• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Shambles

End of prohibtion in sight?

Ismene

Bluelighter
Joined
Jun 17, 2005
Messages
13,158
Western leaders study 'gamechanging' report on global drugs tradeReview by Organisation of American States on illicit drugs 'could mark beginning of the end' of prohibition

In one scenario envisaged in the report, a number of South American countries would break with the prohibition line and decide that they will no longer deploy law enforcement and the army against drug cartels, having concluded that the human costs of the "war on drugs" is too high

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/18/western-leaders-game-changing-drugs-report
 
^

precisely. for a minute there i thought you were talking about the united states... in which case i wouldve begun vigorously pinching myself and started attempting to fly (though as bill hicks advised.. i would hopefully try for a standing takeoff first)


the question is... whether the imminent global powerswing from west to east is likely to change anything, given russia/china's ..complex grey-hat involvement in all of it


the end? this isnt even the beginning of the end.. but perhaps, it is the end of the beginning
 
Great news but...

Breaking the taboo about drugs

In an open letter, former Latin American leaders call for legal regulation to help undermine organised crime

After more than four decades of a failed war on drugs, calls for a change in strategy are growing louder by the day. In Latin America, the debate is positively deafening. Statesmen from Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico and Uruguay are taking the lead for transformations in their own drug regime, which has set a strong dynamic of change across the region and around the world. Their discussion has expanded to the US, where public opinion toward regulation is also changing.

For the first time, the majority of Americans support regulated cannabis for adult consumption. Nowhere has this support been more evident than in Colorado and Washington, states that recently approved new bills to this effect. This shift in public opinion presents a direct challenge to the US federal law, but also to the United Nations drug conventions and the international drug policy regime.

The Global Commission on Drug Policy, building on the call for a paradigm shift formulated by the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy, has called loudly for precisely these kinds of changes since 2011. Twenty global leaders have highlighted the devastating consequences of repressive drug policies on people, governance and economies not just in Latin America, but around the world.

Our flagship report – War on Drugs – sets out two main recommendations: (i) replace the criminalisation of drug use with a public health approach, and (ii) experiment with models of legal regulation designed to undermine the power of organised crime. By brokering a genuinely global conversation on drug policy reform, we broke a century-old taboo.

A new unexpected voice was added to the debate on drug policy reform. The Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS) José Miguel Insulza presented Colombian President Santos with the findings of a much anticipated report on alternative scenarios for drug control and regulation for the Americas. The study itself was originally the idea of Santos and endorsed by all heads of American states at the 2012 Summit of the Americas in Cartagena.

The OAS-backed study proposes four possible scenarios for future drug policy reflecting an emerging consensus across Latin America. Fortunately, none of the scenarios call for the status quo. Most experts endorse the first three scenarios – the shift from repressive approaches to ones that privilege citizen security, the experimentation with different approaches to regulating illegal drugs, and the strengthening of community resilience. Obviously, all serious leaders agree that the fourth scenario, the threat of creating narco-states, is to be avoided at all costs. Taken together, the report represents the first comprehensive treatment of drug policy reform from a multilateral organisation.

The OAS study sets out complementary, rather than mutually excluding paths. They are based on the realistic expectation that demand for psychoactive substances will continue to exist over the coming decade and that only a small proportion of users will become dependent. In fact, many states are already decriminalising drug use and experimenting with cannabis regulation, while also investing in harm reduction programmes including the medical supply of harder drugs. Rather than causing problems as predicted by their critics, they are generating positive and measurable results.

The OAS and countries across Latin America are positively contributing to the breaking of the taboo that blocked for so long the debate on more humane and efficient drug policy. It is time that governments around the world are allowed to responsibly experiment with regulation models that are tailored to their realities and local needs. The leadership demonstrated by President Santos and the OAS secretary general is welcomed. But the report is just the start – leaders across the Americas need to take this study seriously and consider how their own policies can be improved. In doing so, they will be breaking the vicious cycle of violence, corruption, and overcrowded prisons and will put people's health and security first

Wait for it....

Fernando Henrique Cardoso

former president of Brazil, chair

Cesar Gaviria

former president of Colombia

Ricardo Lagos

former president of Chile

George P. Shultz

former Secretary of State, United States, honorary chair

Paul Volcker

former Chairman of the United States Federal Reserve and of the Economic Recovery Board

Louise Arbour

former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, President of the International Crisis Group

Ernesto Zedillo

former president of Mexico
 
They'd have no need to. They already have access to legal drugs. I don't see why they'd want an increase in competition.

The opposite would happen.. that is how they buy out their competition. I doubt the cartels could do the later, though they do have the cash, but I have no doubt that Big Pharma is waiting for the day to get a piece of the now illegal drug market. All corporations operate with the same mentality.

Prohibition will come sooner or later, but also as a negative control tool I think. The fewer taboos there are in society, the less rebelious people might feel. Sadly, imo, a society without any constraints, is one that can be truly controlled.
 
Last edited:
My mate who's teaching English in China says that over there the rule is don't ask don't tell, basically the whole system is so inherently corrupt that unless you're doing something against the interests of the government, everything is tolerated as long as a few palms have been greased.

He says hìin some nightclubs in Shanghai they have menus at the bar with RCs, all the local businessman are drinking single malt while the farangs are off their tits on chemicals, he was saying that you have places where on the menus you have dozens of RCs available. In some other clubs they have Nigerian fellas openly selling everything, occasionally the police do sweeps in thos places.

I think the geopolitical shift towards the East could bring more of such an attitude, places like China, Southeast Asia and most other emerging economies outside of South America are not exactly renowned for their social liberalism and tolerance, however they are corrput to the pulp, if there is a profit in certain activities they will be tolerated as long as the wealth from them changes a few hands.

China however seems to be the future, apparently there is a huge rave scene, my friend went to some area of Shanghai which is as big as a European city which is full of warehouse parties, squats, punk gigs and people openly do any type of drug, he was saying he met people from this guerrilla art collective who had squatted a former factory and were growing weed on a roof and making art installations all over the place. The authorities didn't give a shit as none of it was politically oriented, just the kids of emergeging bourgeosie filling their saturday nights after they came back from their studies in OZ/canada.
 
Agreed, but stories like this reassure me that they do actually know the right thing to do, even if they feel that can't say it when in a position of power.

Little comfort, but it's better than them confirming that they believe the lie.

I think that makes it worse. It means they won"t listen to reason.
 
@ pontifex01 - I agree that there is a very large grey area regarding the financial system, probabaly other sectors as well, and how multinational corporations and the 'mafia, cartels etc' currently interact or could in the future. If I were to bet any money, I would bet on Big Pharma trying to get the whole share of the market, if not in the begining, surely at a later stage.

Regarding my second statement, imagine a world with far less taboos, a society where you a free to do as you please. Utopia perhpaps, complete control on the other in my opinion. Remember your teen years, and what you might have considered 'going against the tide'. Imagine all of that as the norm.. Without that, would you question authority, religion etc?

You mention the Dutch, and from some of your posts I take it you are from Italy. Holland is far more liberal than Italy, am I correct? In which two countries would you place money on the people revolting? Seen any riots in Amsterdam? Thus, observing more liberal societies, I sadly believe, that the changes that will come, will not be for our true benefit, but as control mechanism. People will become too passive I am afraid.
 
Won't or can't?

Won't implies willful belief. Can't implies structure.

Changing a belief is far more difficult.

Obviously it's both won't and can't. They can't because according to you (and I generally agree) they already believe the thing we would want to persuade them. And they won't, because they can't :)

Changing a belief can be difficult, but I like to think that a solid argument based on facts and evidence has at least a chance! Might take a while, but no-one (of note) believes the earth is flat any more.

Changing a structure, I think, is much more difficult, because no amount of argument will achieve anything. The structure is there due to vested interests. People will obstruct change because their very livelihoods depend on preservation of the status quo. I'm thinking of police, media, politicians, even the social services and the medical establishment. I think that is much worse.

Changing a structure, almost by definition, requires a revolution.

At least with homosexuality there wasn't a lot of money involved in keeping it illegal.


As BHM has demonstrated, a structure has the power to control beliefs, or at least expressed beliefs, which is all that matters really.
 
Last edited:
This is all just part of the news wheel. There is a cycle, because people have short memories. One day it's education. The next it is obesity. Another it's a new treatment for cancer. Another day it's some sort of crime

This is all just part of the news wheel. There is a cycle, because people have short memories. One day it's education. The next it is obesity. Another it's a new treatment for cancer. Another day it's some sort of crime figures. I did just think it will never happen because it would be so unpopular, but then when has that ever stopped politicians from doing what they want?

The powers that be need their criminals and they need the vast amounts of money from the black market. But then think about their pawns ie Madonna and her MDNA and molly ravings? is this a way of making people ready for its decriminalisation?

Also, I think of some of the tv programmes and films coming out of the US that show the use of cannabis as acceptable. It's all very tricksy
 
The powers that be need their criminals and they need the vast amounts of money from the black market. But then think about their pawns ie Madonna and her MDNA and molly ravings? is this a way of making people ready for its decriminalisation?

If you want a conspiracy theory you might say that dissident voices are allowed so that you don't think there is a conspiracy ;)
 
I'm shouting Illuminati.

buffet-jayz.jpg
 
but what would happen if drugs were decriminalised? really, what would the outcome be? well, they would be safer, therefore less deaths. they would be more expensive. I don't know what the out come would be.
 
i think the end of prohibition is frightening for many groups as it will cause a power shift. Those in power, do not want a power shift as they may lose out. Big pharma would fucking love it, imagine Bayer selling heroin again lol. I think those multinational conglomerates can far outmatch the cartels in power, i think they'd fucking destroy them.

The cartels and mafia are small time compared to these monsters of power. Maybe cartels and the mafia work with the financial sector quite a bit but when push comes to shove, big pharma will systemically FUCK THEM. And there's no media attention in that because it's subtle and not obvious. Why on earth would they come together and split profits? this is capitalism here, that shit doesn't happen. The bigger more powerful companies, will at the very least buy out the smaller companies (cartels or mafia) or systemically run them out of business. Go big pharma! There's no way in hell cartels or the mafia have the political influence that big pharma and the tobacco industries have. Alcohol may not like it but they are out numbered.

i think if drugs were legalized then the DEA/LEO/Prison industries would lose a lot and there'd be a big shift in political power, but who would benefit the most? big pharma. Who already has a shit load of influence on politics? big pharma. The only problem is that they can't patent all drugs so they aren't going to push for cannabis legalization, however they can make new formulas of drugs like cannabis, like sativex kind of thing and profit massively from it.

The FDA in the US would love it too, they'd have to regulate all this shit, making more money, more jobs, more power. Big tobacco companies sure as shit love to sell cannabis as well as tobacco. All these evil corporate entities will in the end help us reach our goals, because profit and power will somehow align with our beliefs in freedom. And this is an unlikely scenario but capitalism will then reign in as the superior and most humane way to run a society.
 
Makes you wonder if Legalisation might be the saving of the Capitalist, Free-Market regime...

Why would drugs have to be more expensive if they were legal? If it's true, as I read back in the 90's, that cocaine really does cost about the same per kilogram to produce as a kilo of sugar & the present high cost of cocaine comes not from the need to recoup those costs but to cover the expenses of smuggling & distribution, then legal cocaine should cost about 30p a gram. The idea of a legal market would be to heavilly undercut the illicit market so as to drive it out of business & ensure "customers" recieve quality products.

Of course, if the present pricing stucture for drugs were maintained, the unimaginably enormous profits could be used to help alleviate world poverty.
 
Look at the prices of cocaine in southern america , think in some places its like $3 a gram for amazing coke, same as heroin in Afghanistan,Iran,Pakistan where its more or less the same price for top notch heroin. But of course the people there live on alot less, so i guess the price sort of evens out that way. $3 for a gram of cocaine still costs alot if your living on $7 a day.
 
Top