34 ms·

Kofi Annan on Why It's Time to Legalize Drugs

• smegel 11y ago
  It really is a difficult problem. Sweden legalized heroin in the 60s and it was a disaster. On the other hand, enforcement only has a moderate impact, but comes at a huge financial and social cost. And while I don't support it, the only country with a measure of success seems to be Singapore, where you just hang anyone who has more than single dose in their possession. Maybe the grim reality is hanging a few hundred people a year would cause less social harm than letting drugs fester away at society taking how many thousands of lives a year, not to mention the countless lives destroyed by mass incarceration and the financial burden to society.
  • AndrewDucker 11y ago
    "The only country with a measure of success seems to be Singapore" So, completely discounting the massive improvements in Portugal since decriminalisation?
    • icebraining 11y ago
      While I'm very glad we did so, I have to point out that decriminalization of possession of small amounts of drugs is very far from legalization.
      • CrLf 11y ago
        Also, it didn't really fix the drug abuse problem. It did help a lot with the social consequences of abuse by removing obstacles to seek help (or provide help).
        • luso_brazilian 11y ago
          The drug abuse problem was not completely fixed but at least it shifted the principal caretaker of the problem from the security forces to the social security. In my view these were the main factors for the relative (and undeniable as per [1]) success of the Portugal approach: - Decriminalizing the use and possession without the intent to distribute (the measure that gets all the credit) - The harm reduction program [2] with measures like needle exchanges, safe rooms for drug injection (popularly known here as "salas de chuto", roughly "kick rooms"), methadone clinics - Relocation, requalification and housing programs to vacate popular drug hotspots like, for instance, Casal Ventoso (before [3], after [4]) It is interesting because in the span of one generation heroin consumption turned from "cool, rebelious and chic" (like in Kate Moss heroin chic) to a bums drug, provided by the government to the ones that lost their ways. This change in perception helped to break the cycle of graduation from light drugs (like cannabis) to hard drugs (like heroin) in the youth and most likely is a significant factor in the success of the portuguese approach. Kids won't touch the hard stuff because they can see very clearly based on who ends up in "salas de chuto" or in the methadone centers the harmful effect of the drug. [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decriminalised-drugs-14-years-ago-and-now-hardly-anyone-dies-from-overdosing-10301780.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decr... [2] http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/country-data/harm-reduction/Portugal http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/country-data/harm-reduction/Port... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7lOXcR05_E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7lOXcR05_E (graphic, drug use, in portuguese) [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqIUU80W60M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqIUU80W60M (in portuguese)
    • random_upvoter 11y ago
      Note that manufacture, import and sale of drugs is still illegal in Portugal. I find it hard to understand why so many people in the US want to switch drug policy from one extreme of the spectrum to the other. It's a rash social experiment with consequences that are hard to predict.
      • tomp 11y ago
        I don't know about the people in the US, but I can tell you why I want to completely legalize drugs. I see only benefits (less organized crime) with no downsides (I don't think drug usage will increase, as drugs are extremely easy to get even now). Note that the prices don't need to drop - the government could still tax drugs even higher than they tax alcohol and tobacco now - so there's no economical argument why the demand would increase.
      • vzcx 11y ago
        Well it's certainly not because they want to be able to order their heroin online, have it delivered next day, and mainline it in the safety of their own homes. Because they can already do that.
  • lotsofpulp 11y ago
    It's usually not a good idea to assume the parameters and dynamics of a small totalitarian island state can/will/should apply to other populations.
  • akie 11y ago
    The US incarcerated very significant percentages of its black male population under the guise of the "war on drugs" and I'm not sure if it made much of a difference. Drug use in the US is certainly not lower than in comparable countries, so I'm not sure if you could conclude that removing people from society in order to address the "drug problem" is necessarily an idea backed by solid data.
    • falsestprophet 11y ago
      This is a common misconception. Only 20% of state and federal prisoners (those serving more than a one year sentence) have drug crimes as their most serious conviction. 80% of prisoners are serving time for violent (47.7%), property (17.1%), or public order crimes (13.8%) that no one would argue are victimless. While some of the other crime is related to drugs, the point is that 80% of the prisoners in the US have grievously victimized our fellow citizens and residents and are not innocent "[people removed] from society in order to address the 'drug problem'" as the parent comment stated. Source: http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004339 http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=0...
      • oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
        Presumably, at least some proportion of that 80% is related to the legal status of drugs. E.g. robbery to support payment of inflated black-market prices, protection of production operations, etc.
    • pbhjpbhj 11y ago
      >US incarcerated very significant percentages of its black male population under the guise of the "war on drugs" // You think it was a government backed conspiracy against black males?
  • manuelflara 11y ago
    I had no idea about your Sweden claim so I looked it up. From [1] the only similar thing I can read is related to The Legal Prescription Program, which IMO is very different than "legalizing drugs (or just heroin)". Basically, they gave doctors the ability to give prescriptions to drugs such as morphine and amphetamine (without limitations, apparently) to addicts in the hopes that this would result in lower crime rates. This obviously lead to these drugs ending in users other than those participating in the program, which ended the program itself. Quite an obvious outcome IMO. This approach I think not only is flawed and very different than legalization of drugs (for everyone), but also let's be honest here, both society and our understanding of drugs and abuse in the 60s and now are very different. Maybe what wasn't possible then is possible now. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Sweden#The_Legal_Prescription_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Sweden#The_Lega...
  • rwmj 11y ago
    Singapore has a thriving methamphetamine ("ice") problem: http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Crime/Story/A1Story20130211-401468.html http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Crime/Story/A1St... http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/young-well-educated-new/1935888.html http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/young-well-edu...
  • joshontheweb 11y ago
    Even if hanging drug users is effective, it certainly isn't a conscionable solution. However, I really don't believe that would work anyway. Drug users should be left alone and drug abusers should have access to treatment.
    • vidarh 11y ago
      And of course hanging drug users is effective: You necessarily reduce demand if you're brutal enough. Want 100% effectiveness? Pre-emptively hang everyone. War on drugs won... It misses the fundamental point, which is that the goal isn't - or shouldn't be - a drug free society. But to reduce harm. Including to the drug users. Accepting that ruining drug users - addicts or not - lives doesn't reduce harm needs to be the first step, because we seem all too willing to lock them up and ensure their prospects of making a living in any other way than through crime is removed, without considering that these people are also part of the community we are supposedly trying to save from harm.
      • lisivka 11y ago
        We already know effective anti-epidemic measure: isolation of infected until they all will die. At high level of drug use, hanging of drug users is the only answer.
  • ghshephard 11y ago
    Singapore is somewhat unique in that it's a country with very restricted freedoms, which have been given up in exchange for security/safety. It's extraordinarily rule-bound, and, in many ways, is the antithesis of the United States, in which freedoms reign. In such a structured, government controlled and monitored society, all sorts of rules can be laid down, and enforced through strict punishment. I wouldn't try and use it as a model for other countries. But - hey, might be worth executing anybody who uses drugs to see what happens. But I hope you're going to start with the really destructive ones, like Alcohol and Nicotine before you start looking at the less harmful ones such as cannabis.
    • deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    • user_0001 11y ago
      >in which freedoms reign. Really? Looking beyond what is drilled in to the population from birth and the US is very rule bound in my experience compared to Europe. Whilst over there I got ticketed for parking at the wrong angle, crossing the road in the wrong place. Granted not a rule, but got questions by police for walking and many other situations I forget. Perhaps European countries have this many rules / laws but I have never experienced them being enforced
      • fapjacks 11y ago
        As a habitual rule-breaker since birth, I can confirm that the US is actually very rule-bound. In fact most rule-breaking is punished, even in places that supposedly encourage breaking the rules. And this has gotten even more so since 9/11. Want proof? Just look at the evolution of university computer networks. I've spent a lot of time in university (doing nothing mostly) and the networks are locked down compared to the atmosphere of open experimentation that was prevalent in the 90s. There are many, many examples to back the claim made by the parent. The US is not as free of a nation as everyone says.
    • anon4 11y ago
      > But I hope you're going to start with the really destructive ones, like Alcohol and Nicotine before you start looking at the less harmful ones such as cannabis. Well, to be fair, I wouldn't mind executing alcoholics and smokers. But you can have the best of both worlds - provide help and healthcare to ones who have fallen in drug use and execute the ones who can't complete rehab.
  • vidarh 11y ago
    > Sweden legalized heroin in the 60s and it was a disaster. I can't find any source for this. What I can find is information about legal prescription from '65 to '67 to a limited number of addicts, who were able to get sufficient doses that they in effect became a source of drugs for drug dealers. So they continued to have the same problem of dealers, but with substantially increased supply. Note that many countries today have legal prescription of proscribed drugs to addicts. Prescription of heroin is legal in the UK, for example (and, in fact, it is not only prescribed to addicts, but also used for post-op pain management in hospitals), without the problems Sweden ran into, because the amounts are strictly controlled. It seemed the Swedish government managed to get the worst of both worlds by continuing to fight drugs while turning themselves into a cheaper, safer source for dealers.
    • the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
      Not sure how you're claiming prescription heroin is not a problem in the UK. It is a big one.
      • tim333 11y ago
        Prescribing heroin to addicts seemed to work quite well for society http://www.badscience.net/2006/11/methadone-and-heroin/ http://www.badscience.net/2006/11/methadone-and-heroin/ Unlike our former business of selling the stuff to China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_opium_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_opium_in_China
    • deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  • coldtea 11y ago
    >And while I don't support it, the only country with a measure of success seems to be Singapore, where you just hang anyone who has more than single dose in their possession. Success being what? People not doing drugs? Who said that's what people want?
  • gerbilly 11y ago
    >the only country with a measure of success seems to be Singapore I'm sure they also hang people for chewing gum in Singapore, or whip them or whatever, doesn't mean that we should imitate them. Who wants to live in a society where people are treated like that?
• ommunist 11y ago
  Decriminalising ganja will also boost textile industry.
  • coldtea 11y ago
    Not really, since the textile plants are of different varieties of canabis, and already allowed in lots of countries.
    • ommunist 11y ago
      I actually tried to make a business plan on that in one country. To my surprise there is a huge burden of proving what exact varieties are you growing and your entire textile crops can be destroyed by police raid just out of suspicion.
• wfunction 11y ago
  Is there evidence to show that legalizing drugs (I don't mean e.g. tobacco here; I mean the far more dangerous ones) won't significantly increase their consumption? I ask because, unless there is, I'm afraid I do not understand why it would be rational to do so...
  • sergioisidoro 11y ago
    Legalisation, no, but decriminalisation, yes: Take for example Portugal: Almost 1% of the population was addicted to heroin a couple of years ago, as the country moved away form a dictatorship and found freedom (also coming from a colonial war). With decriminalisation, and by treating addicts as patients, instead of criminals, the panorama improved greatly. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-decriminalization-in-portugal-12-years-later-a-891060.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-d...
  • Yaggo 11y ago
    Far more dangerous ones, such as alcohol? Tobacco is already the 6th dangerous drug in the world. http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/whats-most-dangerous-drug-world-according-science http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/whats-most-dangerous-...
    • wfunction 11y ago
      By "dangerous" I meant in the typical, colloquial sense (e.g. more likely to kill you in a shorter amount of time or what have you)...
      • oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
        "colloquial sense" ... "or what have you" This right here is why we don't have a sensible drug policy; many, many people think like this when approaching the subject.
        • wfunction 11y ago
• iDemonix 11y ago
  Portugal seems to be doing better from decriminalising (obviously not the same as legalisation). Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decriminalised-drugs-14-years-ago-and-now-hardly-anyone-dies-from-overdosing-10301780.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decr... Source: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal-setting-record-straight http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal-... Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal
  • sergiosgc 11y ago
    I'm Portuguese, so let me give a local perspective. It is important to note that Portugal had a very low crime rate to begin with and, in comparison, drug problems smaller than the US. The experience may not translate directly. Nevertheless, decriminalization of consumption (not traffic), has allowed drug users to reach out for treatment, which led to better statistics on drug use, better approaches to treatment and an overall decrease in hard-core drug use (cocaine, meth and such). Cannabis use is up from then, but that is perhaps an observation bias (better statistics). The result of lower hard drug use is a lower crime rate. That effect is clear as water. It is now obvious that most crime had drug use as its cause. Interestingly, there was a social effect that may be hard to reproduce. Hard drugs fell out of fashion. While cannabis is widespread in youth events, hard drug use is socially shunned. Perhaps the visibility of its effects hit the population, perhaps the relative personal cost became obvious, but it is certainly uncool to be a hard drug user.
• robmcm 11y ago
  It will be interesting to see what happens when we reach a position where virtual drugs are possible, or virtual reality can be as addictive and detrimental to ones life as being addicted to chemicals. Can you ban math(s)?
  • fredley 11y ago
    In terms of banning mathematics, the UK Government is trying its hardest to outlaw strong encryption, so...
  • filoeleven 11y ago
    We have already had a virtual drug in widespread use since the 1940s: television. You can hook TV watchers up to scanners to see just how much it alters their brain patterns. Its effects aren't even subtle when it comes to their physical behavior either, it's just so culturally accepted to be "couch surfing" as to be perceived as normal. If tens of millions of people took a pill and sat basically unmoving for upwards of three hours each day, experiencing the lightshow generated by their own mind in concert with the pill, the squares would be in an uproar!
• pigpaws 11y ago
  legalize, standardize, regulate, tax, repeat. Why is this so difficult to understand?
  • hackerboos 11y ago
    Politics, dogma, corruption, racism. This is what prevents your logical conclusion.
  • lisivka 11y ago
    We have enough problems with already legalized and standardized drugs: alcohol and tobacco. It is not wise to let smokers to increase burden on society.
    • ZenoArrow 11y ago
      You don't reduce usage of drugs by criminalising them. That's what this article is all about. If you're interested in seeing the negative effects of drug use decrease, then you should be looking at other approaches other than criminalisation.
• lossolo 11y ago
  What about people that are involved in illegal drug industry after legalizing drugs? Most of them know only how to deal drugs, know only crime, they will need to find new way to make money and probably it will not be a legal one. So i don't know if it's better that someone stay on corner and sell cocaine to people that WANT cocaine, without (in most cases) hurt anyone else in the process OR make that person steal, extort etc.
  • tomp 11y ago
    The beauty of drug dealing (from a criminal's perspective) is that it's easy and profitable - there's a high demand from customers willing to spend a lot of money on drugs, and enforcement is very poor (judging from the ease end-users can buy drugs). Prostitution is very similar. So, if you legalize all businesses with which criminals easily earn a lot of money, a lot of them will be economically incentivised to start participating in legal businesses.
    • cm2187 11y ago
      And the alternative ways to make money for a self respecting criminal are getting harder every day. Cars are more difficult to steal, people use a lot less cash, you have CCTVs everywhere, now the police even collects DNA for a robbery. I can't think of an obvious substitute to drug trafficking for these criminals. I would be also ready to bet that Tinder must have made a dent in the prostitution trade! But not all drug traffickers are Tony Montanas, there are legions of petty criminals, or even workers who make money on the side dealing drugs.
      • anon4 11y ago
        They could always open a bank or become a hedge fund manager...
    • deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  • alistproducer2 11y ago
    On some level the premise of your statement is not totally incorrect. As a result of legalalized weed, It has been reported that Mexican cartels have moved to other sources of revenue such as kidnapping [1]. One of the main goals of legalization is to starve black market actors of revenue. Extortion and kidnapping don't scale nearly as well as dope; therefore they are orders of magnitude less profitable. 1.http://fusion.net/story/108575/how-mexican-drug-cartels-are-reacting-to-marijuana-legalization-in-the-u-s/ http://fusion.net/story/108575/how-mexican-drug-cartels-are-...
• Synaesthesia 11y ago
  The drug problem was studied years ago by the RAND corporation and the US Military - a pure cost-benefit analysis. They found that treatment and education are the most cost effective way to deal with the drug problem, and that prohibition was the most costly and ineffective means of dealing with it. Therefore the government understands that the war on drugs is likely to be unsuccessful, and we have to ask ourselves, why do they persist with it? A few reasons present themselves: Ideological motivations, they just don't like the drugs. The fact that if you terrify the population you can use that as means for greater political control and discipline. And the fact that Tobacco and Alcohol companies would likely suffer as a result of drug legalisation, like cannabis. Lastly the CIA has been found to be involved in the drug trade on a vast scale. This is not a conspiracy, there are many well-documented books on this. They need large sums of untraceable money for clandestine operations, and drugs are an ideal source of this. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR331.html http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR331.html Noam Chomsky on the War on Drugs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-JX0yXDlh8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-JX0yXDlh8
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  • dragonwriter 11y ago
    It absolutely is a conspiracy. I think you mean it's not an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.
  • tim333 11y ago
    Nearly all countries have some ban so I doubt full legalization is the answer. I think if you approach it to minimise harm you'd probably have varying policies depending on the drug and the situation. For example cannabis, maybe legalize and tax like cigarettes. Stuff like Heroin and Meth don't legalize private sales but let drug counsellors hand it out to addicts to kill the illegal market, prevent them being harmed by contaminated drugs and stop them breaking and nicking stuff.
    • tomp 11y ago
      > Stuff like Heroin and Meth don't legalize private sales but let drug counsellors hand it out to addicts to kill the illegal market, prevent them being harmed by contaminated drugs and stop them breaking and nicking stuff. That's the worst of both worlds. What will happen is a lot of people will become "addicts", get the drug (legally), then sell it to drug dealers to cash out. Criminals will keep their profits high, but they'll decrease their risk (because the government will be a safe and reliable supplier).
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• topsphere 11y ago
  New video on drug war by Kurzgesagt (excellent to get an overview): https://youtu.be/wJUXLqNHCaI https://youtu.be/wJUXLqNHCaI
  • collinmanderson 11y ago
    Kurzgesagt videos are the best. I found this one very helpful.
• timwaagh 11y ago
  he did not say this when he still had anything to say. he could have made a difference.
• atemerev 11y ago
  Here's what we have in Switzerland: http://www.premiereligne.ch/quai9/ http://www.premiereligne.ch/quai9/ (basically, a drug user's paradise: a "consumption space" injection rooms, clean drugs available, medical attention and reanimation in case of overdose, therapy programs and support programs with the intention to help people quit drugs without stigmatizing them and pushing them to it). It is immensely successful. Drug crime becoming nonexistent here. The number of drug users is also decreasing, as drugs are now decriminalized, uncool, readily available and coming with friendly doctors and therapists.
  • mstade 11y ago
    > The number of drug users is also decreasing, as drugs are now decriminalized, uncool, readily available and coming with friendly doctors and therapists. I wish this was the norm everywhere.
  • david-given 11y ago
    ...I was at Sechseläuten a couple of years ago --- an end-of-spring festival where the city of Zürich explodes a snowman --- and was standing behind a couple of people sharing a joint. The friend who'd taken me there was absolutely livid. He said it was the most incompetently rolled joint he'd ever seen. Truly, it is a different place here. (Although the downside is that tobacco smoking is rife and getting away from the smell at bus stops, station platforms etc can hard.)
    • atemerev 11y ago
      Tobacco smoking is unrelated to other drugs consumption. But yes, in Switzerland it is more popular than in most of the rest of Western Europe and certainly more than in California. It's becoming better, though. Smoking in bars and restaurants recently been banned — finally we can enjoy our remaining favourite drug — alcohol — without any distractions. :)
  • saiya-jin 11y ago
    Wait, you are talking maybe about heroin addicts beyond saving. But if you just want to buy some weed, you definitely must go to shady characters standing on corners of dark streets in the night, and buy overpriced at-best-mediocre-quality stuff from there (I am not racist or anything, but 100% of them in Geneva are black - that's 5 years of experience). Police guys are constantly patrolling these areas (often with dogs), dealers are super suspicious that you are an undercover cop etc. if you get caught with tiny amount (< 1g) at the border, you will face harsh fine, full body cavity inspection etc. Nah, this country is definitely not a paradise, just there are worse places.
• anon4 11y ago
  What about the fact that drugs are incompatible with the lifestyle we want our society to have? Isn't it better instead of legalizing them to find the root cause which is forcing these people to seek escapism from reality in psychoactive substances? I don't want to live in a society of drug addicts, I want to live among people of sound mind, body and spirit, who conduct themselves honestly and honourable among their peers.
  • mattlutze 11y ago
    > Isn't it better instead of legalizing them to find the root cause which is forcing these people to seek escapism from reality in psychoactive substances? Depression, anxiety, moderate mania, genetic dispositions to addiction... how do we "find" these? The unfortunately thing is, we've been trying this the world over for a century and no one is meaningfully closer. In the meantime, we're destroying families and feeding an industry worth 10's, hundreds of billions founded on illegal drug trade. Thing is, you likely already do live in a society of drug addicts. Whether discussing decriminalization or legalization, what you're allowing is those addicts to step out into the sunlight, so the society can help them reduce or end their drug usage. Remember that laws of morality are a very tricky thing, and tend usually to inadvertently oppress significant parts of a population. Allowing a society to internally act on its compassion instead of outsourcing responsibility to a law seems to have a better outcome.
  • parenthephobia 11y ago
    > What about the fact that drugs are incompatible with the lifestyle we want our society to have? Isn't it better instead of legalizing them to find the root cause which is forcing these people to seek escapism from reality in psychoactive substances? Should we be fighting all forms of escapism? Movies, books, comics, computer games? Daydreaming? If not, why are "drugs" different? Does this apply to all psychoactive substances? Tobacco? Alcohol? Chocolate? Nutmeg? > I don't want to live in a society of drug addicts, I want to live among people of sound mind, body and spirit, who conduct themselves honestly and honourable among their peers. Wouldn't we all? I do not think that eradicating drug use will bring about this this utopia, though.
• ommunist 11y ago
  In the meanwhile NASA found a planet covered with marijuana. http://newswatch28.com/nasa-discovers-new-planet-covered-with-marijuana/ http://newswatch28.com/nasa-discovers-new-planet-covered-wit... Can these two agencies be in cahoots?
  • StavrosK 11y ago
    That article is obviously fake, yet too unfunny to be a joke. Ouch.
• cubano 11y ago
  I've always thought that, in the US, that States could provide a perfect market testing platform for various social ideas. You don't want abortion? Make Kansas, say, a no abortion state. Legalized drugs? Head your head to Colorado. Socialism? Sure New Hampshire is almost there already anyway. Well, you get the point. It's been proven that actual markets almost always work as well if not better than diktat, so these "experiments" could be monitored and all the rest. I mean, why not give something totally new a try? What we have now is killing people and ruining their lives as I personally live through its failings everyday.
  • hackerboos 11y ago
    The US works well because it's united at the federal level. What you are suggesting would only work if that level didn't exist.
    • cubano 11y ago
      The US works well for many reasons...being united at the federal level is only one small part of it. Look of course I am aware of legal issues and all that, but doesn't make sense to enact such sweeping legislation as legalizing drugs or socialism on a small scale first before going national?
    • existencebox 11y ago
      This is a funny statement to me, since the initial federalization was supposed to exist without predisposing a much greater exercise in states rights than what we see today. (far fewer constraints on state law from federal) I'd adjust your statement: "What you are suggesting would only work if the level (of federal power we have NOW) didn't exist" That all being said, I'm not even sure my full level of pessimism is merited; certain states had been independently experimenting with e.g. health care reform 10+ years ago which ended up forming the basis for the ACA. This sort of state based trial seems like it s exactly what the parent was suggesting, and what was alluded to in Brandeis's famous "Laboratories of democracy" quote that seems very apt to this discussion.
      • 11y ago
• skyhatch1 11y ago
  We were taught both sides of the story in our "drug diversion impact on public health" classes. Decriminalisation opens opportunities up to reduce harm to the public through reduced drug-related crimes, safer injecting (of the hard stuff) and less blood-borne viruses spreading. Australia has its own version of decriminalization known as the "harm minimisation policy". While all drug-related activities are illegal there, the judicial and healthcare systems are not so black and white about enforcing the laws. Nonetheless, the other hand always wants its share. In the case of Australia, harm minimisation has reduced drug-related crimes, but the prevalence of drug use in the general population continues to rise, especially with regard to pills and amphetamines. Blood borne viruses are also on the rise, despite the ubiquity of safe injecting rooms in every major city and availability of "sharps kits" in every retail pharmacy. Interestingly, the conservative party temporarily swayed from this stance and implemented a "tough on drugs" policy for part of the 90s[1]. It was dubbed to the wider public as a "harm prevention" measure i.e. protecting those yet to experiment with drugs and the wider community that didn't use illicit drugs regularly. There was a significant reduction in every measure: drug use, drug crime and spread of blood-borne viruses. This policy did not cut safe injecting and drug use services, but increased police activity and ephemeral "say no to drugs" cut-through education programs. The policy was reversed in the early 2000s. [1] https://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2016/Contributions/Civil/Dalgarno/30Years_of_HarmMinimisation_FinalUNGASS.pdf https://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2016/Contributions/Civ...
• oh_sigh 11y ago
  I love how all these world leaders always come out for drug legalization after they are out of power. Great timing.
  • hackerboos 11y ago
    Actually the UN thinks this already but politics got in the way of a statement being released: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11940643/United-Nations-denies-global-drug-decriminalisation-claim-by-Sir-Richard-Branson.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11940643/United...
• jernfrost 11y ago
  One thing I am surprised by is that it is almost never mentioned how China became drug free after Britain made China into the biggest dope user through the Opium wars. They virtually got rid of opium usage in a relatively short time, and they did it without any sort of war on drugs approach. They certainly fought the drug usage but they did not imprison or blame drug users. Rather than told abusers they were victims who needed help. They were given education to cope with addiction, jobs etc. Even drug dealers were, except the worst ones who were imprisoned. It might have helped the narrative that they could blame Britain as the evil doer. While not the same as legalization it does have some resemblance to the Portuguese approach where the focus is on helping people taken for abuse rather than punishing or imprisoning.
  • adrianm 11y ago
    China is virtually drug free? In that case, Wikipedia could use your help cleaning up this and many related articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drug_trade_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drug_trade_in_China Don't forget to cite your sources! They're sticklers about that sort of thing.
    • jernfrost 11y ago
      > how China became drug free after Britain made China into the biggest dope user through the Opium wars. I referring to the period following the opium ban. I believe this was the 50s, not the present day. We are also comparing to an insanely high level were the claims was that 90% of inhabitants of certain provinces were users.
      • alvarosm 11y ago
        If you're referring to the 1850s that's simply false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_opium_in_China#/media/File:Opium_imports_into_China_1650-1880_EN.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_opium_in_China#/med... If you're referring to the decades since the 1950s, under a communist regime the Chinese obviously had better things to worry about (like surviving, finding a meal or looking commie enough not to be singled out by their own children and 're-educated' in some hellish camp).
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• marleybob 11y ago
  Pero que bueno es fumar una rica flor y programar en Python // :)
• bunkydoo 11y ago
  I think if drugs themselves were legalized, non-violent drug offenders pardoned, and then former drug trafficking cartels treated legally as terrorist organizations - we would get somewhere. I really have no problem tight packing prisons if it's full of violent thugs. The only problem is how this could potentially affect the second amendment - because the war on drugs would no longer be on unarmed drug users, it would be solely on violence. Using an umbrella term like terrorism to encompass the actions of cartel gang members could potentially lead to further racial divides. It's tough. But legalize pot please, ha!
  • jernfrost 11y ago
    Treating terrorist organizations like terrorist organizations hasn't really helped either. The war on terror, is just as failed as the war on drugs. Basically the hard nosed simple approaches never work. You got to look and underlying causes and deal with those. But that is too intricate so people don't want to listen to such solutions. Problem with tight packing is that lots of the criminals wont be violent but will become in these prisons, and those who are violent will become even more so. Unless you plan building prisons only for life sentences these people will come out of prison more violent and messed up than ever. That hardly a receipt for a more peaceful society. As long as people are going to get out at some point, you can't ignore what happens to them while they are incarcerated.
• talles 11y ago
  > By contrast, there has been a near tripling of American deaths from heroin overdoses between 2010 and 2013, even though the law and its severe punishments remain unchanged. But why heroin usage has raised? I have read an (very convincing) argument that heroin usage is increasing due to the marijuana legalization. And no, it's not the typical "marijuana is a door the heavier drugs" thing, is merely supply and demand effect on the streets. Street dealers don't really sell weed as they used to now that better and legal weed exist, so they went on heroin. Heroin got a lot cheaper and widely available due to it (Unfortunately, I lost the article link). I'm not arguing in favor or against legalization (I'm in favor all the way), my complain is how one folded the debate is. Numbers are great and they are definitely needed, but they may trick you into thinking that everything has a simple cause and effect when reality is much more complicated. One striking example how lazy is legislation is the case of safer chemicals such as LSD or MDMA versus designer drugs such as 25i (nbomb). In some places such designer drugs are even legal (bath salts anyone?) due to how slow or careless the legislation is. As for LSD it's a long time in prison. The dealers are coerced to sell more dangerous substances.
  • iolothebard 11y ago
    Making Oxycontin harder to get is why. Also people trying to get clean, then going back to doing their "old" dose.
    • Tenhundfeld 11y ago
      Yes, exactly, on both points. According to the CDC, opioid painkillers addicts are 40 times more likely to be addicted to heroin than general population. “Most heroin users have a history of nonmedical use of prescription opioid pain relievers, and an increase in the rate of heroin overdose deaths has occurred concurrently with an epidemic of prescription opioid overdoses." I can't say opioid painkillers are the only reason, but the experts seem to agree they're, at least, a major contributing factor. I was listening to a social worker discuss the problem recently. His experience was that most new heroin addicts started on opioid painkillers, often with legitimate prescriptions, and weren't hard drug users previously. When their doctor refused to prescribe more painkillers (or the pills they were stealing from mom ran out, etc.), they turned to the black market, where it's much easier to obtain heroin than painkillers. He estimated 90% of his cases fit this pattern of prescription drugs being the gateway to heroin. This same guy also discussed how a lot of overdoses he saw were from recovered heroin addicts that relapsed after being prescribed an opioid painkiller for a legitimate need, e.g., after an injury. As you say, they went back to their "old dose," without realizing a) their tolerance was lower and b) black market heroin is typically much better quality and a wider range of qualities these days. In the 80's (and 90's I think) heroin was usually <10% pure (i.e., 90% filler/other), but heroin on the streets today is often around 30% but sometimes as high as 70%. I don't remember the exact numbers, something close to that. He said you could tell when a super pure batch of heroin came through town, because overdoses would spike. Another factor I've read, can't remember where, is that the higher quality heroin has made snorting it more feasible. So, that reduces some of the stigma/ickiness associated with needles, trackmarks, etc., increasing the pool of people who'll try it. And it can be easier to overdose via snorting, because it takes several minutes to feel the full effects, unlike injecting.
• iolothebard 11y ago
  Lots of money in law enforcement, prisons, etc. Just like getting simple tax code, lots of accountants/lawyers, etc.
• pdkl95 11y ago
  The best argument I know for legalizing drugs is the market argument. As long as demand exist (obvious, or nobody would care), supply will rise to meet it. Law enforcement tactics that see rising drug prices as a sign of success only make the market more profitable. While many people engage in the popular delusion that people stop an activity when you pass laws banning, it's patently obvious that banning drugs is about as successful de facto as banning abortions. This means the real question isn't about the existence of a market for drugs. Instead, laws that affect the market for drugs are about who is allowed to be the "supply" side of the equation. Obviously, some type of regulated market would be recommended if we want to have any amount of control over the market. Instead, we pass laws that ban legitimate businesses from entering this market, which is by definition a choice to turn the drug market over to criminals. By definition. I suggest that choosing to give organized crime and violent gangs the profits from this high-value market. Usually, this is when prohibitionists claim that they can force the market to not exist by giving the supply side even more profit with ever stricter enforcement.
  • ThrustVectoring 11y ago
    And when the market is more profitable, it becomes more worth your while to engage in violent crime in order to further your drug-dealing interests. Fast food franchises generally don't engage in turf wars, and that's because fast food is a low-margin business. If dealing drugs becomes similarly low-margin, I suspect that will deal with a lot of drug-related violence.
• gohrt 11y ago
  nitpick but important: it's time to decriminalize, not legalize. The distinction is that we need to maintain a government force to compel the non-use of drugs that cause public harm. We need to make drug-use punishable, on the level of littering, trespass, vandalism, and disturbing the peace. We need to be able to confine people who lose control of themselves and cause public harm when they are high, or in service of their high, but that confinement should be treatment oriented, not punishment oriented.
  • dragonwriter 11y ago
    > The distinction is that we need to maintain a government force to compel the non-use of drugs that cause public harm. We need to make drug-use punishable, on the level of littering, trespass, vandalism, and disturbing the peace. All of those except littering are generally nontrivial crimes (misdemeanors or felonies, not infractions), so making drug use punishable "on the level of" those is not only not legalization, its also not decriminalization. (Actually, since drug use isn't generally criminal now -- possession, which is usually a prerequisite to use, is -- it would just be plain criminalization of drug use.)
• kazinator 11y ago
  One problem is that some people's careers in law enforcement are built on the "war on drugs". They need drugs to be illegal in order to justify the existence of their jobs and the meaning of their entire working lives so far.
• frogpelt 11y ago
  Forget questions of legality. Stop and ask this question: Why do we as a society need more and more and MORE mind-altering substances to cope with life? Seriously. Is society headed in the right direction if almost everyone needs some type of external chemical influence just to get through the week? I already have an answer.
  • droffel 11y ago
    > Stop and ask this question: Why do we as a society need more and more and MORE mind-altering substances to cope with life? Citation needed. > Is society headed in the right direction if almost everyone needs some type of external chemical influence just to get through the week? Who are you to decide what the "right direction" is, for anyone but yourself? Right vs Wrong is a moral judgement, not a legal one. No one should have the right to tell me what I (or anyone else) can put into my body. On a similar note, I think assisted suicide should be legal as well, but that's a discussion for another day.
    • frogpelt 11y ago
      Believe me. People everywhere who think just like you have decided what the right direction is.
  • RIMR 11y ago
    Answer me this: Have you ever consumed an alcoholic beverage? Have you ever consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication? Well, if you answered yes, then you used a mind-altering substance / external chemical influence for your personal enjoyment. Don't you deserve jail for this? I mean, shouldn't you have been able resist the urge to intoxicate yourself, and instead pushed yourself in the "right direction" of sobriety? Since you failed at this, we might as well throw the book at you for it, right? Alternately, if you answered "no" to my above question(s), then you're a liar and you can see yourself out.
    • frogpelt 11y ago
      How nice of you to be so presumptuous.
• guaranteedppc 11y ago
  Portugal did it and usage went down...
• transfire 11y ago
  No one loves freedom anymore.
• harel 11y ago
  ALL drugs should be legal. At least in the sense that using is not a criminal offence. Once drugs are legalised, regulated, quality assured by the government, and of course taxed, a large proportion of crime will be eradicated. Why would I buy illegal dirty drugs when I can buy the cleaner official versions?
• volune 11y ago
  It's cowardly to display these opinions after you have left office. When he had any kind of power to do anything, he toed the line.
• vithlani 11y ago
  This idiot was responsible for the Rwandan massacre, he let it happen while sitting on the side and whistling away merrily. He should be indicted for that before any of his infantile opinions do more harm. A year later, in January 1994, he received an urgent cable from Roméo Dallaire, the Canadian lieutenant general in charge of the UN force in Rwanda, warning him of the impending slaughter of the Tutsi population, and explaining that he planned to intervene by raiding Hutu arms caches. Not only did Annan refuse to allow any measures to be taken to stop the unleashing of genocide, he ensured that the fax informing him of what was in store did not reach the Security Council. Some eight hundred thousand Tutsi died in the ensuing massacre. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n09/perry-anderson/our-man http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n09/perry-anderson/our-man
• mjw_byrne 11y ago
  There's a strong parallel between drug policy and sex education policy. If you acknowledge that sex is a thing people are simply going to do and you give them the information they need to do it safely and throw in a free condom or two, STDs and unwanted pregnancies are kept under good control. If your policy is "you don't need education and condoms if you just don't do it!" then STDs and unwanted pregnancies soar. In the case of drugs, it is clear that people will use them regardless. So the question for policymakers can't be "how do we stop people using drugs?", it has to be "given that people will use drugs, how do we minimise the harm caused?" The other interesting parallel is ashtrays in aeroplane toilets. Supposedly they're there because sometimes, despite the warnings and no-smoking signs, people light up in the loo anyway. It's better for them to have an ashtray to put the cigarette out in than to try to improvise and possibly start a fire. In a situation where a planeload of passenger's lives could be at stake, there's no room for moral grandstanding - they've done the pragmatic thing and realised that when total prohibition cannot be enforced, you simply do what you can to minimise the damage.
  • conceit 11y ago
    > how do we minimise the harm caused?" I know one: we advertise drugs in movies and on billboards and put a liquor store on every other street corner, Oughta show'em.