| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| Global war on drugs has 'failed' say former leaders |
| 2011-06-02 |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #36 Again, Darwin. |
| Posted by: Ominous1 2011-06-02 22:14 |
| #35 I could be wrong but I always got the impression that Meth users were pretty much zombies beforehand. They had nothing to lose. MOre or less the same with crack (Whitney Houston not withstanding). |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2011-06-02 21:54 |
| #34 The fact that there are people zombified by illegal meth walking around is evidence that prohibition is not stopping people from becoming zombified. Therefore, we need to change our approach to the problem, helping the now and future zombified to recover, rather than continuing what we are doing now. That there are new bad drugs becoming available only makes the need for change in our approach more urgent. Criminalizing drug use is a misuse of the justice system. The justice system exists to arbitrate disputes, not impose morality. Murdering people is immoral in Christian theology, not so much in Muslim, but no matter the morality murder causes a dispute between the killer and the family of the killed. Without a justice system to protect the rights of the weaker side of the disputes, their rights would not exist. Furthermore, the strong would spend a lot of effort in vendettas between themselves. Similarly, providing dangerous drugs could cause a dispute between the provider and the victim and victim's family, but usually the victim is complicit in the exchange. However, the mere use of dangerous drugs does not cause a dispute, except possibly between the victim and the victim's family. In this case the dispute is best solved in the family or possibly through civil (involuntary commitment or divorce) rather than criminal courts. Rarely would the family or victim choose to criminalize the dispute. It is necessary, for both the reason that criminalization of drug use is not working and that the criminal justice system is not intended to enforce morality, that drug use be decriminalized. Decriminalization of mere use means that people who do criminal things while impaired get no pass, and people who supply dangerous drugs get no quarter, but most people stay out of the criminal system; so they can focus on recovery, and the police and jailors can focus on criminals causing damage and disputes in the community. |
| Posted by: rammer 2011-06-02 19:50 |
| #33 #31 "It might smell a bit while it burns off the crud, but it takes care of the issue". I enjoyed you subtle choice of words. I call that sort of thing shop talk. A cruel real world reality. |
| Posted by: Dale 2011-06-02 19:33 |
| #32 Of course, there is also Mao's solution to a drug problem in society : execute the junkies and the dealers en masse. It seemed to end China's drug issues for a couple of decades. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2011-06-02 19:17 |
| #31 I am sorry if I am about to offend anyone but a drug that is cheap, available, and kills its users within 6 months seems like the drug version of the self-cleaning oven to me. It might smell a bit while it burns off the crud, but it takes care of the issue. Same with the new drug, it is a self-limiting problem that burns through the existing addict base, which I fail to see as a problem for society as a whole. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2011-06-02 19:13 |
| #30 You wish to live in a society where narcotics are legal, cultivated widely, sold openly, and represent the lion's share of the GNP? MOVE TO AFHGANISTAN! You'll love it. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2011-06-02 18:45 |
| #29 #28 They don't think that far. They live for the moment only. |
| Posted by: Dale 2011-06-02 18:32 |
| #28 Oxidado. Do they just use the petrol products as solvents that evaporate or does the petrol remain and get smoked along with the cocaine? Isn't that, like, carcinogenic? |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2011-06-02 18:10 |
| #27 Paying for government enforcement of laws aiming at saving drug users from themselves I am somewhat ambivalent. Good riddance to bad rubbish if they wreck the lives of them selfs it is their business not mine, is one side of things. The other is that these are human beings and should be helped compassionately at least once if possible. The problem that occurs is that the junky must want to come clean. No amount of external motivation will suffice for a lack of internal personal dedication. Many of these have place themself's firmly, knowingly, wantingly, deliberately and repeatedly beyond hope of help. |
| Posted by: The Other Beldar 2011-06-02 17:19 |
| #26 Legalized marijuana will not be undercut by illegal stuff. Look at legal versus bootlegged alcohol as an example. Yes there will be illegals like there are now. But they will be very small in scale compared to the money now in illegal drugs drug or the gang money that were formerly in alcohol during prohibition. |
| Posted by: The Other Beldar 2011-06-02 17:16 |
| #25 Ebbang Uluque6305 Yes when you see these Zombies it is like looking at death. Terrible waist. Meth is bad enough but this new stuff from Brazil is cheap and making its way north. You start it and you're a goner. Meth heads are causing high crime rates even in small communities. The new drug has people being called Zombies also. You either live with cancer and hope it goes away or you stop it. There is no middle ground. I have seen many young people destroying themselves with just about anything. Like our new wars they never end and cause more loss of life. If they are not dealt with we will lose our cities to these Zombies. When they take this new stuff they don't eat or sleep for ten days. So you have an enemy lurking about 24-7. They want to add Lithium to our drinking water now. What would happen should this stuff be added. A true pandora's box that has been opened. The dangers of curiosity and devilment. An insanely evil pied piper. |
| Posted by: Dale 2011-06-02 17:05 |
| #24 Personally, I can't get exited over saving people from their own selves. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2011-06-02 16:42 |
| #23 Moose's wisdom shines through. Perhaps all violent offenders should be forced to consume mass amounts of marijuana to promote public safety. Just let them grow their own, cause I ain't payin for their stash. |
| Posted by: Ominous1 2011-06-02 16:40 |
| #22 It calls for drug policies based on methods empirically proven to reduce crime and promote economic and social development. If you haven't figured out what that means - it's Goverment administerd Social Justice. And notice, if you will, some of the most vocal opponents are from the countries that are top producers of coca and opiates? Yeah thats right - Economic Justice. The numerous Libertarian arguments posted today for legalizing drugs are the polar opposite of what is actually being advocated here. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2011-06-02 16:06 |
| #21 I'm all in favour of harsh penalties for externalities, but for the vast majority of drug users there's no externality. Most people addicted to drugs have addictive personalities, they'll get addicted to anything they can find. It's called self medication. The more you drive their medicine under-ground the worse it is for them, and more importantly for us. This is the lesson that prohibition always teaches. All your examples show me that the current model has failed miserably. Try something that worked in the past, end prohibtion. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2011-06-02 15:54 |
| #20 We haven't even started fighting the war on drugs. I'll believe there is a war on drugs when: 1. Sellers are executed, first offense. 2. Smugglers are executed, first offense. 3. Users are flogged, first offense, executed second. 4. Napalm the growing fields or spray them with persistent nerve agents. Til then, we're just pissing in the wind and wondering why it's raining. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick - Lost Drill Bit Division - Halliburton 2011-06-02 15:54 |
| #19 While it sounds nonsensical on the surface, there is some sense, if marijuana is legalized, in making it widely available to convicted felons in prison. This is because the best reason to *not* use marijuana, is because it makes you slow, stupid, and apathetic. Which can be a good thing in a violent prison. The way this would work is that prisoners are given unrestricted availability and use of marijuana, until the last six months of their sentence, then they are sent to a "rehab" prison, where there are no drugs, and where they are put on a healthy, almost vegetarian diet full of fruits and vegetables. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2011-06-02 15:29 |
| #18 Commenting on sites that raise your blood pressure? Come on, now. I'm here to raise your blood pressure. So, here goes: I took a ride recently on mass transportation in San Diego. There were some people sitting opposite from me. It was pretty obvious they were meth freaks. How could I tell? Dull hair, dull complexion, dull eyes, teeth gone. This one chick looked like a little old lady who'd forgotten to put in her dentures before she ventured outside, except that her hair wasn't grey. It was some kind of dull, mousy brown. She looked like death. She was still walking but she was dead. A zombie. She reeked of tobacco. She might have weight about 90 pounds. Her boyfriend was working on a little cardboard sign that read "Hungry. Please help. God bless." Another girl was brushing her hair and applying makeup as if that would hide the fact that she too was dead. You could see it in her eyes. Dead. Might as well have been six feet under. There is no rehab for these people. They are too far gone. At the next stop I jumped off the train because they were too scary for me. Sorry. I'm a wimp. Legalize meth? I don't think so. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2011-06-02 15:00 |
| #17 I wouldn't bring back prohibition, but I would make sure all those drunk drivers in accidents were doing lots of hard time. People need to be held responsible for their actions, even when under the influence of a drug, licit or il. That is the key to legalizing these substances. Make people live with the consequences of their actions. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2011-06-02 14:31 |
| #16 Besoeker, I think the difference is this... If you murder somebody, it's my business. If you want to fry your brain on drugs or alcohol, or destroy your body on cigarettes or high risk activity, I have no business declaring war on you. The fact that the war is a massive failure, a boon to cartels, and a waste of money and resources is just an added cost to what I see as the injustice of trying to dictate peoples' behavior. |
| Posted by: AuburnTom 2011-06-02 14:26 |
| #15 #13 You are spot on."Darwin sorts things out nicely if left alone". New drug from Brazil will do what we haven't been able to. Highly addictive even just trying it. Six months and the drug users are history. Cheap I understand end of problem. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/30/oxi-crack-cocaine-south-america |
| Posted by: Gomez Trotsky7459 2011-06-02 12:21 |
| #14 I suppose one would be safe in saying "the global war on murder has failed." Therefore murder should be decriminalized. I know I'm old, and slow, but the logic escapes me. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2011-06-02 11:53 |
| #13 Bottom line: Nanny state wont save anyone. Darwin sorts things out nicely if left alone. Enforcing nanny state laws against non violent offenders is stupid, fascist and a huge waste of resources. Most cops I know think pot should be legal to free up resources to fight real crime. |
| Posted by: Ominous1 2011-06-02 11:47 |
| #12 It's not a yes/no situation. Sure, make things easy enough that it isn't worth producing and distributing on a mass scale. But we would need measures to deal with problem users in a better way. It won't be perfect, and it might be wrong, but I'd like to see it given an honest try. Personally, I think the balance will work out better. A force working against this will be all the government agencies and employees whose jobs, power, pride, and stature depend on the existance of this counterproductive effort. And the hit to the jobs numbers, even if they are just counterproductive, tax-sinking jobs instead of productive private jobs. Which is another cost of the "War on Drugs". |
| Posted by: gorb 2011-06-02 11:45 |
| #11 well, it onlky took them a little over 30 yrs. too realize it. |
| Posted by: chris 2011-06-02 11:23 |
| #10 So you actually want to bring back Alcohol prohibition!? Humans have failed to end murder and rape as well, so by the logic presented, just end enforcement. The whole cost in prosecution and confinement will disappear. /sarc off I want the excuse makers to be honest that they're simply trading one big problem for another and that the world will not suddenly magically be 'kinder gentler' in the alternatives. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-06-02 11:10 |
| #9 There does seem to be some cartel action against independent growers in Colorado. |
| Posted by: bman 2011-06-02 11:02 |
| #8 ...I have long ago come to the conclusion that at the very least marijuana should be legalized, but I keep coming up against the same brick wall that no one else ever seems to consider: does anyone think, even for a moment, that the drug cartels will just suddenly say, "Well, guess we're not making any money there anymore; let's try Kahzakhstan"? They will undercut the official prices so deeply that almost no one with any brain cells left will buy Government Grass (TM). That will happen because once the government decides to get into the business, it will tax the living daylights out of the stuff...and getting caught with anything but official government weed will result in penalties that will make the current foolishness look like timeout with Mr. Rogers. Putting it bluntly: if you think the current war on drugs is a money-flushing, liberty destroying waste of time, effort, and funds....wait till you see how bad it gets once they're legal. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2011-06-02 10:29 |
| #7 So you actually want to bring back Alcohol prohibition!? You do know it was a miserable failure (like the war on drugs is). At least the Mafia will thank-you. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2011-06-02 09:15 |
| #6 Since the repeal of Prohibition more people have died on our highways at the hands of DUIs than America has suffered in all the wars since. That doesn't include those killed by someone by other means while under the influence. Society just moves the death count from one column to another and thinks itself clean because it's no longer a 'crime' but the cemeteries can't tell the difference. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-06-02 08:50 |
| #5 I will celebrate. The amount of crime will drop to near zero. Drug pushers will be next to bankrupt. Organised crime will be bankrupt. I Win, drug users win, criminals lose. Rather than Lose Lose Crime-Win currently enabled by the Drug "enforcement", Drug Profits duopoly. It's part of the puritan urge to ban people enjoying themselves. I wonder what activity you enjoy that could harm you they'd like to ban? Motorbikes? Commenting on sites that raise your blood pressure? |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2011-06-02 08:24 |
| #4 You'll want to revisit that opinion when a hit of heroin, crack or meth in London goes for a pound. |
| Posted by: Zebulon Thranter9685 2011-06-02 06:10 |
| #3 Since we're talking failure, how about the US "War on Poverty"? Declared by Johnson and Congress back when we had revenue to burn - circa 1966. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2011-06-02 05:59 |
| #2 Drug Prohibition was a stupid idea to begin with. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2011-06-02 05:35 |
| #1 "International" and "failure" go together. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2011-06-02 03:37 |