20 ms·

Time to end the war on drugs

905 points by DanielRibeiro 15y ago

swombat 15y ago
Even coming from a respectable industry leader like Richard Branson, this will almost certainly be ignored. Here's an interesting question: what would end the war on drugs? Is it something that can be made to happen by sane, enterprising individuals?
- electromagnetic 15y ago
  Get a company like Monsanto interested in the commercial cultivation of marijuana and it'll be legal within the day.
  - swombat 15y ago
    1) This is not something that "sane, enterprising individuals" can reasonably achieve. 2) Silver bullet solutions? Yeah, I believe in them. And Santa, too.
    - tomjen3 15y ago
      Swombat you have a brand here -- don't throw it away with low quality comments. It is not very difficult to convince Monsanto if they can make more money in some other way -- it may not be something that can be solved by gcc, but when has raw computer programming talent ever been the deciding factor for a computer programmer?
      - swombat 15y ago
        I don't see it as a low quality comment. If it's not very difficult to convince Monsanto of this, then please do it right away, if it has the benefit of ending the war on drugs. If you can't be bothered to do it yourself, then pray tell us the 5 easy steps to convincing Monsanto to start exploiting Marijuana and therefore decriminalise all drugs. Unless you think, as I do, that the above is a fantasy and has no practical value as a line of action.
        asto 15y ago
        There is a big downside to getting it done by companies like Monsanto (or tobacco companies as mentioned in another thread below) - Insane public opposition. Drugs and their users are already perceived to be "morally bad". Club them with a company that people don't like for similar reasons and you have a solution that will never see the light of day.
  - zotz 15y ago
    Companies such as Monsanto and DuPont (not to mention a host of others) are among the ones that were glad to see hemp made illegal back in the 1930's. Any hemp-based economy is a threat to centralized industrial concerns. With the invention of the hemp decorticator in the 1910's (the cotton gin of hemp) by George Schlichten, hemp's potential as an industrial crop to replace petroleum was unlocked. Large, centralized industries have no interest in seeing their monopoly threatened. Remember, hemp is illegal, not just marijuana.
    - gcv 15y ago
      > hemp's potential as an industrial crop to replace petroleum was unlocked. Could you clarify this statement? Are you saying hemp can be efficiently used as a fuel?
      - heynk 15y ago
        You can easily dig around for more sources, but I've attached the wiki link, which has some information about fuel usage and many other uses. From what I can remember it's about as viable as biofuels from corn (maybe a bit better) but still not really production quality. Hemp's biggest advantage is the strength of it's fibers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp
      - asto 15y ago
        Hemp as fuel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp#Fuel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp#Fuel
      - zotz 15y ago
        Anything that can be made from a hydrocarbon can be made from a carbohydrate. If hemp got the same subsidies, protections and considerations from the government that petroleum does, I suspect it would be cheaper than petroleum in the long run. Popular Mechanics was touting hemp in 1938: http://www.globalhemp.com/1938/02/new-billion-dollar-crop.html http://www.globalhemp.com/1938/02/new-billion-dollar-crop.ht...
  - rst 15y ago
    Even now in the US, moneyed interests don't necessarily get everything they want --- AT&T couldn't push through the T-mobile merger, to cite a much less controversial example. In this case, there would be money on both sides. The drug war itself is a massive industry at this point --- look at the power of prison guards in California. There are also a whole lot of politicians with a massive ego stake in the existing set of laws. And Monsanto, the tobacco companies, and agribusiness all have much easier and less stressful ways to preserve profits by lobbying. (Maintaining agricultural subsidies, for the first two, for starters.) So, don't expect this to happen really soon.
- torrenegra 15y ago
  Let major tobacco companies expect that if drugs were legalized, they could expand their business. They may start lobbing in favor of legalization right away.
  - swombat 15y ago
    That's just wishful thinking, though. What can sane, enterprising people do?
    - seagreen 15y ago
      Ignore politics and start in the media and academia. Then pour decades of propaganda down on the issue and eventually your opponents will give way. This strategy takes a long time, but there's empirical evidence that it actually works.
- geden 15y ago
  It's simply a matter of education, access to knowledge. It's a slow process. Organised religion fizzled away when faced with widespread access to the facts (though two world wars surely helped).
  - swombat 15y ago
    Portugal is hardly the beacon of education and knowledge of the world, and yet they managed it. This is not a solution, it's giving up and saying "let's wait for it to happen by itself".
    - geden 15y ago
      Exactly how is educating people and giving them facts "giving up"? Equipping people to make rational decisions based on evidence and giving them the confidence to make changes - that's a slow process. There seems to be a trend for humans becoming brighter and more socially connected. (See Pinker's decline of violence work.) I'm making the assumption that those trends will also stamp out boneheadedness with regards to prohibition.
  - gnaritas 15y ago
    > Organised religion fizzled away when faced with widespread access to the facts Where? That's certainly not the case in America; access to facts does nothing more than make believers even more devout.
    - geden 15y ago
      In the minds of the educated middle class.
      - gnaritas 15y ago
        Who are vastly vastly outnumbered. If facts changed minds, religion wouldn't exist.
        15y ago
- heynk 15y ago
  A lot of the biggest opposition to pot legalization measures is the pharma industry (#1 lobbyers in the US, in terms of money spent). In many ways marijuana is a better alternative than prescription pills for pain and other medical treatment.
- thompo 15y ago
  Here in Denver, we have medicinal marijuana dispensaries literally all over town. Off the top of my head, I can think of dispensaries that share parking lots with typical brick and mortar stores like Pet Smart, Target, etc. There are also a few right in the middle of downtown Denver. They're even starting to employ sign spinners that stand outside and wave a cardboard sign for $8 an hour that says "$35 8ths", etc. Aside from the occasional completely irrational commenter on DenverPost.com, most folks around here just don't give two shits about these dispensaries. Crime rates at these shops (as well as their warehouses where they grow their product) are lower than that of banks and pharmacies. Their security and ID-checking measures are all taken very seriously, you simply never hear about them letting in underage kids or folks without medicinal permits. All of the irrational fears of "dispensaries ruining neighborhoods" or "dispensaries selling marijuana to underage kids" simply have not materialized. In regards to your question - most of these shops are owned by "sane, enterprising individuals" and not creepy street dealers. The culture of marijuana around here is NOTHING like it was back in the midwest. There is no paranoia, fear, or any of those weird dynamics that surround marijuana in non medicinal states -- people simply don't care. Smoke it if you want, get a medicinal card if you need it, but just keep it to yourself and there will be no problems. THIS is how we defeat the war on drugs. There are people that will say medicinal marijuana laws are just a backdoor effort for full legalization .... and they're right. With decades of brainwashing from our very own government, it's going to take time and patience to change public opinion of marijuana. The best way to do this is to regulate the production and distribution of this plant (Colorado has some of the most progressive and proactive medicinal laws in the country, much more than even California) and to slowly expose the general population to it. Ending the war on drugs isn't going to happen over night but we are certainly beginning to move in the right direction.
TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
One has to remember that Portugal did not completely legalize drugs. Possession of small amounts and usage were legalized. Dealing is still a big crime there, due to the citizens of Portugal not wanting to be akin the worlds drug den. The different viewpoint of legalizing usage was that it is a medical problem, and not a evil crime. Even that said, Portugal also made their problems less severe by bringing them out in the open instead of draconian punishments forcing users to hide. The biggest hurdle for Portugal's idea to work in the USA is that we do not have any sort of socialized or national healthcare in which to attach a "fund substance abuse as medical problem" freely as Portugal does already. I can imagine that issue alone taking 10+ years in Congress, if any action is done at all. Note: iPod farted earlier leading only posting the first character of this post: "O".
- swombat 15y ago
  Hey, sorry I downvoted you when the post was just "O". The lack of a socialised healthcare system is actually a boon in this case, since the state is basically getting rid of a large cost (funding the police work on the war on drugs) without creating another cost (since patients then have to pay for themselves). Isn't it?
  - throwaway88 15y ago
    The US has so many problems - high gun ownership, no socialized health care, still has corporal punishment, etc etc. Not sure legalizing drugs would be a good idea until some of the other problems are addressed first. How can we get Americans to put their guns away?
  - TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
    I'm not sure. What I do know is that from reading many stories about the "War on Drugs" that many dubious laws and judgments were made to separate people from their property and/or their livelihood. We would also have a sizable chunk of the DEA disbanded (we wouldn't need them). We can add that to reduction of police forces around the US. Where I am unsure is how the dependency of money works within the state system of the drug trade. I have a sinking feeling that there is probably the same amount or money moving around in the "War on Drugs" as there is in the drug trade in the US. My question then is, "What happens if we try to manipulate or disband this system?" ObAside: I've seen this specific iPod bug before. When I click on an edit window, it will flash the keyboard up then down. And any sort of button click on the page submits the form. The only way I've seen to 'fix' it is to close and open the offending tab.
swah 15y ago
I don't understand how a world where making/selling something is a crime but consuming is not could work.
- TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
  The idea has very much to do with different viewpoints. Portugal wanted to remove punishments from drug users because they viewed it as a medical problem. However Portugal did not want to make a full legalization for then you end up with drug dens, the situation you try to avoid. The only logical solution is to legalize usage and small possesion as a medical excuse. Then you ban larger possession and dealing.
- dvanduzer 15y ago
  Guns/suicide.
- darklajid 15y ago
  As far as I'm informed (read: I cannot back this up with legalese), this is the case in Germany as well, albeit limited to soft stuff/marijuana: - You are not allowed to buy it - You are not allowed to sell it - You can have a small amount of it in your possession, "for personal use" (declared as a maximum amount per substance, so that 'users' aren't in the same category as 'dealers' here)
  - justincormack 15y ago
    Also Italy, not only for soft drugs. Europe is very liberal on drugs compared to US or Asia generally.
  - l0tics 15y ago
    I hope people realize that what Portugal is doing only puts all drugs in a similar legal category to alcohol during its "prohibition" in the United States. This solves none of the supply side issues and their current laws are surely still contributing to a miserable and violent black market. What we have instead here in the United States (and attempt to force onto other countries) is a view that all use is abuse, regardless of any reasoning, even medicinal use. We can't even grow it for research or non-drug uses because of federal agencies that want to continue this for as long as possible. Today I can buy marijuana at retail stores here in Michigan. There is no violence associated with buying it from people who just grew it in their house and brought it there to sell to me.
jcfrei 15y ago
the fact that the US (and many other countries) still pursue a war on drugs is to me a display of a fundamental flaw in politics. even though every sane person has to acknowledge that legalizing drugs in part is more effective than enforcing more rigid controls, only very few politicians would support such a motion. mostly because they become victim to a more conservative rhetoric and thus will be less likely reelected.
- catzaa 15y ago
  > even though every sane person has to acknowledge that legalizing drugs in part is more effective than enforcing more rigid controls, No it is not. Two examples of this are Singapore, Taiwan and Japan. In both these countries there are zero tolerance for drug users and drug traffickers and the results show. Smoking Marijuana almost teenagers in Japan is basically unheard of. It seems that laws in the USA and Europe are not strict enough to act as a deterrence. If many of these countries adopted the death penalty or similar penalties for trafficking, then perhaps something could be done about it. (Singapore executes drug traffickers. I don't know what legal punishments there are for traffickers in Japan, but I know the social punishments are severe. A family will often cut contact with a relative if he is sentenced for a minor crime. Sports stars, tenured professors and celebrities will loose their jobs if they had a criminal offence even for something completely unrelated to their career. Quite different from the attention that washed out American celebrities get.)
  - njs12345 15y ago
    Anecdotally, speaking as someone who knows a number of young people from Singapore, they certainly smoke weed just as much (perhaps even more) than people I know from the UK. Have you considered that perhaps a zero tolerance approach just drives use further underground? I doubt the official figures are accurate, and it's probably not sensible to compare an authoritarian dictatorship with liberal Western democracy. Japan just has a low crime rate across the board, largely for the reason you mentioned. Again, this probably isn't helpful - inducing a general respect for the law into a society is a difficult proposition, or every nation in the world would be doing just that.
  - 15y ago
tokenadult 15y ago
A friend shared this link on Facebook, and I read through the article. I was very interested to note that Richard Branson bases much of his argument on the reduction in drug use in Portugal since the policy change decriminalizing possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use and referring users to medical treatment. Is this the societal consensus in other countries? Are most advocates of ending "the war on drugs" trying to achieve reduced use? Is the worldwide experience (Branson also refers to the Netherlands and to the European Union generally) that fewer criminal penalties for drug use results in consistently lower overall use in the general population? How many drug legalization campaigns around the world make this the major point of the campaign, to reduce use of the drugs that are now illegal?
- JanezStupar 15y ago
  I believe that it is pretty common and the leading argument. True motive may be way different, but the convenient fact is that the stated goals of proponents of war on drugs are more efficiently achieved by decriminalization. To my knowledge pretty much all of the fears that are voiced in opposition to decriminalization have been shown to be unfounded in practice.
- radicalbyte 15y ago
  The problem is that we're going the other way in The Netherlands right now. The red light district is being slowly dismantled [1], new draconian laws are being introduced to shut the coffee shops down (with a Think Of The Children argument) [2] and foreigners are being banned from using coffee shops [3]. I blame the ageing population: the "boomers" [4] have had their fun, but they're getting older now and young people getting high only "disturbs" the peace. They're the biggest voting block, so they get their way (yet again). So yeah, I don't see the Western world changing any time soon. [1] http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-15/netherlands-stops-tourists-buying-marijuana-in-coffee-shops.html http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-15/netherlands-stop... [2] (sorry I couldn't find an English language version) http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/onderwijs/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2011/2011-3458-wm.htm http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/onderwijs/publicaties/ar... [3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/8961513/Amsterdam-an-end-to-the-red-light-district.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/8961513/Amsterd... [4] They've even got their own party: http://50pluspartij.nl/ http://50pluspartij.nl/
johntyree 15y ago
This is literally copy-paste from Time magazine 2009. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.ht... Excellent work, Dick.
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  Uh, you might want to look up the word "literally". I don't even find them terribly similar.
  - mekoka 15y ago
    Actually, the part where he details the stats is practically verbatim. There are some nuances between both articles, but he could have provided a link to his sources. It always helps to learn more. Edit: After completing the Times article and rereading R. Branson's, I can confirm that the general flow is the same. In some parts, he only just paraphrases or summarizes, but the information is really the same.
    - easy_rider 15y ago
      I can actually see quite distinct similarities in the general flow of the article i.e. the sequence of subjects he touches.
  - damoncali 15y ago
    Parts are word for word identical. In school, this would be rightly be called plagiarism and probably get you in a lot of trouble. Not the point here, obviously, but sloppy nonetheless.
    - drivebyacct2 15y ago
      I clearly didn't read close enough, there are absolutely full sentences lifted from the referenced article. I would never be caught dead doing something so silly, certainly not in such a public and (seemingly) outspoken capacity.
tete 15y ago
Another thing that will at least take a very long time to finally happen. I don't take drugs, not even legal ones, but it's logical. Most people seem to start taking drugs, because others do it and simply because it's cool or rebellious (in fact I smoked for a while in my childhood because of that). I think most people wouldn't start and get hooked, if it was legal. To most people it's ugly the first time anyways. Hmm, when making things illegal leads to consumption then we should maybe make vegetables and stuff illegal. :D
torrenegra 15y ago
The Colombian president, Juan Manuel Santos (also an entrepreneur), recently called for the legalization of many drugs, including cocaine: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/13/colombia-juan-santos-call-to-legalise-drugs http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/13/colombia-juan-sa... I'm a NYC-based, Colombian entrepreneur. My step-brother died piloting a Black Hawk helicopter in Colombia that crashed while executing an anti-narcotics operation. The helicopter was "donated" by the US as part of "Plan Colombia" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia ). Plan Colombia is a periodic subsidy sent by the US to Colombia to help with the war on drugs. The program is lobbied in part by Sikorsky and Monsanto. The subsidy includes some cash, but it also comes in the form of helicopters (built by Sikorsky), glyphosate (banned in the US but used in Colombia to destroy coca plantations), and weapons. You can say that the "war on drugs" allowed my brother to realize his dream (flying a helicopter), but it also killed him. I may be emotionally charged with the topic and may not exercise good reason about it, but I've seen enough to realize that the "war on drugs" is just a big mess that won't be won, no matter what.
- beardicus 15y ago
  Glyphosate == Roundup(TM). This is the most used herbicide in the US... certainly not banned. Regardless, I agree with your conclusion.
  - zotz 15y ago
    Slightly OT, but hemp itself used to be used as an herbicide: http://hogwaller.net/hemp.html http://hogwaller.net/hemp.html
  - torrenegra 15y ago
    Thank you for the correction! You are right. I was thinking about the act of "aerial-spraying of drug producing crops". For Wikipedia: "In many cases the spraying is carried out by American contractors, such as DynCorp, using planes and helicopters to spray Roundup on coca plantations. Aerial spraying has been repeatedly condemned by human rights and environmental activists because of its affect on human populations and local soil and water systems. In December 2000, Dutch journalist Marjon van Royen found that "because the chemical is sprayed in Colombia from planes on inhabited areas, there have been consistent health complaints [in humans]. Burning eyes, dizziness and respiratory problems being most frequently reported."
TobiasCassell 15y ago
If drugs are legalized the United States will be forced to dream up and create other reasons to keep its military outposts in hundreds of countries. This is why we maintain a war on drugs. A war that is impossible to win. The United States will never legalize drugs. PS I'm with richard Branson, but he is being naive or he is not mentioning these elements on purpose as a strategy. Edit; Forgot to mention the United States Prison-Industrial Complex- that is even more anti-legalize momentum that would have to be addressed.
- melling 15y ago
  What you are saying is absurd and it doesn't help. At this point, I think many people believe the "war on drugs" is a wasted effort. The best way to make this case would be to show how the American consumer is destroying lives in other countries. Americans trying to have a good time are indirectly killing innocent people in order to get the products they desire into their hands.
  - tankenmate 15y ago
    How that idea is going to get through to someone who is somatically and / or psychologically addicted to drugs is a little difficult to comprehend. In the same vein of people will fix themselves of drug addiction is a mostly useless statement. People get into this situation either involuntarily or voluntarily, but few get out just by platitudes or sheer will power. Most people who put drug addiction behind them need a cast of people and tools to help, there is no quick fix. To be effective for anyone but the rich help needs to be available free at the point of provision. The money saved from reduction in direct and indirect crime and the increase in production will pay for the service. In most cases families see the value in reforming a drug addicted family member, why shouldn't the state? This is an effective method and motivation to solve the problem; you can reduce the demand of all of the people some of the time, you can reduce the demand of some of the people all of the time, but you can't reduce the demand of all the people all of the time; hence trying to eliminate demand is a non option to fixing the problem.
subwindow 15y ago
There seems to be a lot of confusion on this thread about exactly what Portugal did, and the ramifications for the U.S. in terms of time-frame and difficulty. What Portugal did was decriminalize the possession of small amounts of drugs. They did not legalize them. There is a huge difference. Decriminalization essentially means that possession of small amounts of drugs is no longer an offense that warrants an arrest and jail time. In a decriminalized system an officer can still stop someone for drugs, but they can only write them a ticket- similar to speeding, jaywalking or illegal parking. This makes a huge difference for a number of reasons. First, it's easier to implement politically because the substances are still illegal. Second, it's less costly because people caught with small amounts are not caught up in the justice system for years, and only pay a small fine. Third, it decreases the adversarial nature of the "war on drugs" because being caught with drugs is no longer a life-changing event. Marijuana possession is already decriminalized in many states in the U.S. (California, Colorado, New York and Oregon off the top of my head). It is clearly not an impossibility to implement politically, and in fact the trend in the U.S. is already on its way. An important hurdle is that we do not have any states that have yet decriminalized "harder" drugs like heroin and cocaine, but it is simply a matter of time. Pressure on lawmakers in the form of education, money and votes will in fact work. It just takes time.
- chimeracoder 15y ago
  > California, Colorado, New York and Oregon off the top of my head All decriminalization is not alike. In New York, for example, decriminalization is in in name only, because police can easily exploit a loophole that allows them to charge people with possession of more than an ounce (criminal) even if they only have a few grams (not criminal). Because of this, New York City arrests more people (per-capita and in total) than any other city in the entire world. Compare to the Netherlands, which also has 'only' decriminalized marijuana.
  - Enthusiastic 15y ago
    In New York, the police will do a stop and frisk, tell people to empty their pockets, and then charge people with displaying the drug in public when they obey the order to empty their pockets. Is this the loophole you mean? Or is your loophole a different one?
DanielBMarkham 15y ago
Great article. I would like to further suggest we end the use of the word "war" in contexts that do not involve mandatory conscription and the deaths of large numbers of combatants until one side totally surrenders. (This implies there is a "side" to be able to surrender.) Politicians have so destroyed the word "war" that it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion about any use of violence by the state. Perhaps that was the goal. Don't know. Drug use is a health-related issue, whether it is a doctor prescribing medications, a patient taking meds off-label, a person self-medicating, an addict, or some kind experimentation. All of these situations are much more personal health concerns than public safety concerns. Yes, addiction is a terrible tragedy and sometimes danger for the rest of us -- but it's a personal disaster a long time before it affects any of us. I'd argue that in the aggregate most addicts suffer a lot more personally than any damage they inflict on society. We have a caricatured view of the drug addict -- the unwashed, illiterate, toothless junkie hiding out in a crack house. Yes, addiction ends up that way for some, but by and large addicts are middle-class, educated, and live in houses with their friends or families. Hollywood and moralists have done us a great disservice by putting these horrible outlier pictures in people's heads when they think of drug use. Take for instance the word "addict", which like the word "war" is such a broad term that it doesn't have much meaning on it's own without further clarification. One side wants you to believe that all drug use consists of PhDs smoking pot while talking astronomy. The other side wants you to believe that all drug use ends in addiction and death. People need to stop with the histrionics. I support legalization, although I am extremely cautious personally when it comes to drug use. I might support criminalization of dealing hard drugs. I'd have to think about it a bit. But declaring "war" on our own population is a pretty idiotic way to spend our social resources if you ask me. Just like the "war on poverty," the "war on illiteracy," the "war on obesity," and the "culture war," enough with the wars already.
- Vivtek 15y ago
  I would like to further suggest we end the use of the word "war" in contexts that do not involve mandatory conscription and the deaths of large numbers of combatants until one side totally surrenders. I'd like to upvote that a hundred times.
crozo 15y ago
The parallels between the current war on drugs and the prohibition in the early XX century are staggering. Can we learn from that experience? The cost in USD and lives ruined that the war itself creates is greater than the cost of taking the profits a way from a few and running educational campaigns so people can take responsibility of what they do. For those of us living in countries where the front line of this war is being fought, is clear we are loosing a war that is not ours, neither worth fighting. But we keep on doing it because the US "pays" for it. Someday a future generation will look back and ask themselves how come they didn't realize it was a stupid war? were they less intelligent in those simpler times? And they will probably be right.
ballard 15y ago
I believe in all positive freedoms that do not lead to negative externalities, irrespective of whatever legal or moral prescriptions happen to be in current fashion. The perennial dilemma with the American War on Drugs is that it continues an obviously failed policy that shatters lives of petty users indiscriminately while encouraging more violence by preventing stable economic cooperative forces from arising and instead enabling tribal warfare violence on a massive scale with modern weapons. This is wasteful, stupid and crass, tantamount to direct slavery and genocide in all but name. Furthermore, this unnecessary, very expensive incarceration of users robs an individual of their productive capacity in addition to discounting their tax revenue generation potential as well. Petty adjudication should exist along a gradual continuum of tough empathy with a sliding-scale matching productive elevation with greater freedoms and dialing back by infraction according to severity. This approach pervades many parts of Europe to great success. This is in stark contrast to arbitrary surprise, zero-tolerance, mechanically insanity that continues to infect cruel, unusual and more than doubly punishment to all those ensnared. Is it for profit of schadenfreude, fattening hegemonies, military industry or profuse inaction that these travesties are allowed by you and I right now to continue throwing lives into this cosmic sausage-grinder?
valuegram 15y ago
Couldn't agree more. The only way to "win" the war on drugs is to legalize, commercialize, and tax the production. It's a simple matter of economics that as long as demand for these substances is present, there will be producers.
dawkins 15y ago
I live in Spain and I think in Portugal is the same as here. Drug use is not a crime but it is still an "Administrative Offense". If the police caught's you with a small amount of drugs, they will confiscate them and usually impose a fine, about 300€.
powertower 15y ago
Without the war on drugs this would happen: 1. Half the law enforcement, out of the job. 2. Half the lawyers and the judges, out of the job. 3. Half the privatized prison system, out of the job. 4. A few million other jobs that support and/or depend on the above, done away with. It's pointless to even try this in the USA... No one is going to be willing to give up the ongoing and ever-giving spoils of the war on drugs.
- melling 15y ago
  Do you have actual facts to support your statements that you can reference? It's fine to make a case for one side or the other but I find it really doesn't help either side if we just make up facts because it takes time to sort them all out.
  - dlokshin 15y ago
    Federal government spent $15B on drug enforcement, prevention, etc. in 2010. Clearly lots of jobs.
    - melling 15y ago
      Once again, where is this number coming from? Can we at least go to Wikipedia or some other source and reference them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs#Costs_to_taxpayers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs#Costs_to_taxpayers Also, a lot of jobs does not equal half the jobs.
- sunchild 15y ago
  Replace "out of the job" with "back on jobs that actually further the best interests of the public", and your post starts to make sense.
  - powertower 15y ago
    All those other in-demand jobs that are available right now, that just can't meet the supply? Let see ... there is the $3/hour farm hand shortage going around in a few states. Or do you mean all the new jobs that are going to be created, you know, just-like-that? For which they'll be re-trained, just-like-that? For which they'll get the same pay/benefits, just-like-that?
gerggerg 15y ago
This is always a fun page to look at when pondering The Land of the Free™ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_ra... And keep in mind, much of the prison system is privatized, many of those inmates work hard labor for far less than minimum wage, they have access to almost no real rehabilitation programs, and can't vote once they serve their time.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
bitops 15y ago
For an excellent perspective on the damage the drug war causes internationally, read "The Politics of Heroin" by Alfred McCoy. It's dense but illuminating.
- gwern 15y ago
  I tried to summarize McCoy's book on Wikipedia a few years ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Politics_of_Heroin_in_Southeast_Asia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Politics_of_Heroin_in_South... and also cover the controversy on publication. You can find the first edition online if you google; as far as I know, the second edition (the one I have, which covers Afghanistan as well) is not online.
felipe 15y ago
Former Brazilian president Fernando Henrique Cardoso made this issue his "post-presidency" flag. There's an excellent documentary called "Breaking the Taboo" [1] that follows him examining successful efforts around the world (including Portugal) [1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1951090/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1951090/
- codesuela 15y ago
  I've just looked around and it seems that this was never released in English and is nowhere to be found.
Serentiynow 15y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bono http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bono To whose benefit? People who benefit from the war on drugs: -The military complex, weapon producers. Terrorist need drug money to fight wars. Weapon producers need wars to make money. -Pharmaceutical companies. -Alcohol producers. -Drug-lords/Cartels -Anti drug agency personnel, cops. -For profit jails. The list goes on...
davidw 15y ago
I have the karma to burn to come out and say this should be on another site. Not only has it already been discussed all over the internet, it's been discussed here to death, and in any event, yet another drugs debate here isn't going to accomplish anything.
- dtf 15y ago
  Yeah, it's like SOPA 2.0. Where are my funny cat pictures?
  - davidw 15y ago
    I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. SOPA is extremely relevant to most of us here in our roles as 'hackers' and startup people. Drug laws are not directly related in the same way. If people try and argue that they are, they're playing "7 degrees of hacker news". For instance, "traffic laws are related to hackers because many hackers drive to work". Funny cat pictures should not be here either - and aren't. Let's try and keep politics out of this site, even if individually, most of us are quite interested in the subject.
linuxhansl 15y ago
Never going to happen. The "war on drugs" has not been about drugs for a long time. Large parts of law enforcement funding are due to this "war", and whole prison industry sprung up around this. Everybody knows that the "war on drugs" is ineffective and will never reach its stated goal! Conversely by creating artificial scarcity, the price for drugs are driven up (because demand is more or less constant) and this guarantees huge profits for illegal activities providing these drugs.
mixmastamyk 15y ago
The time was twenty years ago!
praptak 15y ago
I believe that the dominant policy is based on the "it is immoral, so it should be punished severely and to heck with the collateral damage" reasoning. It's irrational. Arguments based on reason will not work here. Yes, I'm a pessimist.
chris123 15y ago
The "war" on "anything" is a sign that people (usually politicians and the business interests that support them) are using propaganda techniques to "shape" (they love that word) public opinion and legislation that will defend their status quo cash-cow and/or or channel new dollars their way. The "War on Terror" and "War on Drugs" are the biggies that come to mind.
opendomain 15y ago
I have a feeling that the people that are promoting the end of the "war" are casual users or would like to be. Has any REAL experience with Drugs? I have - my family was ripped apart by drug abuse. Drugs alter your brain - addiction is VERY powerful. If some drugs were legal, MORE people would become addicted and crime will go up for people to feed their habits.
- randomdata 15y ago
  "If some drugs were legal, MORE people would become addicted" Here in Canada, the official usage rates for cannabis and tobacco are nearly the same. The latter being a legal substance. The laws aren't stopping anyone who is interested in trying the drug. Those who are not interested in trying it, still won't be interested if the laws change.
- opendomain 15y ago
  Just because you do not agree with me does not mean my comment should be downvoted.
- lusr 15y ago
  Your experience with drug abuse doesn't justify your opinion on how to deal with the drug abuse problem. Portugal's DATA does.
- foxit 15y ago
  I'm going to follow your anecdote with my own, for whatever it's worth. For decades, my family has considered various members to have been "ripped apart" by drug and alcohol abuse. As it turns out, some were self-medicating, such as the schizophrenic who went undiagnosed and unmedicated for so many years it caused irreparable damage to his brain. Others were survivors of terrible abuse who drank, used drugs, and engaged in other rote addictive behaviors to shut out the pain and demons.* While more complicated than the more physical, medical problem of schizophrenia, the fact that these mental health concerns have also gone undiagnosed and untreated is the reason the substance abuse continues. Addiction and addictive behaviors, whether involving substance or not (and there are many horribly destructive addictive behaviors that have nothing whatsoever to do with mind-altering and/or harmful substances) are not what we were taught to think by scare tactics in school. I see a lot of commentary throughout this thread that indicates a lot of people are educated in an adult manner on the topics of addiction and substance abuse, which is great. Getting there is a bit of a challenge, though, and one you have to undertake personally. Public policy regarding drug awareness, unfortunately, still revolves around cheap scare tactics. * Homeless street addicts use substance to stop the voices in their heads or escape great mental pain. The substances are not where the problem originated. They're simply the way the person has of dealing with those problems.
Zakharov 15y ago
While I agree with Branson's arguments in general, the statistics he uses to support them seem very suspicious to me. He appears to be picking and choosing particular statistics that support his claims while ignoring others. For example, he talks about low marijuana use after saying that Portugal had a relatively high rate of use of hard drugs, which to some extent compete with marijuana for use.
asdkl234890 15y ago
How many people under the age of baby boomers are for the war on drugs? Do any of you think we can end the war on drugs before enough of the baby boomers are... pardon me... dead?
- snowmaker 15y ago
  You might be surprised by how much the current generation of twenty- and thirty-somethings looks like the baby boomers politically by the time they reach that age. Getting married, getting older, and having children tends to change one's political opinions in predictable ways, and this is one of them.
- Alex3917 15y ago
  The boomers are 50/50 for legalizing marijuana, it's the older generation that's the problem. It should be legal by 2022-2024 thanks to the boomers actually.
davidmathers 15y ago
The Cato paper that Branson references was written by salon.com blogger Glenn Greenwald and is available to read online at Cato's website: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080
tomwalker 15y ago
I am a doctor in a Scottish hospital. For every productive member of society using drugs there must be at least 2 -3 that drain from society I rarely see anyone use methadone long term and rehabilitate themselves back to productive members of society. They end up being permanently high. My opinion is not isolated amongst my colleagues. Spend a couple of hours in a hospital that provides free health care and see the devastation caused by all drugs. Alcohol and smoking cause the largest volume of problems but many of the users have jobs. Heroin produces real life zombies!
- da_dude4242 15y ago
  >For every productive member of society using drugs there must be at least 2 -3 that drain from society On what grounds do you make this claim? Perhaps for every user that makes it to your hospital there are 2-3 that don't and are relatively adjusted. Drugs certainly have their hazards but it's fallacious to extrapolate the big picture from the perspective you are presenting.
  - tomwalker 15y ago
    Here is a paper http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7529/1352 http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7529/1352 "A total of 1 486 800 prescriptions for methadone were issued in 2003" and "A total of 1 486 800 prescriptions for methadone were issued in 2003" These are both methadone substitutes. I have done time in community psychiatry and addiction psychiatry. My best friend is a psychiatrist that spends a lot of time with drug addicts. I have seen the results, and the HUGE costs, with my own eyes.
    - da_dude4242 15y ago
      >I have done time in community psychiatry and addiction psychiatry. I'm not arguing against the dangers of drugs. My point is if your only interaction with drug users is through people who have hit rock bottom then you are operating under a selection bias. >I have seen the results, and the HUGE costs, with my own eyes. How many of these costs are a result of the drugs being illegal? Lack of access to clean needles and clean drugs is what causes the spread of diseases like HIV and Hepatitis C. Artificial scarcity of drugs is the leading reason why addicts turn to crime.
ilitirit 15y ago
My previous comment the last time this was posted: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2725892 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2725892 Anyone have any more info?
mannicken 15y ago
The whole war on drugs thing is a hysteria created by certain aspects of drug-use being artificially blown out of the proportion. Many of the risks associated with drug use (like overdose or addiction) are actually created by the legal system. Here's how it works. If you overdose, and you go to ER you're forced to admit you did something illegal. Many people would rather die than face a life of humility that's unfairly associated with being a junkie. Not to mention overdoses would be less likely if everything was legal and properly labeled. Same thing with addiction. Removing stigma and legal consequences associated with being a drug-addict will help many people seek help if they need it. How many people do you think are too afraid to go the doctor and admit they have problems, considering drug use is illegal and stigmatized? A lot. I think it's a matter of creating a minority and punishing the fuck out of that minority. Being a drug-addict right now is like being gay or black hundreds of years ago. Being an addict is not a fucking choice. It's a grueling mental torture accompanied by physical torture that's relieved with a consumption of a particular substance. When you're addicted to opiates and you use, it's not because you want to rebel against the world. At that point it's about PLEASE STOP THE FUCKING PAIN. Mental and physical pain, violent diahrrea, puking, being unable to sleep for days.. basically all your natural painkillers are gone and everything is pain. All of that can be ceased with a hit. The fact that anyone thinks it's okay to throw these people in jail sickens the fuck out of me. And you know what, I don't fucking care. Some of the best minds used heroin, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Kurt Cobain. Wanna throw them in jail or fuck with them to the point of suicide (as with Cobain)? Go ahead. "Drug warriors" are like a grown-up version of bullies punching a sick kid.

905 points by DanielRibeiro 15y ago

Even coming from a respectable industry leader like Richard Branson, this will almost certainly be ignored. Here's an interesting question: what would end the war on drugs? Is it something that can be made to happen by sane, enterprising individuals?

electromagnetic 15y ago
Get a company like Monsanto interested in the commercial cultivation of marijuana and it'll be legal within the day.
- swombat 15y ago
  1) This is not something that "sane, enterprising individuals" can reasonably achieve. 2) Silver bullet solutions? Yeah, I believe in them. And Santa, too.
  - tomjen3 15y ago
    Swombat you have a brand here -- don't throw it away with low quality comments. It is not very difficult to convince Monsanto if they can make more money in some other way -- it may not be something that can be solved by gcc, but when has raw computer programming talent ever been the deciding factor for a computer programmer?
    - swombat 15y ago
      I don't see it as a low quality comment. If it's not very difficult to convince Monsanto of this, then please do it right away, if it has the benefit of ending the war on drugs. If you can't be bothered to do it yourself, then pray tell us the 5 easy steps to convincing Monsanto to start exploiting Marijuana and therefore decriminalise all drugs. Unless you think, as I do, that the above is a fantasy and has no practical value as a line of action.
      - asto 15y ago
        There is a big downside to getting it done by companies like Monsanto (or tobacco companies as mentioned in another thread below) - Insane public opposition. Drugs and their users are already perceived to be "morally bad". Club them with a company that people don't like for similar reasons and you have a solution that will never see the light of day.
- zotz 15y ago
  Companies such as Monsanto and DuPont (not to mention a host of others) are among the ones that were glad to see hemp made illegal back in the 1930's. Any hemp-based economy is a threat to centralized industrial concerns. With the invention of the hemp decorticator in the 1910's (the cotton gin of hemp) by George Schlichten, hemp's potential as an industrial crop to replace petroleum was unlocked. Large, centralized industries have no interest in seeing their monopoly threatened. Remember, hemp is illegal, not just marijuana.
  - gcv 15y ago
    > hemp's potential as an industrial crop to replace petroleum was unlocked. Could you clarify this statement? Are you saying hemp can be efficiently used as a fuel?
    - heynk 15y ago
      You can easily dig around for more sources, but I've attached the wiki link, which has some information about fuel usage and many other uses. From what I can remember it's about as viable as biofuels from corn (maybe a bit better) but still not really production quality. Hemp's biggest advantage is the strength of it's fibers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp
    - asto 15y ago
      Hemp as fuel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp#Fuel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp#Fuel
    - zotz 15y ago
      Anything that can be made from a hydrocarbon can be made from a carbohydrate. If hemp got the same subsidies, protections and considerations from the government that petroleum does, I suspect it would be cheaper than petroleum in the long run. Popular Mechanics was touting hemp in 1938: http://www.globalhemp.com/1938/02/new-billion-dollar-crop.html http://www.globalhemp.com/1938/02/new-billion-dollar-crop.ht...
- rst 15y ago
  Even now in the US, moneyed interests don't necessarily get everything they want --- AT&T couldn't push through the T-mobile merger, to cite a much less controversial example. In this case, there would be money on both sides. The drug war itself is a massive industry at this point --- look at the power of prison guards in California. There are also a whole lot of politicians with a massive ego stake in the existing set of laws. And Monsanto, the tobacco companies, and agribusiness all have much easier and less stressful ways to preserve profits by lobbying. (Maintaining agricultural subsidies, for the first two, for starters.) So, don't expect this to happen really soon.
torrenegra 15y ago
Let major tobacco companies expect that if drugs were legalized, they could expand their business. They may start lobbing in favor of legalization right away.
- swombat 15y ago
  That's just wishful thinking, though. What can sane, enterprising people do?
  - seagreen 15y ago
    Ignore politics and start in the media and academia. Then pour decades of propaganda down on the issue and eventually your opponents will give way. This strategy takes a long time, but there's empirical evidence that it actually works.
geden 15y ago
It's simply a matter of education, access to knowledge. It's a slow process. Organised religion fizzled away when faced with widespread access to the facts (though two world wars surely helped).
- swombat 15y ago
  Portugal is hardly the beacon of education and knowledge of the world, and yet they managed it. This is not a solution, it's giving up and saying "let's wait for it to happen by itself".
  - geden 15y ago
    Exactly how is educating people and giving them facts "giving up"? Equipping people to make rational decisions based on evidence and giving them the confidence to make changes - that's a slow process. There seems to be a trend for humans becoming brighter and more socially connected. (See Pinker's decline of violence work.) I'm making the assumption that those trends will also stamp out boneheadedness with regards to prohibition.
- gnaritas 15y ago
  > Organised religion fizzled away when faced with widespread access to the facts Where? That's certainly not the case in America; access to facts does nothing more than make believers even more devout.
  - geden 15y ago
    In the minds of the educated middle class.
    - gnaritas 15y ago
      Who are vastly vastly outnumbered. If facts changed minds, religion wouldn't exist.
      - 15y ago
heynk 15y ago
A lot of the biggest opposition to pot legalization measures is the pharma industry (#1 lobbyers in the US, in terms of money spent). In many ways marijuana is a better alternative than prescription pills for pain and other medical treatment.
thompo 15y ago
Here in Denver, we have medicinal marijuana dispensaries literally all over town. Off the top of my head, I can think of dispensaries that share parking lots with typical brick and mortar stores like Pet Smart, Target, etc. There are also a few right in the middle of downtown Denver. They're even starting to employ sign spinners that stand outside and wave a cardboard sign for $8 an hour that says "$35 8ths", etc. Aside from the occasional completely irrational commenter on DenverPost.com, most folks around here just don't give two shits about these dispensaries. Crime rates at these shops (as well as their warehouses where they grow their product) are lower than that of banks and pharmacies. Their security and ID-checking measures are all taken very seriously, you simply never hear about them letting in underage kids or folks without medicinal permits. All of the irrational fears of "dispensaries ruining neighborhoods" or "dispensaries selling marijuana to underage kids" simply have not materialized. In regards to your question - most of these shops are owned by "sane, enterprising individuals" and not creepy street dealers. The culture of marijuana around here is NOTHING like it was back in the midwest. There is no paranoia, fear, or any of those weird dynamics that surround marijuana in non medicinal states -- people simply don't care. Smoke it if you want, get a medicinal card if you need it, but just keep it to yourself and there will be no problems. THIS is how we defeat the war on drugs. There are people that will say medicinal marijuana laws are just a backdoor effort for full legalization .... and they're right. With decades of brainwashing from our very own government, it's going to take time and patience to change public opinion of marijuana. The best way to do this is to regulate the production and distribution of this plant (Colorado has some of the most progressive and proactive medicinal laws in the country, much more than even California) and to slowly expose the general population to it. Ending the war on drugs isn't going to happen over night but we are certainly beginning to move in the right direction.

TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago

One has to remember that Portugal did not completely legalize drugs. Possession of small amounts and usage were legalized. Dealing is still a big crime there, due to the citizens of Portugal not wanting to be akin the worlds drug den. The different viewpoint of legalizing usage was that it is a medical problem, and not a evil crime. Even that said, Portugal also made their problems less severe by bringing them out in the open instead of draconian punishments forcing users to hide. The biggest hurdle for Portugal's idea to work in the USA is that we do not have any sort of socialized or national healthcare in which to attach a "fund substance abuse as medical problem" freely as Portugal does already. I can imagine that issue alone taking 10+ years in Congress, if any action is done at all. Note: iPod farted earlier leading only posting the first character of this post: "O".

swombat 15y ago
Hey, sorry I downvoted you when the post was just "O". The lack of a socialised healthcare system is actually a boon in this case, since the state is basically getting rid of a large cost (funding the police work on the war on drugs) without creating another cost (since patients then have to pay for themselves). Isn't it?
- throwaway88 15y ago
  The US has so many problems - high gun ownership, no socialized health care, still has corporal punishment, etc etc. Not sure legalizing drugs would be a good idea until some of the other problems are addressed first. How can we get Americans to put their guns away?
- TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
  I'm not sure. What I do know is that from reading many stories about the "War on Drugs" that many dubious laws and judgments were made to separate people from their property and/or their livelihood. We would also have a sizable chunk of the DEA disbanded (we wouldn't need them). We can add that to reduction of police forces around the US. Where I am unsure is how the dependency of money works within the state system of the drug trade. I have a sinking feeling that there is probably the same amount or money moving around in the "War on Drugs" as there is in the drug trade in the US. My question then is, "What happens if we try to manipulate or disband this system?" ObAside: I've seen this specific iPod bug before. When I click on an edit window, it will flash the keyboard up then down. And any sort of button click on the page submits the form. The only way I've seen to 'fix' it is to close and open the offending tab.

swah 15y ago

I don't understand how a world where making/selling something is a crime but consuming is not could work.

TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
The idea has very much to do with different viewpoints. Portugal wanted to remove punishments from drug users because they viewed it as a medical problem. However Portugal did not want to make a full legalization for then you end up with drug dens, the situation you try to avoid. The only logical solution is to legalize usage and small possesion as a medical excuse. Then you ban larger possession and dealing.
dvanduzer 15y ago
Guns/suicide.
darklajid 15y ago
As far as I'm informed (read: I cannot back this up with legalese), this is the case in Germany as well, albeit limited to soft stuff/marijuana: - You are not allowed to buy it - You are not allowed to sell it - You can have a small amount of it in your possession, "for personal use" (declared as a maximum amount per substance, so that 'users' aren't in the same category as 'dealers' here)
- justincormack 15y ago
  Also Italy, not only for soft drugs. Europe is very liberal on drugs compared to US or Asia generally.
- l0tics 15y ago
  I hope people realize that what Portugal is doing only puts all drugs in a similar legal category to alcohol during its "prohibition" in the United States. This solves none of the supply side issues and their current laws are surely still contributing to a miserable and violent black market. What we have instead here in the United States (and attempt to force onto other countries) is a view that all use is abuse, regardless of any reasoning, even medicinal use. We can't even grow it for research or non-drug uses because of federal agencies that want to continue this for as long as possible. Today I can buy marijuana at retail stores here in Michigan. There is no violence associated with buying it from people who just grew it in their house and brought it there to sell to me.

jcfrei 15y ago

the fact that the US (and many other countries) still pursue a war on drugs is to me a display of a fundamental flaw in politics. even though every sane person has to acknowledge that legalizing drugs in part is more effective than enforcing more rigid controls, only very few politicians would support such a motion. mostly because they become victim to a more conservative rhetoric and thus will be less likely reelected.

catzaa 15y ago
> even though every sane person has to acknowledge that legalizing drugs in part is more effective than enforcing more rigid controls, No it is not. Two examples of this are Singapore, Taiwan and Japan. In both these countries there are zero tolerance for drug users and drug traffickers and the results show. Smoking Marijuana almost teenagers in Japan is basically unheard of. It seems that laws in the USA and Europe are not strict enough to act as a deterrence. If many of these countries adopted the death penalty or similar penalties for trafficking, then perhaps something could be done about it. (Singapore executes drug traffickers. I don't know what legal punishments there are for traffickers in Japan, but I know the social punishments are severe. A family will often cut contact with a relative if he is sentenced for a minor crime. Sports stars, tenured professors and celebrities will loose their jobs if they had a criminal offence even for something completely unrelated to their career. Quite different from the attention that washed out American celebrities get.)
- njs12345 15y ago
  Anecdotally, speaking as someone who knows a number of young people from Singapore, they certainly smoke weed just as much (perhaps even more) than people I know from the UK. Have you considered that perhaps a zero tolerance approach just drives use further underground? I doubt the official figures are accurate, and it's probably not sensible to compare an authoritarian dictatorship with liberal Western democracy. Japan just has a low crime rate across the board, largely for the reason you mentioned. Again, this probably isn't helpful - inducing a general respect for the law into a society is a difficult proposition, or every nation in the world would be doing just that.
- 15y ago

tokenadult 15y ago

A friend shared this link on Facebook, and I read through the article. I was very interested to note that Richard Branson bases much of his argument on the reduction in drug use in Portugal since the policy change decriminalizing possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use and referring users to medical treatment. Is this the societal consensus in other countries? Are most advocates of ending "the war on drugs" trying to achieve reduced use? Is the worldwide experience (Branson also refers to the Netherlands and to the European Union generally) that fewer criminal penalties for drug use results in consistently lower overall use in the general population? How many drug legalization campaigns around the world make this the major point of the campaign, to reduce use of the drugs that are now illegal?

JanezStupar 15y ago
I believe that it is pretty common and the leading argument. True motive may be way different, but the convenient fact is that the stated goals of proponents of war on drugs are more efficiently achieved by decriminalization. To my knowledge pretty much all of the fears that are voiced in opposition to decriminalization have been shown to be unfounded in practice.
radicalbyte 15y ago
The problem is that we're going the other way in The Netherlands right now. The red light district is being slowly dismantled [1], new draconian laws are being introduced to shut the coffee shops down (with a Think Of The Children argument) [2] and foreigners are being banned from using coffee shops [3]. I blame the ageing population: the "boomers" [4] have had their fun, but they're getting older now and young people getting high only "disturbs" the peace. They're the biggest voting block, so they get their way (yet again). So yeah, I don't see the Western world changing any time soon. [1] http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-15/netherlands-stops-tourists-buying-marijuana-in-coffee-shops.html http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-15/netherlands-stop... [2] (sorry I couldn't find an English language version) http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/onderwijs/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2011/2011-3458-wm.htm http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/onderwijs/publicaties/ar... [3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/8961513/Amsterdam-an-end-to-the-red-light-district.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/8961513/Amsterd... [4] They've even got their own party: http://50pluspartij.nl/ http://50pluspartij.nl/

johntyree 15y ago

This is literally copy-paste from Time magazine 2009. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.ht... Excellent work, Dick.

drivebyacct2 15y ago
Uh, you might want to look up the word "literally". I don't even find them terribly similar.
- mekoka 15y ago
  Actually, the part where he details the stats is practically verbatim. There are some nuances between both articles, but he could have provided a link to his sources. It always helps to learn more. Edit: After completing the Times article and rereading R. Branson's, I can confirm that the general flow is the same. In some parts, he only just paraphrases or summarizes, but the information is really the same.
  - easy_rider 15y ago
    I can actually see quite distinct similarities in the general flow of the article i.e. the sequence of subjects he touches.
- damoncali 15y ago
  Parts are word for word identical. In school, this would be rightly be called plagiarism and probably get you in a lot of trouble. Not the point here, obviously, but sloppy nonetheless.
  - drivebyacct2 15y ago
    I clearly didn't read close enough, there are absolutely full sentences lifted from the referenced article. I would never be caught dead doing something so silly, certainly not in such a public and (seemingly) outspoken capacity.

tete 15y ago

Another thing that will at least take a very long time to finally happen. I don't take drugs, not even legal ones, but it's logical. Most people seem to start taking drugs, because others do it and simply because it's cool or rebellious (in fact I smoked for a while in my childhood because of that). I think most people wouldn't start and get hooked, if it was legal. To most people it's ugly the first time anyways. Hmm, when making things illegal leads to consumption then we should maybe make vegetables and stuff illegal. :D

torrenegra 15y ago

The Colombian president, Juan Manuel Santos (also an entrepreneur), recently called for the legalization of many drugs, including cocaine: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/13/colombia-juan-santos-call-to-legalise-drugs http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/13/colombia-juan-sa... I'm a NYC-based, Colombian entrepreneur. My step-brother died piloting a Black Hawk helicopter in Colombia that crashed while executing an anti-narcotics operation. The helicopter was "donated" by the US as part of "Plan Colombia" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia ). Plan Colombia is a periodic subsidy sent by the US to Colombia to help with the war on drugs. The program is lobbied in part by Sikorsky and Monsanto. The subsidy includes some cash, but it also comes in the form of helicopters (built by Sikorsky), glyphosate (banned in the US but used in Colombia to destroy coca plantations), and weapons. You can say that the "war on drugs" allowed my brother to realize his dream (flying a helicopter), but it also killed him. I may be emotionally charged with the topic and may not exercise good reason about it, but I've seen enough to realize that the "war on drugs" is just a big mess that won't be won, no matter what.

beardicus 15y ago
Glyphosate == Roundup(TM). This is the most used herbicide in the US... certainly not banned. Regardless, I agree with your conclusion.
- zotz 15y ago
  Slightly OT, but hemp itself used to be used as an herbicide: http://hogwaller.net/hemp.html http://hogwaller.net/hemp.html
- torrenegra 15y ago
  Thank you for the correction! You are right. I was thinking about the act of "aerial-spraying of drug producing crops". For Wikipedia: "In many cases the spraying is carried out by American contractors, such as DynCorp, using planes and helicopters to spray Roundup on coca plantations. Aerial spraying has been repeatedly condemned by human rights and environmental activists because of its affect on human populations and local soil and water systems. In December 2000, Dutch journalist Marjon van Royen found that "because the chemical is sprayed in Colombia from planes on inhabited areas, there have been consistent health complaints [in humans]. Burning eyes, dizziness and respiratory problems being most frequently reported."

TobiasCassell 15y ago

If drugs are legalized the United States will be forced to dream up and create other reasons to keep its military outposts in hundreds of countries. This is why we maintain a war on drugs. A war that is impossible to win. The United States will never legalize drugs. PS I'm with richard Branson, but he is being naive or he is not mentioning these elements on purpose as a strategy. Edit; Forgot to mention the United States Prison-Industrial Complex- that is even more anti-legalize momentum that would have to be addressed.

melling 15y ago
What you are saying is absurd and it doesn't help. At this point, I think many people believe the "war on drugs" is a wasted effort. The best way to make this case would be to show how the American consumer is destroying lives in other countries. Americans trying to have a good time are indirectly killing innocent people in order to get the products they desire into their hands.
- tankenmate 15y ago
  How that idea is going to get through to someone who is somatically and / or psychologically addicted to drugs is a little difficult to comprehend. In the same vein of people will fix themselves of drug addiction is a mostly useless statement. People get into this situation either involuntarily or voluntarily, but few get out just by platitudes or sheer will power. Most people who put drug addiction behind them need a cast of people and tools to help, there is no quick fix. To be effective for anyone but the rich help needs to be available free at the point of provision. The money saved from reduction in direct and indirect crime and the increase in production will pay for the service. In most cases families see the value in reforming a drug addicted family member, why shouldn't the state? This is an effective method and motivation to solve the problem; you can reduce the demand of all of the people some of the time, you can reduce the demand of some of the people all of the time, but you can't reduce the demand of all the people all of the time; hence trying to eliminate demand is a non option to fixing the problem.

subwindow 15y ago

There seems to be a lot of confusion on this thread about exactly what Portugal did, and the ramifications for the U.S. in terms of time-frame and difficulty. What Portugal did was decriminalize the possession of small amounts of drugs. They did not legalize them. There is a huge difference. Decriminalization essentially means that possession of small amounts of drugs is no longer an offense that warrants an arrest and jail time. In a decriminalized system an officer can still stop someone for drugs, but they can only write them a ticket- similar to speeding, jaywalking or illegal parking. This makes a huge difference for a number of reasons. First, it's easier to implement politically because the substances are still illegal. Second, it's less costly because people caught with small amounts are not caught up in the justice system for years, and only pay a small fine. Third, it decreases the adversarial nature of the "war on drugs" because being caught with drugs is no longer a life-changing event. Marijuana possession is already decriminalized in many states in the U.S. (California, Colorado, New York and Oregon off the top of my head). It is clearly not an impossibility to implement politically, and in fact the trend in the U.S. is already on its way. An important hurdle is that we do not have any states that have yet decriminalized "harder" drugs like heroin and cocaine, but it is simply a matter of time. Pressure on lawmakers in the form of education, money and votes will in fact work. It just takes time.

chimeracoder 15y ago
> California, Colorado, New York and Oregon off the top of my head All decriminalization is not alike. In New York, for example, decriminalization is in in name only, because police can easily exploit a loophole that allows them to charge people with possession of more than an ounce (criminal) even if they only have a few grams (not criminal). Because of this, New York City arrests more people (per-capita and in total) than any other city in the entire world. Compare to the Netherlands, which also has 'only' decriminalized marijuana.
- Enthusiastic 15y ago
  In New York, the police will do a stop and frisk, tell people to empty their pockets, and then charge people with displaying the drug in public when they obey the order to empty their pockets. Is this the loophole you mean? Or is your loophole a different one?

DanielBMarkham 15y ago

Great article. I would like to further suggest we end the use of the word "war" in contexts that do not involve mandatory conscription and the deaths of large numbers of combatants until one side totally surrenders. (This implies there is a "side" to be able to surrender.) Politicians have so destroyed the word "war" that it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion about any use of violence by the state. Perhaps that was the goal. Don't know. Drug use is a health-related issue, whether it is a doctor prescribing medications, a patient taking meds off-label, a person self-medicating, an addict, or some kind experimentation. All of these situations are much more personal health concerns than public safety concerns. Yes, addiction is a terrible tragedy and sometimes danger for the rest of us -- but it's a personal disaster a long time before it affects any of us. I'd argue that in the aggregate most addicts suffer a lot more personally than any damage they inflict on society. We have a caricatured view of the drug addict -- the unwashed, illiterate, toothless junkie hiding out in a crack house. Yes, addiction ends up that way for some, but by and large addicts are middle-class, educated, and live in houses with their friends or families. Hollywood and moralists have done us a great disservice by putting these horrible outlier pictures in people's heads when they think of drug use. Take for instance the word "addict", which like the word "war" is such a broad term that it doesn't have much meaning on it's own without further clarification. One side wants you to believe that all drug use consists of PhDs smoking pot while talking astronomy. The other side wants you to believe that all drug use ends in addiction and death. People need to stop with the histrionics. I support legalization, although I am extremely cautious personally when it comes to drug use. I might support criminalization of dealing hard drugs. I'd have to think about it a bit. But declaring "war" on our own population is a pretty idiotic way to spend our social resources if you ask me. Just like the "war on poverty," the "war on illiteracy," the "war on obesity," and the "culture war," enough with the wars already.

Vivtek 15y ago
I would like to further suggest we end the use of the word "war" in contexts that do not involve mandatory conscription and the deaths of large numbers of combatants until one side totally surrenders. I'd like to upvote that a hundred times.

crozo 15y ago

The parallels between the current war on drugs and the prohibition in the early XX century are staggering. Can we learn from that experience? The cost in USD and lives ruined that the war itself creates is greater than the cost of taking the profits a way from a few and running educational campaigns so people can take responsibility of what they do. For those of us living in countries where the front line of this war is being fought, is clear we are loosing a war that is not ours, neither worth fighting. But we keep on doing it because the US "pays" for it. Someday a future generation will look back and ask themselves how come they didn't realize it was a stupid war? were they less intelligent in those simpler times? And they will probably be right.

ballard 15y ago

I believe in all positive freedoms that do not lead to negative externalities, irrespective of whatever legal or moral prescriptions happen to be in current fashion. The perennial dilemma with the American War on Drugs is that it continues an obviously failed policy that shatters lives of petty users indiscriminately while encouraging more violence by preventing stable economic cooperative forces from arising and instead enabling tribal warfare violence on a massive scale with modern weapons. This is wasteful, stupid and crass, tantamount to direct slavery and genocide in all but name. Furthermore, this unnecessary, very expensive incarceration of users robs an individual of their productive capacity in addition to discounting their tax revenue generation potential as well. Petty adjudication should exist along a gradual continuum of tough empathy with a sliding-scale matching productive elevation with greater freedoms and dialing back by infraction according to severity. This approach pervades many parts of Europe to great success. This is in stark contrast to arbitrary surprise, zero-tolerance, mechanically insanity that continues to infect cruel, unusual and more than doubly punishment to all those ensnared. Is it for profit of schadenfreude, fattening hegemonies, military industry or profuse inaction that these travesties are allowed by you and I right now to continue throwing lives into this cosmic sausage-grinder?

valuegram 15y ago

Couldn't agree more. The only way to "win" the war on drugs is to legalize, commercialize, and tax the production. It's a simple matter of economics that as long as demand for these substances is present, there will be producers.

dawkins 15y ago

I live in Spain and I think in Portugal is the same as here. Drug use is not a crime but it is still an "Administrative Offense". If the police caught's you with a small amount of drugs, they will confiscate them and usually impose a fine, about 300€.

powertower 15y ago

Without the war on drugs this would happen: 1. Half the law enforcement, out of the job. 2. Half the lawyers and the judges, out of the job. 3. Half the privatized prison system, out of the job. 4. A few million other jobs that support and/or depend on the above, done away with. It's pointless to even try this in the USA... No one is going to be willing to give up the ongoing and ever-giving spoils of the war on drugs.

melling 15y ago
Do you have actual facts to support your statements that you can reference? It's fine to make a case for one side or the other but I find it really doesn't help either side if we just make up facts because it takes time to sort them all out.
- dlokshin 15y ago
  Federal government spent $15B on drug enforcement, prevention, etc. in 2010. Clearly lots of jobs.
  - melling 15y ago
    Once again, where is this number coming from? Can we at least go to Wikipedia or some other source and reference them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs#Costs_to_taxpayers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs#Costs_to_taxpayers Also, a lot of jobs does not equal half the jobs.
sunchild 15y ago
Replace "out of the job" with "back on jobs that actually further the best interests of the public", and your post starts to make sense.
- powertower 15y ago
  All those other in-demand jobs that are available right now, that just can't meet the supply? Let see ... there is the $3/hour farm hand shortage going around in a few states. Or do you mean all the new jobs that are going to be created, you know, just-like-that? For which they'll be re-trained, just-like-that? For which they'll get the same pay/benefits, just-like-that?

gerggerg 15y ago

This is always a fun page to look at when pondering The Land of the Free™ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_ra... And keep in mind, much of the prison system is privatized, many of those inmates work hard labor for far less than minimum wage, they have access to almost no real rehabilitation programs, and can't vote once they serve their time.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

bitops 15y ago

For an excellent perspective on the damage the drug war causes internationally, read "The Politics of Heroin" by Alfred McCoy. It's dense but illuminating.

gwern 15y ago
I tried to summarize McCoy's book on Wikipedia a few years ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Politics_of_Heroin_in_Southeast_Asia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Politics_of_Heroin_in_South... and also cover the controversy on publication. You can find the first edition online if you google; as far as I know, the second edition (the one I have, which covers Afghanistan as well) is not online.

felipe 15y ago

Former Brazilian president Fernando Henrique Cardoso made this issue his "post-presidency" flag. There's an excellent documentary called "Breaking the Taboo" [1] that follows him examining successful efforts around the world (including Portugal) [1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1951090/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1951090/

codesuela 15y ago
I've just looked around and it seems that this was never released in English and is nowhere to be found.

Serentiynow 15y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bono http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bono To whose benefit? People who benefit from the war on drugs: -The military complex, weapon producers. Terrorist need drug money to fight wars. Weapon producers need wars to make money. -Pharmaceutical companies. -Alcohol producers. -Drug-lords/Cartels -Anti drug agency personnel, cops. -For profit jails. The list goes on...

davidw 15y ago

I have the karma to burn to come out and say this should be on another site. Not only has it already been discussed all over the internet, it's been discussed here to death, and in any event, yet another drugs debate here isn't going to accomplish anything.

dtf 15y ago
Yeah, it's like SOPA 2.0. Where are my funny cat pictures?
- davidw 15y ago
  I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. SOPA is extremely relevant to most of us here in our roles as 'hackers' and startup people. Drug laws are not directly related in the same way. If people try and argue that they are, they're playing "7 degrees of hacker news". For instance, "traffic laws are related to hackers because many hackers drive to work". Funny cat pictures should not be here either - and aren't. Let's try and keep politics out of this site, even if individually, most of us are quite interested in the subject.

linuxhansl 15y ago

Never going to happen. The "war on drugs" has not been about drugs for a long time. Large parts of law enforcement funding are due to this "war", and whole prison industry sprung up around this. Everybody knows that the "war on drugs" is ineffective and will never reach its stated goal! Conversely by creating artificial scarcity, the price for drugs are driven up (because demand is more or less constant) and this guarantees huge profits for illegal activities providing these drugs.

mixmastamyk 15y ago

The time was twenty years ago!

praptak 15y ago

I believe that the dominant policy is based on the "it is immoral, so it should be punished severely and to heck with the collateral damage" reasoning. It's irrational. Arguments based on reason will not work here. Yes, I'm a pessimist.

chris123 15y ago

The "war" on "anything" is a sign that people (usually politicians and the business interests that support them) are using propaganda techniques to "shape" (they love that word) public opinion and legislation that will defend their status quo cash-cow and/or or channel new dollars their way. The "War on Terror" and "War on Drugs" are the biggies that come to mind.

opendomain 15y ago

I have a feeling that the people that are promoting the end of the "war" are casual users or would like to be. Has any REAL experience with Drugs? I have - my family was ripped apart by drug abuse. Drugs alter your brain - addiction is VERY powerful. If some drugs were legal, MORE people would become addicted and crime will go up for people to feed their habits.

randomdata 15y ago
"If some drugs were legal, MORE people would become addicted" Here in Canada, the official usage rates for cannabis and tobacco are nearly the same. The latter being a legal substance. The laws aren't stopping anyone who is interested in trying the drug. Those who are not interested in trying it, still won't be interested if the laws change.
opendomain 15y ago
Just because you do not agree with me does not mean my comment should be downvoted.
lusr 15y ago
Your experience with drug abuse doesn't justify your opinion on how to deal with the drug abuse problem. Portugal's DATA does.
foxit 15y ago
I'm going to follow your anecdote with my own, for whatever it's worth. For decades, my family has considered various members to have been "ripped apart" by drug and alcohol abuse. As it turns out, some were self-medicating, such as the schizophrenic who went undiagnosed and unmedicated for so many years it caused irreparable damage to his brain. Others were survivors of terrible abuse who drank, used drugs, and engaged in other rote addictive behaviors to shut out the pain and demons.* While more complicated than the more physical, medical problem of schizophrenia, the fact that these mental health concerns have also gone undiagnosed and untreated is the reason the substance abuse continues. Addiction and addictive behaviors, whether involving substance or not (and there are many horribly destructive addictive behaviors that have nothing whatsoever to do with mind-altering and/or harmful substances) are not what we were taught to think by scare tactics in school. I see a lot of commentary throughout this thread that indicates a lot of people are educated in an adult manner on the topics of addiction and substance abuse, which is great. Getting there is a bit of a challenge, though, and one you have to undertake personally. Public policy regarding drug awareness, unfortunately, still revolves around cheap scare tactics. * Homeless street addicts use substance to stop the voices in their heads or escape great mental pain. The substances are not where the problem originated. They're simply the way the person has of dealing with those problems.

Zakharov 15y ago

While I agree with Branson's arguments in general, the statistics he uses to support them seem very suspicious to me. He appears to be picking and choosing particular statistics that support his claims while ignoring others. For example, he talks about low marijuana use after saying that Portugal had a relatively high rate of use of hard drugs, which to some extent compete with marijuana for use.

asdkl234890 15y ago

How many people under the age of baby boomers are for the war on drugs? Do any of you think we can end the war on drugs before enough of the baby boomers are... pardon me... dead?

snowmaker 15y ago
You might be surprised by how much the current generation of twenty- and thirty-somethings looks like the baby boomers politically by the time they reach that age. Getting married, getting older, and having children tends to change one's political opinions in predictable ways, and this is one of them.
Alex3917 15y ago
The boomers are 50/50 for legalizing marijuana, it's the older generation that's the problem. It should be legal by 2022-2024 thanks to the boomers actually.

davidmathers 15y ago

The Cato paper that Branson references was written by salon.com blogger Glenn Greenwald and is available to read online at Cato's website: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080

tomwalker 15y ago

I am a doctor in a Scottish hospital. For every productive member of society using drugs there must be at least 2 -3 that drain from society I rarely see anyone use methadone long term and rehabilitate themselves back to productive members of society. They end up being permanently high. My opinion is not isolated amongst my colleagues. Spend a couple of hours in a hospital that provides free health care and see the devastation caused by all drugs. Alcohol and smoking cause the largest volume of problems but many of the users have jobs. Heroin produces real life zombies!

da_dude4242 15y ago
>For every productive member of society using drugs there must be at least 2 -3 that drain from society On what grounds do you make this claim? Perhaps for every user that makes it to your hospital there are 2-3 that don't and are relatively adjusted. Drugs certainly have their hazards but it's fallacious to extrapolate the big picture from the perspective you are presenting.
- tomwalker 15y ago
  Here is a paper http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7529/1352 http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7529/1352 "A total of 1 486 800 prescriptions for methadone were issued in 2003" and "A total of 1 486 800 prescriptions for methadone were issued in 2003" These are both methadone substitutes. I have done time in community psychiatry and addiction psychiatry. My best friend is a psychiatrist that spends a lot of time with drug addicts. I have seen the results, and the HUGE costs, with my own eyes.
  - da_dude4242 15y ago
    >I have done time in community psychiatry and addiction psychiatry. I'm not arguing against the dangers of drugs. My point is if your only interaction with drug users is through people who have hit rock bottom then you are operating under a selection bias. >I have seen the results, and the HUGE costs, with my own eyes. How many of these costs are a result of the drugs being illegal? Lack of access to clean needles and clean drugs is what causes the spread of diseases like HIV and Hepatitis C. Artificial scarcity of drugs is the leading reason why addicts turn to crime.

ilitirit 15y ago

My previous comment the last time this was posted: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2725892 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2725892 Anyone have any more info?

mannicken 15y ago

The whole war on drugs thing is a hysteria created by certain aspects of drug-use being artificially blown out of the proportion. Many of the risks associated with drug use (like overdose or addiction) are actually created by the legal system. Here's how it works. If you overdose, and you go to ER you're forced to admit you did something illegal. Many people would rather die than face a life of humility that's unfairly associated with being a junkie. Not to mention overdoses would be less likely if everything was legal and properly labeled. Same thing with addiction. Removing stigma and legal consequences associated with being a drug-addict will help many people seek help if they need it. How many people do you think are too afraid to go the doctor and admit they have problems, considering drug use is illegal and stigmatized? A lot. I think it's a matter of creating a minority and punishing the fuck out of that minority. Being a drug-addict right now is like being gay or black hundreds of years ago. Being an addict is not a fucking choice. It's a grueling mental torture accompanied by physical torture that's relieved with a consumption of a particular substance. When you're addicted to opiates and you use, it's not because you want to rebel against the world. At that point it's about PLEASE STOP THE FUCKING PAIN. Mental and physical pain, violent diahrrea, puking, being unable to sleep for days.. basically all your natural painkillers are gone and everything is pain. All of that can be ceased with a hit. The fact that anyone thinks it's okay to throw these people in jail sickens the fuck out of me. And you know what, I don't fucking care. Some of the best minds used heroin, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Kurt Cobain. Wanna throw them in jail or fuck with them to the point of suicide (as with Cobain)? Go ahead. "Drug warriors" are like a grown-up version of bullies punching a sick kid.