Global war on drugs a failure, high-level panel says

[AllardChardon]

Global war on drugs a failure, high-level panel says
Reuters - Thu Jun 2, 7:58 am ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A high-level international commission declared the global "war on drugs" a failure and urged nations to consider legalizing cannabis and other drugs to undermine organized crime and protect their citizens' health.

The Global Commission on Drug Policy called for a new approach to reducing drug abuse to replace the current strategy of strictly criminalizing drugs and incarcerating drug users while battling criminal cartels that control the drug trade.

"The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world," said the report issued by the commission on Thursday.

The study urges "experimentation by governments with models of legal regulation of drugs," adding: "This recommendation applies especially to cannabis, but we also encourage other experiments in decriminalization and legal regulation."

There are 250 million users of illicit drugs worldwide, with less than a 10th of them classified as dependent, and millions are involved in cultivation, production and distribution, according to U.N. estimates quoted in the report.

The study adds that decriminalization initiatives do not result in significant increases in drug use.

"Now is the time to break the taboo on discussion of all drug policy options, including alternatives to drug prohibition," former Colombian President Cesar Gaviria said.

The 19-member panel includes current Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou and former heads of state, former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, British businessman Richard Branson and former Secretary of State George Shultz.

The commission said fundamental reforms were urgently needed in national and global drug control policies.

Additional recommendations:

-- Replace the criminalization and punishment of people who are drug users but do not hurt other people with the offer of health and treatment services to those who need them.

-- Countries that continue to invest mostly in a law enforcement approach should focus on violent organized crime and drug traffickers.

-- Promote alternative sentences for small-scale and first-time drug dealers as the majority of these people are not gangsters or organized criminals.

Other members of the panel include former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo, former Swiss President Ruth Dreifuss, former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso and former U.S. Federal Reserve chief Paul Volcker.

The report says "vast expenditure" had been spent on criminalization and repressive measures.

"Repressive efforts directed at consumers impede public health measures to reduce HIV/AIDS, overdose fatalities and other harmful consequences of drug use," it adds.

The commission's report adds that money spent by governments on futile efforts to reduce the supply of drugs and on jailing people on drug-related offenses could be better spent on different ways to reduce drug demand and the harm caused by drug abuse.

The full report is available at http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/Report.

(Reporting by Will Dunham, additional reporting by Olesya Dmitracova in London; editing by Elizabeth Piper)


Hooray! They are trying to tear down the house that Anslinger built!

 

[rgraham666]

Isn't it amazing? How long it takes experts to say, "Man. Did we fuck up."

 

[xssve]

The underground economy is doing better than the above ground one.

 

[xssve]

...and the experts have been saying this all along, nobody ever listens, probably a lot of money changing hands under the table.

 

[AllardChardon]

The thought that I could travel to other countries, besides the doomed Amsterdam, and smoke freely and openly, like in Portugal, would be a fine world, in my thinking. I am almost afraid to leave the safety of California, but I risk it, anyway.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Regulate and tax. Always a better option than Forbid.

 

[AllardChardon]

As soon as some adult says, "Watch out for this or that drug," the illegal consumption begins, sometimes with disastrous results, like the bath salts. When will they truthfully teach what each drug does and does not do to the human body?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

As soon as some adult says, "Watch out for this or that drug," the illegal consumption begins, sometimes with disastrous results, like the bath salts. When will they truthfully teach what each drug does and does not do to the human body?

Never. The powers that be think the masses are too stupid to learn that kind of thing.

 

[AllardChardon]

Then, we need to educate each other, grassroots-style, until everyone knows the truth. It does amaze me how long bad laws remain, before reform takes place.

 

[cloudy]

They actually had to form a commission to come up with that revolutionary finding?

When I read your thread title, my first thought was, "No shit, Sherlock."

 

[AllardChardon]

I know what you mean, Cloudy. This did not a commission to determine the failure of the global drug war, but that is what was commissioned with good ole taxpayer money, I would presume.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Then, we need to educate each other, grassroots-style, until everyone knows the truth. It does amaze me how long bad laws remain, before reform takes place.

It's already here...it's called the Internet. Guess what government wants to do with it?

 

[Boxlicker101]

So, vot else is new?

The reason for the failure is that the authorities are trying to enforce stupid laws against harmless drugs, such as MJ. The current drug laws are even worse than Prohibition iin the US. Back then, the government at least came to their senses after a few years of disaster after debacle.

 

[Xelebes]

So, vot else is new?

The reason for the failure is that the authorities are trying to enforce stupid laws against harmless drugs, such as MJ. The current drug laws are even worse than Prohibition iin the US. Back then, the government at least came to their senses after a few years of disaster after debacle.

The War on Drugs is fucking over the right people (Blacks, minorities) as opposed to the War on Alcohol (whites, majority).

 

[Boxlicker101]

The War on Drugs is fucking over the right people (Blacks, minorities) as opposed to the War on Alcohol (whites, majority).

The war on drugs is fucking over everybody, except drug dealers, etc., who are getting rich. Prohibition fucked over everybody except bootleggers, etc.

 

[Xelebes]

On the global side, yes.

 

[JackLuis]

The article I read, had the DEA refuting "those guy's who don't know what they are talking about".

Without Drug Laws. what would Drug Cops Do? More thousands unemployed and forced into the underground economy?

 

[AllardChardon]

With so many government cutbacks, thanks to the Wall Streeters, many government jobs, like Drug Cops, are in jeopardy of disappearing. California was forced to reduce the number of CAMP officers, due to budget cuts. There may be hope, yet.

 

[amicus]

There have been dozens of Threads similar to this one over the years and never, aside from myself, is the real issue addressed or even offered.

By what right does any government forbid the consumption of any product?

I am aware of the Opium Wars, and the conclusion somewhere before the turn of the 20th century, that it was in the public interest to ban such drugs as Morphine, Heroin, Cocaine and other such 'hard' drugs as determined.

I presume, since this Thread has representatives from the 'usual suspects' who want to regulate and control every aspect of an individuals life, that they are of a different mind when it comes to drugs.

There is an unamusing conflict: the 'usual suspects' find the free market, corporate enterprise, in need of severe restrictions, controls and regulations, to, ahm, protect the public? Yet they advocate a free market for drugs? Properly taxed and regulated of course, to confiscate profits and maintain quality?

Do you really believe that a truly open and free market for the drugs of your choice would lead to the destruction of society and the degradation of civilization and mankind in general?

Do you really have such a low opinion of the species?

You need not answer that; I know you do.

Amicus Veritas

 

[AllardChardon]

Ami, I appreciate your input and I agree that government regulation of drug use is not an inherent right. I suppose it is about our leaders trying to help protect individuals from themselves. With people like Charlie Sheen around at the top of the heap, not to mention the street addict, it seems a reasonable enough proposition. The problem is that people want to do their drugs, because they have little else to do with their time. Being poor (or maybe too rich) is not much fun, so a person tends to want to forget their problems, one way or another. The government tries to take the role of the protective parent and it just does not work, any better than real parents and their kids.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Governments don't regulate and ban drugs; people in power regulate and ban drugs. And all too often, those people have an agenda that has nothing to do with reality, but is based solely on their morality.

 

[AllardChardon]

Tio, People elect officials and those officials appoint other officials and soon those officials pass laws governing the citizens. Whether called "the government" or the people who run the government, the laws forbidding drug use control the people, with or without their consent.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Yes, Allard, that's what I was saying; the government is elected, and the elected officials appoint the regulators, but the regulators do what the elected officials want. Ultimately, it is those who hold the elected power who make the decisions, and their motives and actions may not be in the best interest of all the people.

There are two views of democracy here, though. One is that envisioned in the American Bill of Rights and similar documents: Democrcy is a system of government that allows, encourages, and protects diversity. The other is what the Bill of Rights offered protection against: Democracy is the right of the people in power and their supporters to impose their will on the others.

You know where I stand in this, and though the "conservatives" claim they oppose a strongly regulatory government, they are the ones who also seek to impose their will on the "minority."

All of us, however, are people and are citizens and voters, so, in the end, I have to agree with Pogo:

We have met the enemy, and they is us.

 

[AllardChardon]

Yes, I agree with you, Tio. Why anyone would want to curtail another, who is acting reasonably and responsibly, is beyond me. I still hope the drug Czars go on permanent vacation.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Yes, Allard, that's what I was saying; the government is elected, and the elected officials appoint the regulators, but the regulators do what the elected officials want. Ultimately, it is those who hold the elected power who make the decisions, and their motives and actions may not be in the best interest of all the people.

There are two views of democracy here, though. One is that envisioned in the American Bill of Rights and similar documents: Democrcy is a system of government that allows, encourages, and protects diversity. The other is what the Bill of Rights offered protection against: Democracy is the right of the people in power and their supporters to impose their will on the others.

You know where I stand in this, and though the "conservatives" claim they oppose a strongly regulatory government, they are the ones who also seek to impose their will on the "minority."

All of us, however, are people and are citizens and voters, so, in the end, I have to agree with Pogo:

We have met the enemy, and they is us.

ALL politicians, liberal or conservative, seek to impose their will on the people of whatever country they live in. However, different pols seek to control different aspects. Liberals tell me whom I have to hire and/or promote, based on race. They also tell me where I can send my kids to school, and never mind which is the best or closest school, also based on race. They require me to wear seat belts and a motorcycle helmet, whether I want to or not. They try to tell me where I can shop and where I can't. If they have their way, they will soon be telling me what I can eat and what I can't.

Conservatives try to tell me whom I can fuck and whom I cannot, and whom I can marry and whom I cannot. They try to impose their religion on me, whether I agree with them or not. They tell me what I can smoke or shoot or drop and what I cannot, and what I should read or write.

I say a pox on all their houses. All politicians who are in office for more than ten years should be hanged. If they arer lawyers, they should be banned from public office, because they are doubly crooks.