bit_pattern
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2008
- Messages
- 8,127
-
-
AADD Moderators: Tronica
NEWS: Drug prohibition doesn't work - so what do we do next?
- Thread starter bit_pattern
- Start date
PsiloSubNaut
Bluelight Crew
Thanks for that BP
I have read "After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation" and i'm following government actions closely
I have read "After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation" and i'm following government actions closely
drug_mentor
Bluelight Crew
Nice article.
Here's an article which ran in the Los Angele Times a year and a half ago:
This is the U.S. on drugs
Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.
By David W. Fleming and James P. Gray
July 5, 2008
The United States' so-called war on drugs brings to mind the old saying that if you find yourself trapped in a deep hole, stop digging. Yet, last week, the Senate approved an aid package to combat drug trafficking in Mexico and Central America, with a record $400 million going to Mexico and $65 million to Central America.
The United States has been spending $69 billion a year worldwide for the last 40 years, for a total of $2.5 trillion, on drug prohibition -- with little to show for it. Is anyone actually benefiting from this war? Six groups come to mind.
The first group are the drug lords in nations such as Colombia, Afghanistan and Mexico, as well as those in the United States. They are making billions of dollars every year -- tax free.
The second group are the street gangs that infest many of our cities and neighborhoods, whose main source of income is the sale of illegal drugs.
Third are those people in government who are paid well to fight the first two groups. Their powers and bureaucratic fiefdoms grow larger with each tax dollar spent to fund this massive program that has been proved not to work.
Fourth are the politicians who get elected and reelected by talking tough -- not smart, just tough -- about drugs and crime. But the tougher we get in prosecuting nonviolent drug crimes, the softer we get in the prosecution of everything else because of the limited resources to fund the criminal justice system.
The fifth group are people who make money from increased crime. They include those who build prisons and those who staff them. The prison guards union is one of the strongest lobbying groups in California today, and its ranks continue to grow.
And last are the terrorist groups worldwide that are principally financed by the sale of illegal drugs.
Who are the losers in this war? Literally everyone else, especially our children.
Today, there are more drugs on our streets at cheaper prices than ever before. There are more than 1.2 million people behind bars in the U.S., and a large percentage of them for nonviolent drug usage. Under our failed drug policy, it is easier for young people to obtain illegal drugs than a six-pack of beer. Why? Because the sellers of illegal drugs don't ask kids for IDs. As soon as we outlaw a substance, we abandon our ability to regulate and control the marketing of that substance.
After we came to our senses and repealed alcohol prohibition, homicides dropped by 60% and continued to decline until World War II. Today's murder rates would likely again plummet if we ended drug prohibition.
So what is the answer? Start by removing criminal penalties for marijuana, just as we did for alcohol. If we were to do this, according to state budget figures, California alone would save more than $1 billion annually, which we now spend in a futile effort to eradicate marijuana use and to jail nonviolent users. Is it any wonder that marijuana has become the largest cash crop in California?
We could generate billions of dollars by taxing the stuff, just as we do with tobacco and alcohol.
We should also reclassify most Schedule I drugs (drugs that the federal government alleges have no medicinal value, including marijuana and heroin) as Schedule II drugs (which require a prescription), with the government regulating their production, overseeing their potency, controlling their distribution and allowing licensed professionals (physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, etc.) to prescribe them. This course of action would acknowledge that medical issues, such as drug addiction, are best left under the supervision of medical doctors instead of police officers.
The mission of the criminal justice system should always be to protect us from one another and not from ourselves. That means that drug users who drive a motor vehicle or commit other crimes while under the influence of these drugs would continue to be held criminally responsible for their actions, with strict penalties. But that said, the system should not be used to protect us from ourselves.
Ending drug prohibition, taxing and regulating drugs and spending tax dollars to treat addiction and dependency are the approaches that many of the world's industrialized countries are taking. Those approaches are ones that work.
David W. Fleming, a lawyer, is the chairman of the Los Angeles County Business Federation and immediate past chairman of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. James P. Gray is a judge of the Orange County Superior Court.
This is the U.S. on drugs
Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.
By David W. Fleming and James P. Gray
July 5, 2008
The United States' so-called war on drugs brings to mind the old saying that if you find yourself trapped in a deep hole, stop digging. Yet, last week, the Senate approved an aid package to combat drug trafficking in Mexico and Central America, with a record $400 million going to Mexico and $65 million to Central America.
The United States has been spending $69 billion a year worldwide for the last 40 years, for a total of $2.5 trillion, on drug prohibition -- with little to show for it. Is anyone actually benefiting from this war? Six groups come to mind.
The first group are the drug lords in nations such as Colombia, Afghanistan and Mexico, as well as those in the United States. They are making billions of dollars every year -- tax free.
The second group are the street gangs that infest many of our cities and neighborhoods, whose main source of income is the sale of illegal drugs.
Third are those people in government who are paid well to fight the first two groups. Their powers and bureaucratic fiefdoms grow larger with each tax dollar spent to fund this massive program that has been proved not to work.
Fourth are the politicians who get elected and reelected by talking tough -- not smart, just tough -- about drugs and crime. But the tougher we get in prosecuting nonviolent drug crimes, the softer we get in the prosecution of everything else because of the limited resources to fund the criminal justice system.
The fifth group are people who make money from increased crime. They include those who build prisons and those who staff them. The prison guards union is one of the strongest lobbying groups in California today, and its ranks continue to grow.
And last are the terrorist groups worldwide that are principally financed by the sale of illegal drugs.
Who are the losers in this war? Literally everyone else, especially our children.
Today, there are more drugs on our streets at cheaper prices than ever before. There are more than 1.2 million people behind bars in the U.S., and a large percentage of them for nonviolent drug usage. Under our failed drug policy, it is easier for young people to obtain illegal drugs than a six-pack of beer. Why? Because the sellers of illegal drugs don't ask kids for IDs. As soon as we outlaw a substance, we abandon our ability to regulate and control the marketing of that substance.
After we came to our senses and repealed alcohol prohibition, homicides dropped by 60% and continued to decline until World War II. Today's murder rates would likely again plummet if we ended drug prohibition.
So what is the answer? Start by removing criminal penalties for marijuana, just as we did for alcohol. If we were to do this, according to state budget figures, California alone would save more than $1 billion annually, which we now spend in a futile effort to eradicate marijuana use and to jail nonviolent users. Is it any wonder that marijuana has become the largest cash crop in California?
We could generate billions of dollars by taxing the stuff, just as we do with tobacco and alcohol.
We should also reclassify most Schedule I drugs (drugs that the federal government alleges have no medicinal value, including marijuana and heroin) as Schedule II drugs (which require a prescription), with the government regulating their production, overseeing their potency, controlling their distribution and allowing licensed professionals (physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, etc.) to prescribe them. This course of action would acknowledge that medical issues, such as drug addiction, are best left under the supervision of medical doctors instead of police officers.
The mission of the criminal justice system should always be to protect us from one another and not from ourselves. That means that drug users who drive a motor vehicle or commit other crimes while under the influence of these drugs would continue to be held criminally responsible for their actions, with strict penalties. But that said, the system should not be used to protect us from ourselves.
Ending drug prohibition, taxing and regulating drugs and spending tax dollars to treat addiction and dependency are the approaches that many of the world's industrialized countries are taking. Those approaches are ones that work.
David W. Fleming, a lawyer, is the chairman of the Los Angeles County Business Federation and immediate past chairman of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. James P. Gray is a judge of the Orange County Superior Court.
Great article. It is really great that information like this is making its way into people's homes. The homes of people that use the word junkie to help themselves feel better.
Junkism, (look i just coined a word) is just like racism, why should drug users be discriminated against because of a life style choice. Information spreading is the key, once newspaper's realise that controverisal articles like this sell papers, this information will start flowing more steadily.
Thanks for sharing
Junkism, (look i just coined a word) is just like racism, why should drug users be discriminated against because of a life style choice. Information spreading is the key, once newspaper's realise that controverisal articles like this sell papers, this information will start flowing more steadily.
Thanks for sharing
hyroller
Bluelighter
As we full well know in Australia... all that glimmers aint gold, lol.
But still. I suppose you can't throw out all hope prematurely. It ain't over til it's over, etc
But still. I suppose you can't throw out all hope prematurely. It ain't over til it's over, etc
The population really relies on the government in every aspect of life. I agree with decriminalising and certain forms of legalisation but when I hear people want all drugs legalised I really wonder if they have considered the repercussions of what they are actually asking for. I completely agree for heroin to be legally controlled et cetera due to the relatively high dangers involved but there should also be rehabilitation programs offered. It would obviously involve a lot of expenditure but when you can wage a war on drugs like the current one you must have a lot of money lieing around...
Jakeperson
Bluelighter
Finally.
andyturbo
Bluelight Crew
top article
footscrazy
Bluelight Crew
It's great to see these kind of articles in mainstream Australian media, this is where it all starts. It's getting the other side of the issue out there to the general public which is very important.
I do however diagree with the first line 'IT'S not Suzanne's fault that she became addicted to heroin at 16.' This is just feeding into the image of drug users as helpless, useless people at the bottom of the social scale. It's important that the general public realises that this is not the typical drug user - and that many can use more or less responsibly while still being productive members of society.
I do however diagree with the first line 'IT'S not Suzanne's fault that she became addicted to heroin at 16.' This is just feeding into the image of drug users as helpless, useless people at the bottom of the social scale. It's important that the general public realises that this is not the typical drug user - and that many can use more or less responsibly while still being productive members of society.
team gong
Bluelighter
Alot of the funding governments put into fighting drug use and crimes could easily be funneled back into education, rehabilitation and health care.
It's about time governments wisened up to this. It's something which is not going to happen overnight, but eventually it is beneficial for the population as a whole.
Legalising and regulating most drugs will not necessarily mean more users. Especially if it's done in a smart way with prescriptions and so forth.
Hopefully articles like the above two help the cause. I'm sick of funding drug barons lifestyles. I'd rather be taxed and fund my own country.
It's about time governments wisened up to this. It's something which is not going to happen overnight, but eventually it is beneficial for the population as a whole.
Legalising and regulating most drugs will not necessarily mean more users. Especially if it's done in a smart way with prescriptions and so forth.
Hopefully articles like the above two help the cause. I'm sick of funding drug barons lifestyles. I'd rather be taxed and fund my own country.
PsiloSubNaut
Bluelight Crew
There is less harm in legalizing all drugs than what we have today...
Legalize all drugs, get the proper information out there about all drugs, prescribe/add taxes and we wont have a large percentage of the mess we see in today's society of prohibition
While drugs are illegal there is little information given to kids in school other than them being "BAD". When kids smoke their first joint/drop first pill and find out they've been lied to they will go and throw all sorts of crap into their bodies without a care.
If you were to inform kids of the physical and mental risks associated with all drugs from a young age they are way less likely to use drugs and far less likely to fall into the circle of addiction.
I don't see drug legalization leading to drug use of epic proportions, in fact, it has been proven that decriminalization/legalization leads to less drug use throughout communities.
Do you think that society will all become useless drug users or something if everything were legal?
Can you and everyone you know not get any drug you want now?
Most users can get anything they want, whenever they want and still lead a normal life. How is that going to change?
The big changes would include
*where you buy it from
*pharmaceutical purity
*gang activity would almost cease to exist
*countries controlled by drug cartels would take back control as the money from black market drugs ceased to exist
*real scientific information used in drug education. Not religious or political views like we see so much of today
*the taxes would help to treat people who do fall into addiction (which would be decreased through proper education)
I could go on and on but i'd rather keep this post at that length, I may have forgotten something as i am very tired
Have a long hard think about it and I think you would have to agree
chemi
Bluelighter
While I agree with a lot of what you have said, this sentence struck me:
I'm not so sure about this. I know a lot of my use and a lot of my other drug taking friends' use is restricted (perhaps thankfully) by a lack of sources. I understand people who live in the right neighborhood and know the right people can get pretty much whatever they want whenever they want, but I would disagree that most users, or even a few users can get whatever, whenever. I'd say that accounts for only a very small percentage of users.
I do believe that having access to illicit drugs in the same way we have access to tobacco would increase use in current users. I also believe it will be a major factor in people using a substance for the first time (is this something we want?). A lot of people have the ethos that if something is legal, how can it be bad (like my friend who eats 12 Nurofen + each night, and when I tell him off he says "but they sell it OTC, it can't be THAT bad for you").
I'm still not sure where I stand with the whole legalise drugs thing. Cannabis should be available in packets, like Drum is. But a lot of the harder stuff, I'm still not convinced. Decriminalisation, sure. Availability? Hmm...
bit_pattern
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2008
- Messages
- 8,127
I post on a football forum too and am kind of shocked by the wide level of support for a change in drug laws, attitudes ar really shifting.
^ i think they other thing to note is that drug use has gone mainstream.
I remember when i was doing pills fairly hard, it was only confined to the doof/rave scene. Then over the course of 5 - 8 years, i started seeing normal club punters gurning in clubs and pubs.
And now, i would have to say i could probably count the people i know who havnt used drugs on my hands, and those people are very tolerant to substance use.
Look at how many young people get on substances at festivals etc.
If people are not using psychedelics, they are using stimulants, if they are not stimulant users they are using pot, if they are not using anything they have friends that do.
Aussie hiphop is filled with pot, pills and beer references.
More people using drugs than ever, even if its not a regular occurrence from them, once a person has had some experience with drugs their attitude changes.
I remember when i was doing pills fairly hard, it was only confined to the doof/rave scene. Then over the course of 5 - 8 years, i started seeing normal club punters gurning in clubs and pubs.
And now, i would have to say i could probably count the people i know who havnt used drugs on my hands, and those people are very tolerant to substance use.
Look at how many young people get on substances at festivals etc.
If people are not using psychedelics, they are using stimulants, if they are not stimulant users they are using pot, if they are not using anything they have friends that do.
Aussie hiphop is filled with pot, pills and beer references.
More people using drugs than ever, even if its not a regular occurrence from them, once a person has had some experience with drugs their attitude changes.
team gong
Bluelighter
Chemi - Your friend that eats 12+ nurofen each day would require education. Yes, having drugs legalised would make it available for people that may not have thought to use it.
But that's where control comes in. It would be controlled through prescriptions. If someone wants to go nuts on OTC drugs, that means they have a problem, and would require education/rehabilitation.
The quality of drugs would improve drastically if regulated/controlled. I'd rather seen punters on clean gear than dirty crap. Making it OTC doesnt mean it's extremely easy to get. You'd still need dr's to prescribe etc, and your name would be down as a user.
The same laws would also still apply... ie, cant take drugs and drive, cant take drugs and work etc etc... You get caught breaching these, you pay the price.
But that's where control comes in. It would be controlled through prescriptions. If someone wants to go nuts on OTC drugs, that means they have a problem, and would require education/rehabilitation.
The quality of drugs would improve drastically if regulated/controlled. I'd rather seen punters on clean gear than dirty crap. Making it OTC doesnt mean it's extremely easy to get. You'd still need dr's to prescribe etc, and your name would be down as a user.
The same laws would also still apply... ie, cant take drugs and drive, cant take drugs and work etc etc... You get caught breaching these, you pay the price.
jackandjill
Greenlighter
but which ones should be prescription? and what would be a reason for going to the doctor and asking for a script for MDMA? and what limits will be imposed? 1 pill per month?
schedule 1 drugs are schedule 1 because they have no medical use... so getting doctors to prescribe drugs that have no medical use seems a bit stupid.
and as chemi said if drugs were legal there would be an increase in use because suddenly people think all the drugs are safe and they will be easily accessible - where before their lack of connections may have been holding them back.
I'm using MDMA as an example because it would be the drug that would see the biggest uptake and although it is relatively safe in terms of recreational drug use... it can still be quite dangerous!
there will suddenly be inexperienced drug users going out and taking MDMA and overheating, dehydrating, drinking too much water. Hospitals would be inundated with first time users who don't know how to take the drugs safely and think they're dying.