BZZZZT. WRONG.
As an anecdote to that I will point out that a surprising amount of weed consumed in the US is grown domestically so all pot smokers aren't necessarily fueling the Mexican drug trade. I'd still say individual pot smokers (even of Mexican product) "do no harm to others," the harm is caused by the laws themselves.
Let me first point out that it is not the pot specifically that is causing all the problems but also, among other things, the money and money laundering associated with it. The weapons coming from the US is also extremely damaging. There are many more issues at play than just the simple matter of where the pot is grown.
As to not taking ANY responsibility for our actions and putting the entire blame on the laws, the fight to get the laws changed does not involve breaking the laws and helping to perpetuate the growing problem of innocent people dying. Instead, we protest and call our representatives and inform them, along with the younger generation and our peers, of the terror happening everyday.
All the problems you mentioned would go away with legalization, not be exacerbated.
It's not like doing drugs immediately makes you want to start laundering money and shooting people. Seriously, do you work for the DEA?
Of course drugs don't "immediately make" someone commit crimes. There is ADDICTION that gradually makes someone unreasonable, as well as, create a market for profit. You also have to see that if it's not the "drugs cartels, and the "law enforcement" cartels" making the money it will be some huge corporation which can be just as heartless.
Marijuana, which I think many would agree is a substance that is needlessly illegal, does not send people into a spiral of addiction that gradually makes them unreasonable. And frankly, if heroin or meth were legalized I have no problem with people making their own decisions to slowly kill themselves by overdoing it. We let cigarette smokers do that every day. Making these things illegal just prolongs the inevitable.
Again, I never said that marijuana is necessarily going to cause extreme problems if made legal or that it should be illegal. As to meth and heroin, they can cause problems for other people as well and regardless, how would you feel if your mom, dad, or sibling was slowly killing themselves while you were growing up. For that matter, abusing you (granted, which can happen without drugs) and letting all kinds of shady characters in your home. It's funny to me that other people don't agree with this logic.
There is obviously no panacea for these problems but we can make the situation better by changing the way laws are currently implemented, which has nothing to do with breaking current laws.
While there are of course weapons going from the US to mexico, it is inaccurate to assume that these US weapons are the majority of weapons used in Mexico. Guns in Mexico or used in Mexican crime, that can be positively traced back to the US account for only about 17 percent of the total number of mexican gun crimes.
Furthermore "how would you feel if your mom, dad, or sibling was slowly killing themselves while you were growing up. For that matter, abusing you (granted, which can happen without drugs) and letting all kinds of shady characters in your home. It's funny to me that other people don't agree with this logic." people don't agree with it because it's not logical. People do all these things currently in spite of them being illegal. They do them even without using illicit substances. Just look at how many cases of abuse or neglect occur with alcoholic parents. All you've achieved by making those substances illegal is increase the prison population and added to cost to taxpayers. Not deter those behaviors you wrongly view as being caused by the use of those substances.
You said "people don't agree with it because it's not logical"; you're nuts. Who would want to grow up in a broken home? Hard illicit substances contribute to the chaos in a home, in the same way you admitted with your alcohol example. Why would we want to spread this to even more homes by making hard drugs readily available and socially acceptable. If we change the current laws affecting particular drugs (i.e. pot) then our prisons would go down, along with the burden to taxpayers. There is a big difference though between tinkering with the current laws and an upheaval of all drug laws, as others advocate.
It is unnessary to keep drugs illegal to prevent broken homes, or other crime. Because wonder of wonders, most of those things you accuse drugs of causing, abuse, neglect, violent crime are already illegal. Instead of making more things illegal, in the hopes of deterring or punishing other crimes. Why not, and I know this is perhaps challenging, actually work to better enforce laws deterring and punishing those other crimes.
No one said that legalizing drugs makes them socially acceptable. People will still urge loved ones to seek help for addiction. Society is not inherently without law. What is socially appropriate to the masses still stands whether or not something is legal. Marijuana is, again, a case in point. Most people are tolerant of someone using this illegal substance so long as they do so in appropriate settings...whereas most people aren't keen on erratic drunken behavior even though alcohol is legal.
As for how I would feel if someone in my family were killing themselves slowly and letting shady characters in my home? Well, it didn't feel great at all. My father is a serious alcoholic, and misery loves company. Oh right, alcohol is legal. Addicts are addicts and it doesn't matter whether it's legal or not. Legalizing drugs, however, will reduce the violent byproducts of an addicts needs. No one died to bring my dad his booze. And I am not an alcoholic even though I grew up with one.
@equidae- I don't know why you continuously misconstrue my posts but I never accused illegal drugs of causing the crimes and the abuse aforementioned; however, creating and contributing to an environment conducive to such behavior. As to making more things illegal, I have not advocated for this at all but advocate for change in the current law. It is not so much about enforcing the laws more effectively but more about educating the public about the dangers and problems with such hard drugs.
@krod- I agree with some of your thoughts but take issue with others. I'm sorry to hear your father was affected by alcohol. It is true it is legal and this is not my point of contention. I'm sure you would agree that help in other forms such as public education and rehabilitation is a path that should be more strongly pursued by our congressmen and women. You are right that there are underlying social norms regardless of legality but I still believe that law also plays a role in this social acceptance along with religion and family. I also would like to clarify that I don't think growing up in household with an addict will guarantee the offspring too will be addicts. Thank you for your post.
If you advocate change in current law, why not actually state where and what those changes should be. Because I read your posts, and don't see any real endorsement of that line of thinking. And while you may like to claim, you never accused illegal drugs of causing those crimes, those crimes have here to fore, been the only evidence you've presented as support for statements. If you really don't believe that perhaps you shouldn't have built your entire argument around it.
I absolutely believe hard drugs contribute to crime and you don't have to look far for the evidence. There are plenty of crime statistic aggregators online to prove this; for instance, fbi.gov is an example. If you don't trust them, there are plenty more you can find on the google machine. It is not even necessary to do that though because you can just turn on the local news station or open the local newspaper and read the police logs.
As to what in the current laws needs to change: each state can regulate independently, in fact each county and town can regulate within each state. The changes made have to account for the conditions in that area. In my area, the law for marijuana possession just changed so now there is just a fine for having an eighth or less. This is a step in the right direction because kids before were getting financial aid taken away from them if they had a possession crime, which is just ridiculous.
As the report by the commission stated and I agree with, the focus should be put on reducing the consumption of drugs and this means using alternative methods like education, rehab, and in some cases decriminalizing.
Your posts on "continuously misconstrued" because you are a pendantic backpedeller with a penchant for rephrasing when challenged and proven incorrect. So it's clear that you're really just trolling because you like to debate.
Can you imagine the racist wharrgarbl that would happen if Obama were to come out in favor of legalizing marijuana?
Well, more stoners would mean more Hooksexup readers.
...also fewer Publiuses.
True, less intelligent discourse.
But more jock sniffers.
I take uh offense.... to that uhm.... what was I saying?
Do you think most Hooksexup readers are stoners? That should be a poll. I think it's the opposite. It's maybe casual drug users that read Hooksexup and the few real potheads that get sent here from a search engine to read the drug related articles and argue, with no real apparent reason, against logic.
Ouch, moregold. I'm not sure why you have modeled yourself as the moderator of this thread, and apparently as an expert on the effects of drug legalization as well. You are consistently claiming that those who oppose your view are illogical or crazy and thus reject their argument, which is a cheap move. Relax and stop trying to rule us all with your own viewpoint.
@krod- whoah dude. I was thanking you for sharing your story because I enjoyed it. I'm not trying to rule anyone with my viewpoint. It's a discussion!
I've been indulging for 35 years, in moderation. Does that make me a "stoner", moregold? Does that mean I am "causing a myriad of problems"? I would suggest not (although I am sure that you will respond with some pedantic reason to the contrary). I'm a high-income white collar information professional without a criminal record or stain.
moregold: really not sure how growing in my garage and burning in my bedroom is supporting mexican cartels. please explain.
annie-I don't think anyone made the connection between your illegal, which it shouldn't necessarily be, pot garden and the mexican cartels but you. You are probably one of the more informed potheads but I can guarantee that you know tons of friends who are totally ignorant to what is going on. The people who don't know anything can cause problems in YOUR local neighborhood with violence associated with various drug dealing, let alone the family problems that can be exacerbated due drug abuse. I wouldn't want to be a crackhead's kid. I grew up with kids whose parents had drug problems and it made their lives a lot harder.
Everyone should read "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It" by Judge Gray. It is extremely well written and lays down an excellent argument on why all drugs should be legal.
I'll check it out. The problem with saying "all drugs should be legal" is that people don't know the reasons behind that philosophy but run with that idea anyways and don't think of the consequences.
Go weed!
moregold: trolling...
moregold: troll troll troll
@Q- I hate you people going around commenting "trolling", like it is some brilliant statement. Can't you at least offer something of value to the conversation.
Why would he, when you will just backpedal and create an obfuscation with pedantry? moregold, on the off chance that you're not just trolling for more debate, go back and reread your threads and maybe you will understand why everyone thinks that you are a troll. Of course, it's most likely that you already know full well that you're a troll, and I'm just expending keystrokes to no avail. But such is life.
I don't know if I would go as far to say that Marijuana should be made absolutely and completely legal tomorrow but I would definitely agree it needs to be severely decriminalized.
And when I say I don't know if I would say that, it is because I am no expert and I would need to research more before I could make a statement like that.
@julian- Absolutely. It's that kind of attitude and cautious behavior I hope our legislators would take, although it's probably a fat chance because most are bought out. Certainly, some legislative changes need to be made to relieve what seems to be a worsening problem (at least around the mexican border). Supposedly violent crime rates have actually gone down in the US.
Really the only regulations they would need to do if they indeed legalized it is put some sort of pigovian tax on it, which is exactly the kind of tax put on cigs and alcohol, one that collects money from things with negative externalities.
But, thanks for your comments moregold. I find sometimes that one has to be careful with their words when talking to people who are for marijuana legalization, usually because they are a user, because if you say anything remotely against full legalization they usually outright attack you, or that is my experience.
1. Like blanket generalizations much?
2. They attack you, because you are advocating an approach (referring to your initial post advocating decriminalization) that in many ways solves few if indeed any of the most serious issues caused by the current prohibition. Under decriminalization, it would remain illegal, merely reducing, in some cases drastically the penalties for violation. But there would remain the issue of the groups, many of them violent. That currently traffic in it solely because it's prohibition makes it extremely profitable to do so. At the same time, removing criminal penalties would potentially have the effect of more people either taking up it's use or becoming regular consumers. These facts taken together, make the most serious drug related issue, that of the violent cartels, likely even more significant, not less. Think about it a second, more users, means more money, more money and fewer penalties, mean more traffickers, which means more traffickers fighting to defend what they perceive as their market share. Yes imprisonment of non-violent offenders would drop, and the cost to taxpayers as a result would also drop. But other violent drug related crime would very likely go up. You also ignore the numerous cases of law enforcement wrongfully arresting and even imprisoning people, confiscating their property, etc etc.
Cannabis may possess no true gateway effect. However I think the US drug war has pretty thoroughly shown there to be an evident gateway drug law effect. One law leading to newer harder laws.
And before anyone starts even thinking it, no I'm not a libertarian. And anyone who starts quoting Ayn Rand, don't.
What (s)he said. I'm not for utter "legalization". Even as a user. I'm for decriminalization and management. Use definitely carries risks, such as DUI and physiological problems associated with ingestion. Managing those risks with a decriminalization or a "sin tax" is a better recourse than jailing people.
May I point out that the "War on Drugs" is in fact a smashing success? It was never about controlling drugs or protecting people. It was, from the get-go, about establishing and expanding a justification for government to invade and scrutinize people's private lives and to attack and neutralize anyone who would appear capable of challenging them. Thus the "War on Terror" meshes seamlessly with the "War on Drugs" because it is and always has been a War on People Who We Decide One Day We Don't Like. From that perspective, it could hardly be going any better. Why in the hell would they give up their rationale for it before we become so completely inured to having naked unchecked power control our lives that we just don't notice anymore? A time which is, no doubt, not far off.
Yeah, that's a good point. It's about control, and belief systems.
If they are saying this because of the problems there are in Mexico, then bullshit. It stopped being about marijuana long ago. Cocaine, ecstasy, heroine, and countless other drugs you have not even heard of are involved. I see it and hear countless stories everyday. If you want to see even a morsel of I have seen check out blogdelnarco.com .
Well, I live in Mexico and let me tell you, its WAY worse than you can imagine. Legalization is an overly simplistic argument. Most likely, cartels will find a way to get legitimized. Criminals as businessmen.
Please, if you consume, make sure your drugs do not come from Mexico. It's not the laws, it's greed, its selfishness. Stop getting blood on your hands.
Well said.
Except history has already given us an example of what happens to violent crime associated with substance prohibition once the prohibition has been lifted: Alcohol prohibition. When's the last time you heard about one beer distributor blasting another one? Take away the insane profit margin, tax the hell out of it, and the violent criminals instantly abandon the enterprise.
Totally agree. The way the cigarette industry has been dealt with is almost identical to what you're describing. It has been hugely successful in the US in getting the consumption way down. As PartyPooper 420 said though, "legalization is an overly simplistic argument", which is true in that there are still many details to be worked out on the regulating side. This where your idea to "take away the insane profit margin, tax the hell out of it" comes into play. Not only will it get rid of the "violent criminals" but with a little more work, in the area of rehab and public awareness of the bad health affects, will also reduce consumption, which is exactly what this report recommends.
WEED MAKES YOU PARANOID...
I wonder what the author of this article thinks of this discussion. The comment section itself could be made into an article.
I have been so beiwlrdeed in the past but now it all makes sense!
Now you say something