Kofi Annan on Why It's Time to Legalize Drugs

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/kofi-annan-on-why-drug-bans-are-ineffective-a-1078402.html

by citizensixteen • 10 years ago

654 356 10 years ago

smegel• 10 years ago

It really is a difficult problem. Sweden legalized heroin in the 60s and it was a disaster. On the other hand, enforcement only has a moderate impact, but comes at a huge financial and social cost. And while I don't support it, the only country with a measure of success seems to be Singapore, where you just hang anyone who has more than single dose in their possession. Maybe the grim reality is hanging a few hundred people a year would cause less social harm than letting drugs fester away at society taking how many thousands of lives a year, not to mention the countless lives destroyed by mass incarceration and the financial burden to society.

AndrewDucker• 10 years ago

"The only country with a measure of success seems to be Singapore"

So, completely discounting the massive improvements in Portugal since decriminalisation?

icebraining• 10 years ago

While I'm very glad we did so, I have to point out that decriminalization of possession of small amounts of drugs is very far from legalization.

random_upvoter• 10 years ago

Note that manufacture, import and sale of drugs is still illegal in Portugal.

I find it hard to understand why so many people in the US want to switch drug policy from one extreme of the spectrum to the other. It's a rash social experiment with consequences that are hard to predict.

lotsofpulp• 10 years ago

It's usually not a good idea to assume the parameters and dynamics of a small totalitarian island state can/will/should apply to other populations.

akie• 10 years ago

The US incarcerated very significant percentages of its black male population under the guise of the "war on drugs" and I'm not sure if it made much of a difference. Drug use in the US is certainly not lower than in comparable countries, so I'm not sure if you could conclude that removing people from society in order to address the "drug problem" is necessarily an idea backed by solid data.

falsestprophet• 10 years ago

This is a common misconception.

Only 20% of state and federal prisoners (those serving more than a one year sentence) have drug crimes as their most serious conviction.

80% of prisoners are serving time for violent (47.7%), property (17.1%), or public order crimes (13.8%) that no one would argue are victimless.

While some of the other crime is related to drugs, the point is that 80% of the prisoners in the US have grievously victimized our fellow citizens and residents and are not innocent "[people removed] from society in order to address the 'drug problem'" as the parent comment stated.

Source: http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=0...

pbhjpbhj5• 10 years ago

US incarcerated very significant percentages of its black male population under the guise of the "war on drugs" //

You think it was a government backed conspiracy against black males?

manuelflara• 10 years ago

I had no idea about your Sweden claim so I looked it up. From [1] the only similar thing I can read is related to The Legal Prescription Program, which IMO is very different than "legalizing drugs (or just heroin)". Basically, they gave doctors the ability to give prescriptions to drugs such as morphine and amphetamine (without limitations, apparently) to addicts in the hopes that this would result in lower crime rates. This obviously lead to these drugs ending in users other than those participating in the program, which ended the program itself. Quite an obvious outcome IMO. This approach I think not only is flawed and very different than legalization of drugs (for everyone), but also let's be honest here, both society and our understanding of drugs and abuse in the 60s and now are very different. Maybe what wasn't possible then is possible now.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Sweden#The_Lega...

rwmj2• 10 years ago

Singapore has a thriving methamphetamine ("ice") problem: http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Crime/Story/A1St... http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/young-well-edu...

joshontheweb• 10 years ago

Even if hanging drug users is effective, it certainly isn't a conscionable solution. However, I really don't believe that would work anyway.

Drug users should be left alone and drug abusers should have access to treatment.

vidarh2• 10 years ago

And of course hanging drug users is effective: You necessarily reduce demand if you're brutal enough. Want 100% effectiveness? Pre-emptively hang everyone. War on drugs won...

It misses the fundamental point, which is that the goal isn't - or shouldn't be - a drug free society. But to reduce harm. Including to the drug users.

Accepting that ruining drug users - addicts or not - lives doesn't reduce harm needs to be the first step, because we seem all too willing to lock them up and ensure their prospects of making a living in any other way than through crime is removed, without considering that these people are also part of the community we are supposedly trying to save from harm.

ghshephard• 10 years ago

Singapore is somewhat unique in that it's a country with very restricted freedoms, which have been given up in exchange for security/safety. It's extraordinarily rule-bound, and, in many ways, is the antithesis of the United States, in which freedoms reign. In such a structured, government controlled and monitored society, all sorts of rules can be laid down, and enforced through strict punishment. I wouldn't try and use it as a model for other countries.

But - hey, might be worth executing anybody who uses drugs to see what happens. But I hope you're going to start with the really destructive ones, like Alcohol and Nicotine before you start looking at the less harmful ones such as cannabis.

user_0001• 10 years ago

in which freedoms reign.

Really? Looking beyond what is drilled in to the population from birth and the US is very rule bound in my experience compared to Europe. Whilst over there I got ticketed for parking at the wrong angle, crossing the road in the wrong place. Granted not a rule, but got questions by police for walking and many other situations I forget.

Perhaps European countries have this many rules / laws but I have never experienced them being enforced

anon44• 10 years ago

But I hope you're going to start with the really destructive ones, like Alcohol and Nicotine before you start looking at the less harmful ones such as cannabis.

Well, to be fair, I wouldn't mind executing alcoholics and smokers. But you can have the best of both worlds - provide help and healthcare to ones who have fallen in drug use and execute the ones who can't complete rehab.

jdietrich3• 10 years ago

really destructive ones, like Alcohol and Nicotine

Alcohol is inherently harmful, but nicotine itself is a relatively safe drug; The harms associated with nicotine are overwhelmingly caused by the delivery mechanism of smoking.

We have alternative delivery mechanisms for nicotine that are drastically safer than tobacco smoking. E-cigarettes are most prominent, with around 95% lower harm than smoking[1], but snus is also a relatively low-harm product[2].

This principle is very important to the broader drug debate. We must be careful to separate the innate harms caused by a drug and harms that can be managed through good harm reduction policy.

[1]https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-le... [2]http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/12/4/349.long

jernfrost7• 10 years ago

is the antithesis of the United States, in which freedoms reign

Perhaps compared to Singapore, but my main reason for leaving the US after just 1 year, was the police state feeling that country gave me.

So many draconian rules and heavy fines and penalties. So many aggressive cops who will go after people for the smallest things: under age drinking, jaywalking etc.

American border controls are like an imaginary communist police state. Ironically old east block countries aren't like this presently.

In America there are just rules for everything. I went to an American university and compared to a European one they are total control freaks: no drinking on campus. Boys and girls can't mix. I mean they even got people patrolling the dorms to make sure rules are upheld. It is like some nazi kindergarten for adults.

I left for University in the Netherlands. Instead I got a bar on campus right outside my flat. We lived boys and girls together and nobody was walking around monitoring us.

I even heard from American high schoolers coming on exchange that public display of affection is not allowed. I had never even heard such an expression before. So kissing, hugging etc apparently isn't allowed in American high schools.

Although that sounds so crazy I am willing to believe that is a gross exaggeration.

vidarh2• 10 years ago

Sweden legalized heroin in the 60s and it was a disaster.

I can't find any source for this. What I can find is information about legal prescription from '65 to '67 to a limited number of addicts, who were able to get sufficient doses that they in effect became a source of drugs for drug dealers.

So they continued to have the same problem of dealers, but with substantially increased supply.

Note that many countries today have legal prescription of proscribed drugs to addicts. Prescription of heroin is legal in the UK, for example (and, in fact, it is not only prescribed to addicts, but also used for post-op pain management in hospitals), without the problems Sweden ran into, because the amounts are strictly controlled.

It seemed the Swedish government managed to get the worst of both worlds by continuing to fight drugs while turning themselves into a cheaper, safer source for dealers.

the_mitsuhiko• 10 years ago

Not sure how you're claiming prescription heroin is not a problem in the UK. It is a big one.

coldtea3• 10 years ago

And while I don't support it, the only country with a measure of success seems to be Singapore, where you just hang anyone who has more than single dose in their possession.

Success being what? People not doing drugs? Who said that's what people want?

gerbilly• 10 years ago

the only country with a measure of success seems to be Singapore

I'm sure they also hang people for chewing gum in Singapore, or whip them or whatever, doesn't mean that we should imitate them.

Who wants to live in a society where people are treated like that?

ommunist3• 10 years ago

Decriminalising ganja will also boost textile industry.

coldtea3• 10 years ago

Not really, since the textile plants are of different varieties of canabis, and already allowed in lots of countries.

ommunist3• 10 years ago

I actually tried to make a business plan on that in one country. To my surprise there is a huge burden of proving what exact varieties are you growing and your entire textile crops can be destroyed by police raid just out of suspicion.

wfunction4• 10 years ago

Is there evidence to show that legalizing drugs (I don't mean e.g. tobacco here; I mean the far more dangerous ones) won't significantly increase their consumption?

I ask because, unless there is, I'm afraid I do not understand why it would be rational to do so...

sergioisidoro• 10 years ago

Legalisation, no, but decriminalisation, yes:

Take for example Portugal: Almost 1% of the population was addicted to heroin a couple of years ago, as the country moved away form a dictatorship and found freedom (also coming from a colonial war). With decriminalisation, and by treating addicts as patients, instead of criminals, the panorama improved greatly.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-d...

Yaggo• 10 years ago

Far more dangerous ones, such as alcohol? Tobacco is already the 6th dangerous drug in the world.

http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/whats-most-dangerous-...

wfunction4• 10 years ago

By "dangerous" I meant in the typical, colloquial sense (e.g. more likely to kill you in a shorter amount of time or what have you)...

Synaesthesia5• 10 years ago

And by FAR the deadliest drug in the world. Something like 90% of all drug deaths globally. It's an incredibly harmful drug. Hard drugs cause less than 1% of drug deaths that tobacco causes.

ZeroGravitas4• 10 years ago

Well, it's not all or nothing. If you legalized cannabis for example, you may find that users switch to that from more harmful drugs such as alcohol, or opiates. In particular, by buying from controlled suppliers, rather than the black-market, makes them less likely to be offered worse stuff as alternatives.

By then reducing the size of the black market, you drain it of customers and money, and make it easier to police. But banning stuff that large segments of the population already do, even while suffering legal risk, is a harder policy to enforce.

There's also the fact that horse-riding, backyard pools, gun ownership, rock climbing, not eating well or excercising enough as likely to kill you as some drugs, so a consistent approach to that would be welcome too.

wfunction4• 10 years ago

There's also the fact that horse-riding, backyard pools, gun ownership, rock climbing, not eating well or excercising enough as likely to kill you as some drugs, so a consistent approach to that would be welcome too.

Unlike the use of drugs, almost all of the things you mentioned fall under category of "exercise", which (correct me if I'm wrong) I believe is medically accepted to have immense benefits, whereas I'm not sure the case is the same with the drugs under consideration here...

vzcx3• 10 years ago

I assume you mean "rational, if your goal is to decrease drug use."

If that is the case, one must also consider all of the costs involved in making the drugs illegal, from paying people to enforce their illegality (DEA, border agents, customs inspections), increased burdens on the legal system, and the funding more prisons, the increase in thefts committed by addicts due to the rise in prices, increased burden on medical services (impure drugs are more hazardous to health)...

If your goal is "decrease drug use at all costs," then I question the rationality of the goal.

oneeyedpigeon6• 10 years ago

And, clearly, that goal is so vague as to be meaningless. How are "drugs" being defined? How are you deciding which substances should have their usage reduced and which shouldn't?

coldtea3• 10 years ago

The rationale is that consumption of drugs is a personal choice and fine.

It's harm from drugs that's bad, and most of it comes from them being illegal, and thus: uncontrolled quality and quantity (overdoses, etc), overpriced (making people steal etc to buy them), black market (thus supporting a mafia that sells them, kills people etc). That, and landing people in jail (where they ruin their live, become actual hardened criminals etc) for simple pocession etc.

GordonS4• 10 years ago

Well said - I agree that a lot of the danger of illicit drugs comes from them being cut/tampered with.

If you legalise, you can regulate, tax and educate - then drugs can be made as safely as possible, and most drug-related violence and crime dissapears.

mseidl• 10 years ago

Why would they increase consumption? Do you think there are millions of people saying "Oh, I wish I could do meth, but I just don't want to get arrested!"

Smoking kills more people than all other drugs combined. WAAAAAY more. Same with alcohol.

zamalek3• 10 years ago

won't significantly increase their consumption

It could. That's not the point.

The main point that Annan is making is that there should be a health system in place for addicts, instead of a penitentiary system (where addictions typically become worse).

The past 50 year study/failed experiment known as "The War On Drugs" has shown us that there is nothing you can do to stop people from taking drugs. The war on drugs not only wastes tax money, is not only completely ineffective, but actually drives people toward dangerous usage. If drugs aren't regulated you never know what you are getting. Just recently tourists were being sold white heroin in Holland instead of cocaine (3 fatalities AFAIR). If used in the same way as cocaine is, white heroin can be lethal. This is simply not possible if you are getting your fix from a regulated supply chain.

Basically, by regulating drugs there is hope that there will be fewer drug-related fatalities and in the long-run (possibly decades) we'll most likely see less drug-related crime. This quote from the piece sums up the remainder of the piece perfectly:

It is time to acknowledge that drugs are infinitely more dangerous if they are left solely in the hands of criminals who have no concerns about health and safety.

tremon• 10 years ago

This is simply not possible if you are getting your fix from a regulated supply chain.

Well, it would still be possible (see e.g. last year's horse meat scandal in Britain), but the entire supply chain would be known and could be prosecuted.

dragonwriter7• 10 years ago

Even with a significant increase in consumption, it might be worth legalizing because the social costs (that is, the costs born by those who do not voluntarily choose to accept them) of prohibition could still be higher than those of the increased consumption.

GordonS4• 10 years ago

I don't mean e.g. tobacco here; I mean the far more dangerous ones

That's a very strange thing to say, given we know very well that tobacco is much more dangerous than many illegal drugs.

fapjacks4• 10 years ago

Take a look at Portugal, which has now had general drug decriminalization since the early 2000s. There was an initial spike in general usage, but it dropped to lower levels than were seen before decriminalization. However the number of addicts remained the same throughout. It's a very interesting and eye-opening thing they have going there.

iDemonix• 10 years ago

Portugal seems to be doing better from decriminalising (obviously not the same as legalisation).

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decr...

Source: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal-...

Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

sergiosgc• 10 years ago

I'm Portuguese, so let me give a local perspective. It is important to note that Portugal had a very low crime rate to begin with and, in comparison, drug problems smaller than the US. The experience may not translate directly.

Nevertheless, decriminalization of consumption (not traffic), has allowed drug users to reach out for treatment, which led to better statistics on drug use, better approaches to treatment and an overall decrease in hard-core drug use (cocaine, meth and such). Cannabis use is up from then, but that is perhaps an observation bias (better statistics).

The result of lower hard drug use is a lower crime rate. That effect is clear as water. It is now obvious that most crime had drug use as its cause.

Interestingly, there was a social effect that may be hard to reproduce. Hard drugs fell out of fashion. While cannabis is widespread in youth events, hard drug use is socially shunned. Perhaps the visibility of its effects hit the population, perhaps the relative personal cost became obvious, but it is certainly uncool to be a hard drug user.

robmcm• 10 years ago

It will be interesting to see what happens when we reach a position where virtual drugs are possible, or virtual reality can be as addictive and detrimental to ones life as being addicted to chemicals.

Can you ban math(s)?

fredley• 10 years ago

In terms of banning mathematics, the UK Government is trying its hardest to outlaw strong encryption, so...

filoeleven• 10 years ago

We have already had a virtual drug in widespread use since the 1940s: television. You can hook TV watchers up to scanners to see just how much it alters their brain patterns. Its effects aren't even subtle when it comes to their physical behavior either, it's just so culturally accepted to be "couch surfing" as to be perceived as normal.

If tens of millions of people took a pill and sat basically unmoving for upwards of three hours each day, experiencing the lightshow generated by their own mind in concert with the pill, the squares would be in an uproar!

pigpaws• 10 years ago

legalize, standardize, regulate, tax, repeat. Why is this so difficult to understand?

hackerboos3• 10 years ago

Politics, dogma, corruption, racism. This is what prevents your logical conclusion.

lisivka2• 10 years ago

We have enough problems with already legalized and standardized drugs: alcohol and tobacco. It is not wise to let smokers to increase burden on society.

ZenoArrow4• 10 years ago

You don't reduce usage of drugs by criminalising them. That's what this article is all about. If you're interested in seeing the negative effects of drug use decrease, then you should be looking at other approaches other than criminalisation.

lossolo• 10 years ago

What about people that are involved in illegal drug industry after legalizing drugs? Most of them know only how to deal drugs, know only crime, they will need to find new way to make money and probably it will not be a legal one. So i don't know if it's better that someone stay on corner and sell cocaine to people that WANT cocaine, without (in most cases) hurt anyone else in the process OR make that person steal, extort etc.

tomp5• 10 years ago

The beauty of drug dealing (from a criminal's perspective) is that it's easy and profitable - there's a high demand from customers willing to spend a lot of money on drugs, and enforcement is very poor (judging from the ease end-users can buy drugs). Prostitution is very similar. So, if you legalize all businesses with which criminals easily earn a lot of money, a lot of them will be economically incentivised to start participating in legal businesses.

cm21873• 10 years ago

And the alternative ways to make money for a self respecting criminal are getting harder every day. Cars are more difficult to steal, people use a lot less cash, you have CCTVs everywhere, now the police even collects DNA for a robbery. I can't think of an obvious substitute to drug trafficking for these criminals. I would be also ready to bet that Tinder must have made a dent in the prostitution trade!

But not all drug traffickers are Tony Montanas, there are legions of petty criminals, or even workers who make money on the side dealing drugs.

alistproducer2• 10 years ago

On some level the premise of your statement is not totally incorrect. As a result of legalalized weed, It has been reported that Mexican cartels have moved to other sources of revenue such as kidnapping [1].

One of the main goals of legalization is to starve black market actors of revenue. Extortion and kidnapping don't scale nearly as well as dope; therefore they are orders of magnitude less profitable.

1.http://fusion.net/story/108575/how-mexican-drug-cartels-are-...

hellofunk• 10 years ago

without (in most cases) hurt anyone else

Surely you don't think the only victim in the drug trafficking industry are actually drug users?

cm21873• 10 years ago

I am pro legalization but I would never see a drug user as a victim. No more than an alcoholic driving a car is a victim. The flip side of freedom is responsibility. The state will not make decisions for you, and therefore you are responsible for your own decisions. It's not like if the long term effects of drugs aren't well and widely known.

dragonwriter7• 10 years ago

That's, to the extent it's an issue at all, a short term problem that you need to accept at some point if you want to stop creating new criminals of that sort through drug prohibition.

And rehabilitating criminals in the criminal justice system becomes easier when drug-war-induced overcrowding of the prison system is reduced.

jMyles4• 10 years ago

Most of them know only how to deal drugs, know only crime, they will need to find new way to make money and probably it will not be a legal one.

This entire sentence is constructed of wild, unsubstantiated assumptions, strung together one after the other.

There's no part of this that resonates with my experience of the world, nor with the apparent fact pattern of the end of prohibition in places where prohibition has been materially ended.

Synaesthesia5• 10 years ago

The drug problem was studied years ago by the RAND corporation and the US Military - a pure cost-benefit analysis. They found that treatment and education are the most cost effective way to deal with the drug problem, and that prohibition was the most costly and ineffective means of dealing with it.

Therefore the government understands that the war on drugs is likely to be unsuccessful, and we have to ask ourselves, why do they persist with it? A few reasons present themselves: Ideological motivations, they just don't like the drugs. The fact that if you terrify the population you can use that as means for greater political control and discipline. And the fact that Tobacco and Alcohol companies would likely suffer as a result of drug legalisation, like cannabis.

Lastly the CIA has been found to be involved in the drug trade on a vast scale. This is not a conspiracy, there are many well-documented books on this. They need large sums of untraceable money for clandestine operations, and drugs are an ideal source of this.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR331.html

Noam Chomsky on the War on Drugs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-JX0yXDlh8

dragonwriter7• 10 years ago

It absolutely is a conspiracy. I think you mean it's not an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

tim3333• 10 years ago

Nearly all countries have some ban so I doubt full legalization is the answer. I think if you approach it to minimise harm you'd probably have varying policies depending on the drug and the situation. For example cannabis, maybe legalize and tax like cigarettes. Stuff like Heroin and Meth don't legalize private sales but let drug counsellors hand it out to addicts to kill the illegal market, prevent them being harmed by contaminated drugs and stop them breaking and nicking stuff.

tomp5• 10 years ago

Stuff like Heroin and Meth don't legalize private sales but let drug counsellors hand it out to addicts to kill the illegal market, prevent them being harmed by contaminated drugs and stop them breaking and nicking stuff.

That's the worst of both worlds. What will happen is a lot of people will become "addicts", get the drug (legally), then sell it to drug dealers to cash out. Criminals will keep their profits high, but they'll decrease their risk (because the government will be a safe and reliable supplier).

emiliobumachar• 10 years ago

"Nearly all countries have some ban so I doubt full legalization is the answer. "

Most countries went with the flow of international pressure, rather than banning as a sovereign decision. It came to a point in which any country that becomes sufficiently soft on hard drugs is labeled a "narco state", and that's widely considered reasonable grounds for a military invasion! What we're seeing today is the chilling effects of that.

zamalek3• 10 years ago

why do they persist with it?

So far as I understand, a treaty[1][2] is the root of this problem. I assume that the validity and efficacy of this treaty will come into question April 19 through 21. Amending this treaty would pave the way for sensible drug control.

[1] https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/single-convention.ht...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_...

puranjay• 10 years ago

I always wonder what would happen to drug use if it was widely and easily available. Would usage drop because it wouldn't be "rebellious" to get drugs?

That was at least the motivation for a lot of younger drug users I know.

In my country (India), there is a region in the Himalayas - Kasaul - where marijuana grows in the wild. It is so easily accessible that you can literally pluck some on a walk through the forest.

You'd expect with such easy availability, the locals would be all addled on weed/hashish all the time. Yet, most locals tend to be non-users. Most users tend to be tourists and outsiders who come solely for the purportedly "best in the world" hashish

madaxe_again• 10 years ago

Oscar Wilde put it best: desire makes everything blossom and flourish; possession makes everything wither and fade.

Humans tend to want what they can't have - it's reactance in action.

jdietrich3• 10 years ago

Portugal decriminalised personal possession of drugs 15 years ago, which has given us some useful evidence. HIV infection rates and drug-related deaths have reduced significantly, and the prison population has reduced by over 50%. The proportion of people who have ever used drugs has increased slightly, but there has been a reduction in the number of regular drug users.

We don't really know what would happen in a laissez-faire system, but we can be fairly confident that a medicalised approach would have substantial positive effects.

https://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2016/Contributions/Civ...

oneeyedpigeon6• 10 years ago

Personally speaking (although I'm hardly one of the "younger drug users" you refer to), I would continue to consume more or less the same quantity of drugs that I do now. I would possibly increase my intake very slightly, but not significantly. The significant differences would be that I would probably pay less, I would be consuming safer, regulated substances, and I wouldn't constantly be in fear of being sent to prison for a personal lifestyle choice.

Unless the penalties drastically increase, or I am convinced that what I am doing is morally wrong, I shall probably continue to take my drug of choice for the foreseeable future.

From what I've heard, the marijuana that grows in the wild tends to be of a far lower quality than that which is cultivated.

furyg3• 10 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_cannabis_use_by_country

In the Netherlands, where marijuana is effectively legal†, the percentage of the population aged 15-64 which has used the drug at least once in the past year was 5.4 (2005). In the US the data was from 2009 (pre-legalization in Oregon and Colorado), and was 13.7%

Anecdata: I've lived in both places, weed just isn't as cool in NL as it is in the US.

† Use of marijuana in NL is totally decriminalized and it is easily purchasable by anyone over 18.

analog312• 10 years ago

In the US culture, I think a lot would depend on marketing and advertising. Consider the marketing of high fructose corn syrup, which is cheap, legal, hardly "rebellious," possibly a sort of low-grade high, and consumed in toxic quantities.

I'm not arguing against legalization. But I had a similar conversation with my kids about legalizing pot. I told them that whatever the health aspects of pot use are, the pot industry would use all of the tactics of the tobacco industry, to market pot as "cool" and perfectly safe.

cr18956• 10 years ago

In my country (India), there is a region in the Himalayas - Kasaul - where marijuana grows in the wild. It is so easily accessible that you can literally pluck some on a walk through the forest.

e.g. Hindu Kush. Interestingly, cannabis has been used in India since 2000BCE.

Aren't there some tolerated/accepted uses of cannabis in India? I suppose what I'm really asking is it actually tourists or aren't there some significant traditional uses such as bhang? I can certainly understand that some users would just be tourists, but most I'm not sure of.

agumonkey2• 10 years ago

I believe so, I believe most kids are doing it because it's taboo and feels something adventurous to experience.

Now legalizing drugs would also give standards and tests. Instead of potentially toxic you'd get something tested (you may get shitty product still but the producer will get busted and closed easily).

norea-armozel• 10 years ago

Culture always shapes how we view substances. For folks in that region I'm not sure there's any stigma attached but I'll take a guess by saying they probably don't see it as a viable past time or fun to consume.

Synaesthesia5• 10 years ago

Before drugs were criminalizes in the early 20th centuries they were easily available at pharmacies, cocaine, heroin, p even hashish tinctures. The addiction rate was approxiamately the same as it is today, about 7% of the population. Most people don't get addicted to drugs, and don't want to abuse drugs. It's more of a psychological disorder, particularly exacerbated by childhood trauma and despair.

Noos• 10 years ago

No more than gambling usage has dropped because it's no longer rebellious to gamble.

Gambling legalization is very close to drug legalization in my opinion, and that has shown that usage will increase, and the behavior will be destigmatized.

jfmfhhdkdkd3• 10 years ago

And yet, there are plenty of Asian countries (Singapore, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, etc) where drug laws are much stricter than the US's, there are very few drug addicts, and there is very little crime.

jfmfhhdkdkd3• 10 years ago

I really find it absurd that stating facts is downvoted here on HN because it doesn't fit the hivemind. Singapore and Indonesia execute drug offenders and despite what I am told should happen in this thread, there is very little crime despite their crazier "War on Drugs". When compared to a country like Portugal, Singapore and Indonesia have far lower crime and drug use.

jMyles4• 10 years ago

there are very few drug addicts

This is a dubious claim. How do you actually identify the number of people who are addicted? Even if there are fewer people addicted to the very few currently illegal drugs, are there fewer people addicted altogether?

jernfrost7• 10 years ago

And yet there are lots of European countries with low crime rates and liberal drug laws and low usage. That is the point. There is no clear correlation here.

But these asian countries and the european ones do have a number of things in common which is different from the US. Neither has poverty problems on the scale found in the US. Neither have racial conflict at the level found in the US.

And how comparable is really Singapore? It is a single city, tightly controlled with 3x the police force of a regular western country, where they practice DDR like surveillance in the sense that citizens are taught to report each other for all sorts of minor transgressions.

The US is a lot more similar to Europe so if one was ever too look at alternative policies I think looking at European experiences makes a lot more sense for the US than looking at Asian countries which are vastly different historically, culturally and in what political system they currently employ.

melling2• 10 years ago

Politicians do whatever gets them, and keeps them, elected. If they poll and find 70% of their electorate are in favor of something, guess how they're going to vote?

I really don't understand why people put themselves in echo chambers then complain to each other why the world is the way it is. It's a waste of time.

bdavisx2• 10 years ago

Actually, that's not true. In Florida a year or two ago, ~58% voted to legalize medical marijuana, but the vote needed 60% because it was a ballot initiative. How come the Florida reps didn't go ahead and do it themselves since obviously a majority of their electorate voted that way? It's about a lot more than the electorate.

dspillett• 10 years ago

why do they persist with it? A few reasons present themselves

Also: theatre.

Much like a lot of airport/airline security measures are theatre to reassure the common people that something is being done, the war on drugs continues because people who don't know any better (or don't believe the ineffectiveness argument) will feel less safe if it officially stops or even steps down a notch. This situation perpetuates itself, and any escalation doesn't get reversed, and feeds into the politics point others have already mentioned because people feeling less safe are less likely to vote for you next time.

purpled_haze• 10 years ago

Tobacco and Alcohol companies would likely suffer as a result of drug legalisation, like cannabis.

To state this in another way- think of all of the Budweiser/Bud Light sponsorships and commercials and replace that Bud with the other kind of bud. That's about the scale and usage to expect, at the very least, if cannabis were to be completely legal everywhere alcohol is.

And all of the abuse, drunk driving, etc? Increase that somewhat. They won't be able to control all of it with treatment and education any more than they have with alcohol. Also, imagine the level of drinking at work even in the 1940's and 50's after alcohol prohibition was lifted.

Aside from cannabis, think of all of the other drugs that could be abused. Yes, drug violence, etc. will go down, but there is a tradeoff.

ZeroGravitas4• 10 years ago

Did the abuse of alcohol and it's impacts go up or down after prohibition? Probably depends on whether you count making gangsters rich and famous, and people dying from drinking bathtub gin as abuse or not, but even if you exclude all that, it's not a slam dunk that there would be a big shift in either direction for users, or that it wouldn't simply displace other drugs, legal or illegal, which you'd need to measure to get a true picture.

pjc502• 10 years ago

It's possible to have the thing on sale while banning advertising for it; much of Europe has restrictions on tobacco advertising, sale, "plain packaging" requirements, etc.

Note that drinking at work has gone away without government intervention.

Pxtl• 10 years ago

My understanding wasnt that the CIA was directly involved in the drug trade, but that their normal activities create infrastructure for their partners that are shady international organizations that operate outside local laws naturally creates drug smuggling networks.

They work with local organized crime to create covert hideouts and border crossings for CIA use, and give them funding and weapons in exchange, and things like the drug trade come out of that almost automatically.

jMyles4• 10 years ago

This is not a conspiracy

It is absolutely a conspiracy, just one that happens to actually have occurred and probably continues to occur.

_yosefk2• 10 years ago

My favorite conspiracy theory regarding drug legalization is, "the rich" will want to legalize drugs to get rid of "the poor" on the theory that people who've been put out of work by machines are an unnecessary burden, and that widespread use of drugs among such people is a good way to reduce their numbers.

(I don't quite "believe" this theory in the sense of imagining a bunch of rich people sitting in a room, conspiring about this and cackling evilly. I "believe" in this more in the sense of, I think drugs are very bad for you on average and they certainly are the #1 cause of untimely death among the people I've personally known, and I think that the kind of people making policy decisions will not be that upset if large numbers of poorer people are very adversely affected by legalization, any more than they are upset by the adverse effects of draconian prohibition measures.)

gedy• 10 years ago

Interesting theory, but for pacification, not elimination.

venomsnake• 10 years ago

Can't "keep the black men as much as possible in prison" probably also play a "minor" role? War on drugs hits the poor and black communities the most. That is by design - the crack cocaine 100 times as powder cocaine being good example.

Jtsummers• 10 years ago

What the government knows (legalization with education and rehab being better than current methods) and what it does is normal. The government consists of hundreds of thousands of employees (military, civilian and contractor) plus a small handful of politicians who decide the rules.

Being politicians, it doesn't matter so much what they know as what their constituents want (or believe they want). Which leads to the government being a screwed up, multi-headed entity with many competing and opposing objectives and directives.

rayiner4• 10 years ago

The government persists with the drug war because Americans have a moral opposition to drug use: http://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2014/study-public-fe.... When I was a kid in the 1990's, 70-80% of polled adults wanted to make even marijuana illegal. For drugs aside from marijuana, that's still the case.

Your alternate theories about money and control directly contradict the history of prohibition. Did you know that at the time alcohol prohibition was instituted, fully 1/3 of the federal budget came from liquor taxes? Alcohol producers were incredibly powerful, yet their product was banned because of moral panic. To a significant degree, women's' suffrage happened when it did so they could vote for prohibition.

There is a great PBS series on this: http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition. It's a story of a grass-roots national movement of Americans, many of them heretofore politically marginalized, rising up against money and power to effect change.

ghayes• 10 years ago

I feel you're right that, at the end of the day, prohibition has been based on public opinion. That said, the government does benefit from reasons OP mentioned, and thus politicians may be likely to push an agenda that strongly supports a war on drugs when speaking to constituents, rather than having an open conversation about the pros and cons of decriminalization.

wfo3• 10 years ago

The drug prohibition is a direct effect of the lift of alcohol prohibition: officials and LE officers needed something to do after there was no more alcohol smuggling to go after, so a new target was invented.

Public opinion does not drive policy in this case, it is driven by policy. The public has been whipped up into a frenzy about drugs for years using various fear tactics, primarily racism to scare them into having a particular opinion which you now cite as "the majority's moral opposition". The moral opposition is trained as part of a concerted and very successful propaganda campaign.

Zigurd2• 10 years ago

You have the moral panic thing backwards. Alcohol is by far the greatest cause of addiction, addiction-related violence, and economic misery due to substance abuse. So much so that hard drug use and addiction is a drop in the bucket. Alcohol prohibition was relatively well-supported in social reform theories compared to the Drug War. There is no functional basis to support legal bans on psychedelics and soft drugs.

The results of the Drug War are so racially biased as to make it effectively a New Jim Crow, and it makes one suspect that a lot of support for the Drug War, especially the part not based in drug-scare propaganda, is based in racism.

And that's not even getting to the employment of police, prison guards, parole officers, court officials, etc. that are highly dependent on the Drug War. And before you claim the prison population are not mostly drug offenders, take a look as the "customers" of the CJ system: a million and a half arrests per year, hundreds of thousands of prison sentences, and 20% of black people having served time for drug arrests, etc. It's highly racist and highly remunerative to the employees and vendors of the CJ system.

gohrt3• 10 years ago

Is it true that > The government persists with the drug war because Americans have a moral opposition to drug use:

Americans have a moral opposition to drug use, because the government persists with the drug war ?

Impressionable children are indoctrinated against drug use, by US law enforcement, in US public schools.

70-80% of polled adults wanted to make even marijuana illegal.

That's impossible, because marijuana already was illegal. If that number is correct, is measures keeping marijuana illegal (maintaining status quo), not making marijuana illegal. You can't extrapolate that to a choice people would make when not constrained by history, and when not constrained by the persuasive force of current law.

Synaesthesia5• 10 years ago

I think popular attitudes have changed significantly, particularly with respect to Cannabis. I think we're at a point where more than 50% of Americans will want to see weed legalized, or at the very least decriminalized. When Bernie Sanders said the war on drugs was a failure, there was hardly any comment, and not much public outcry at all. I don't think it's a controversial statement anymore.

calibraxis• 10 years ago

We can just look at the results: "one of every three black American males born today can expect to go to prison in his lifetime" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics_of_incarcerated_Afr...)

Just apply the standards we'd use for any official enemy nation. The US jails more of its own populace than anyone else. For many people, the US is effectively a police state. Highly effective outcome of the drug war: social control of certain population segments.

We can research who's been targeted historically: Irish (and other) immigrants by alcohol prohibition. Mexican immigrants by marijuana prohibition. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/etc/cron....)

winter_blue• 10 years ago

women's' suffrage happened when it did so they could vote for prohibition

Woman's suffrage happened after the prohibition. The prohibition was the 18th amendment (taking effect on January 16, 1920), and woman's suffrage was the 19th amendment (ratified on August 18, 1920).

patcon• 10 years ago

Did you know that at the time alcohol prohibition was instituted, fully 1/3 of the federal budget came from liquor taxes?

It's not about general funding (for which the government has many sources, including straight-up printing), but about untraced monies. Money is not all equal, and for certain purposes, taxed money is much, much less valuable than untraceable drug money.

tomphoolery• 10 years ago

They're not the only ones who benefit from the drug war. It's a tool in order to allow for mass incarceration of "undesirable people". The book "The New Jim Crow" by Michelle Alexander really spoke to me as a resident of Philadelphia. I knew full well that if a cop found 1/4oz of weed or less on me, they wouldn't do anything...but if I was black, I'd be put in jail. Now that marijuana has been "decriminalized" (I call it "equalizing" the law because it's now fair for all people) in Philadelphia, that's not as much of a problem in my city...but I'm pretty sure statewide it's still a big problem. Essentially, I think the drug war is a big, lame excuse for putting people in jail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Jim_Crow

jernfrost7• 10 years ago

This is actually a very interesting aspect of the dangerous results of having lots of laws and bans. It is like companies which makes long lists of things which can get you fired. List which are such that everybody has done a fireable offense. This allows companies to fire people at their own discretion because they will always have something on you.

Likewise the corruption laws in developing countries seem to largely be about getting rid of political opponents. Everybody is basically guilty of corruption, but only those who are on the wrong side politically actually get prosecuted. Look at Russia, if you cross Putin they can charge you with corruption right away because they no almost everybody has done it.

In this regard laws which masquerade as fighting undesirable things in society really becomes a tool of oppression.

belorn• 10 years ago

why do they persist with it?

I suspect a major cause is that prohibition is a well known method, used to handle other substances which the state wants to limit access to. Narcotics is intended for medicine and research, which makes it easy to regulate to licensed organizations. They use the same method for substances that is used to create explosives, weapon components, radioactive material, and so on. In Sweden, even things like pure alcohol or pure oxygen is regulated and require a license, since the target audience for that is quite narrow.

No one ever got fired for buying IBM, and no politician got blamed if they create regulations that limit use to only the intended target audience. Its not about being effective.

ridgeguy• 10 years ago

To your reasons, I'd add financial interests of those involved in the WoD. Think of pre-trial asset confiscation, WoD-based grants to local law enforcement, $ to aerospace companies for WoD surveillance and detection technology, etc.

Legalization would hit many powerful interests in their revenue streams.

EdHominem5• 10 years ago

Drugs are also a perfect excuse for anything. Drop a bag of something in someone's car and suddenly they have to prove it's not theirs. They can't, of course, so now anything you do to them is justified.

Did you accidentally beat up the wrong person? Plant drugs on them and charge them with resisting arrest and possession.

ThrustVectoring2• 10 years ago

The government is made up of people who respond to incentives. The war on drugs is happening because American voters will crucify politicians who are "soft on drugs". Since the politicians can't be "soft on drugs", neither can the appointed bureaucrats that answer to them.

maxxxxx• 10 years ago

A lot of people in law enforcement, prisons, CIA and defense industry probably also did a cost-benefit analysis and found that prohibition is a very effective way to keep their jobs.

fapjacks4• 10 years ago

The prison lobby (guard unions, etc) is actually fairly loud about this. They make a lot of noise around things that put and keep more people in jail. It's way past "probably"!

spacehome• 10 years ago

This is not a conspiracy

Of course it's a conspiracy.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy

baddox• 10 years ago

A few reasons present themselves: Ideological motivations, they just don't like the drugs. The fact that if you terrify the population you can use that as means for greater political control and discipline. And the fact that Tobacco and Alcohol companies would likely suffer as a result of drug legalisation, like cannabis.

I'm sure those are all factors, but I bet the biggest factor is just police forces pushing for huge amounts of federal funding.

daveheq• 10 years ago

Also because the ATF and law enforcement agencies get huge funding allocations fighting drugs and have lobbied for more and stricter laws as well as increased spending; it's become culturalized and almost a heritage to the point of being something families and groups rely on almost religiously throughout generations, not to mention the moralities mixed in heavily with religion.

fapjacks4• 10 years ago

Right. Can verify. Step one of the CIA "send operations people into a country to fuck them up" is generating the money necessary for the operation locally (with the first recommendation towards that goal being to deal drugs). Global drug legalization would make it very hard for the CIA to undermine foreign governments so quickly. If you take drugs out of the equation, it is hard to generate lots of cash quickly.

maxthegeek1• 10 years ago

The government isn't a single person. There are conflicting interests.

jksmith• 10 years ago

It's means become ends, like so many government efforts. DEA is a jobs program, prison system is an industry.

Refer to the character Lawrence Kramer in "Bonfire of the Vanities" talking about feeding "the chow" into the criminal justice system.

metaphorm4• 10 years ago

And the fact that Tobacco and Alcohol companies would likely suffer as a result of drug legalisation, like cannabis.

is that true? these things aren't really mutually exclusive right? this is just my supposition, but I would imagine that there is market synergy between legal cannabis and alcohol and tobacco.

georgemcbay• 10 years ago

The conspiracy theory I hear more often that is quite a bit more believable (though still a conspiracy theory) is that legalization would be harmful to pharmaceutical companies, based on the idea that is way more profitable to get people hooked on prescription opioids or such than have them manage long-term pain by smoking weed.

anigbrowl• 10 years ago

Therefore the government understands

NNo, some people who work in the government understand that. Others have conflicting interests of cognitive biases or are stupid or have other reasons for disagreeing. 'The government' is simply not a monolithic entity and outside of certain narrow legal contexts pretending that it is leads to fallacious conclusions.

conceit2• 10 years ago

Or maybe they don't see Drugs as a problem. I don't think e.g. Victorian aristocrats saw poverty as a problem or that the slave traders saw exhaustion or torture and other forms of violence as a problem, far from it. I believe slaves would rather be given coffee instead of food coffee.

topsphere• 10 years ago

New video on drug war by Kurzgesagt (excellent to get an overview): https://youtu.be/wJUXLqNHCaI

collinmanderson• 10 years ago

Kurzgesagt videos are the best. I found this one very helpful.

timwaagh• 10 years ago

he did not say this when he still had anything to say. he could have made a difference.

atemerev4• 10 years ago

Here's what we have in Switzerland:

http://www.premiereligne.ch/quai9/

(basically, a drug user's paradise: a "consumption space" injection rooms, clean drugs available, medical attention and reanimation in case of overdose, therapy programs and support programs with the intention to help people quit drugs without stigmatizing them and pushing them to it).

It is immensely successful. Drug crime becoming nonexistent here. The number of drug users is also decreasing, as drugs are now decriminalized, uncool, readily available and coming with friendly doctors and therapists.

mstade• 10 years ago

The number of drug users is also decreasing, as drugs are now decriminalized, uncool, readily available and coming with friendly doctors and therapists.

I wish this was the norm everywhere.

david-given• 10 years ago

...I was at Sechseläuten a couple of years ago --- an end-of-spring festival where the city of Zürich explodes a snowman --- and was standing behind a couple of people sharing a joint.

The friend who'd taken me there was absolutely livid. He said it was the most incompetently rolled joint he'd ever seen.

Truly, it is a different place here.

(Although the downside is that tobacco smoking is rife and getting away from the smell at bus stops, station platforms etc can hard.)

atemerev4• 10 years ago

Tobacco smoking is unrelated to other drugs consumption. But yes, in Switzerland it is more popular than in most of the rest of Western Europe and certainly more than in California.

It's becoming better, though. Smoking in bars and restaurants recently been banned — finally we can enjoy our remaining favourite drug — alcohol — without any distractions. :)

saiya-jin5• 10 years ago

Wait, you are talking maybe about heroin addicts beyond saving. But if you just want to buy some weed, you definitely must go to shady characters standing on corners of dark streets in the night, and buy overpriced at-best-mediocre-quality stuff from there (I am not racist or anything, but 100% of them in Geneva are black - that's 5 years of experience). Police guys are constantly patrolling these areas (often with dogs), dealers are super suspicious that you are an undercover cop etc.

if you get caught with tiny amount (< 1g) at the border, you will face harsh fine, full body cavity inspection etc.

Nah, this country is definitely not a paradise, just there are worse places.

atemerev4• 10 years ago

Yes, I think it is still illegal to buy and sell marijuana here. And I am not sure if it's possible to smoke a government-issued joint at Quai9. :) Probably not.

But: you can legally grow it for your own consumption!

kerryfalk• 10 years ago

"I am not racist or anything, but 100% of them in Geneva are black - that's 5 years of experience"

...it doesn't seem far of a stretch to make the leap to using your statement here to indicate that you may in fact be racist.

There was no reason to indicate their race, so why do it? Did they have blue eyes, too? What can I infer from shady blue-eyed people on street corners selling me drugs?

Kenji• 10 years ago

Drug use being legal is an intermediary step, but pointless if possession and trade of drugs is illegal. Since you aways have to obtain and possess drugs in order to comsume them, drugs are still illegal. I don't even know based on what law this organization can administer clean drugs. But yes, Switzerland is doing a better job at fighting drug crime than a lot of other countries.

atemerev4• 10 years ago

This is handled quite elegantly here.

Possession of drugs remains illegal indeed (we are not talking about marijuana here — this is about "hard" drugs). But you can come to one of Quai9 centres and there are drugs available directly from the government (I am not sure whether for free or for nominal price — perhaps the latter), all of Swiss pharmaceutical quality. Heroin is definitely available (the personnel will try to move heroin addicts to replacement therapy ASAP, but at first, they can continue their habit), not sure about cocaine, but I think it is there as well, as there are mentions of "sniffing places" installed, whatever it is.

Thus, there is no possession and no trade (and it's pointless to engage of criminal trade of something that is legally available from the government).

The same goes with guns. It is legal to own, buy and sell very impressive guns in Switzerland, but it is illegal to own _ammo_ (unless you are hunter, or can prove that you need self-defense — but this is how it is handled in most European countries; Switzerland is different by making actual gun trade legal).

So, how do you fire these guns? Simple: you take one of them, go to the shooting range, and there you can buy some ammo to shoot with (it is very illegal to take it home). Shooting ranges are government-supported and regulated (Swiss government actually encourages citizens to train at shooting ranges).

anon44• 10 years ago

What about the fact that drugs are incompatible with the lifestyle we want our society to have? Isn't it better instead of legalizing them to find the root cause which is forcing these people to seek escapism from reality in psychoactive substances?

I don't want to live in a society of drug addicts, I want to live among people of sound mind, body and spirit, who conduct themselves honestly and honourable among their peers.

mattlutze• 10 years ago

Isn't it better instead of legalizing them to find the root cause which is forcing these people to seek escapism from reality in psychoactive substances?

Depression, anxiety, moderate mania, genetic dispositions to addiction... how do we "find" these? The unfortunately thing is, we've been trying this the world over for a century and no one is meaningfully closer. In the meantime, we're destroying families and feeding an industry worth 10's, hundreds of billions founded on illegal drug trade.

Thing is, you likely already do live in a society of drug addicts. Whether discussing decriminalization or legalization, what you're allowing is those addicts to step out into the sunlight, so the society can help them reduce or end their drug usage.

Remember that laws of morality are a very tricky thing, and tend usually to inadvertently oppress significant parts of a population. Allowing a society to internally act on its compassion instead of outsourcing responsibility to a law seems to have a better outcome.

parenthephobia3• 10 years ago

What about the fact that drugs are incompatible with the lifestyle we want our society to have? Isn't it better instead of legalizing them to find the root cause which is forcing these people to seek escapism from reality in psychoactive substances?

Should we be fighting all forms of escapism? Movies, books, comics, computer games? Daydreaming?

If not, why are "drugs" different?

Does this apply to all psychoactive substances? Tobacco? Alcohol? Chocolate? Nutmeg?

I don't want to live in a society of drug addicts, I want to live among people of sound mind, body and spirit, who conduct themselves honestly and honourable among their peers.

Wouldn't we all? I do not think that eradicating drug use will bring about this this utopia, though.

frogpelt5• 10 years ago

It's ridiculous and juvenile to make these kinds of comparisons.

Do people escape through books and movies? Not usually to the point that they become dangerous.

Let's be adults here.

GordonS4• 10 years ago

What about the fact that drugs are incompatible with the lifestyle we want our society to have?

Says who? Billions of people consume alcohol and tobacco every week - these are drugs too!

I fail to see how unwinding with some weed/hash at the end of a day or at the weekend is a bad thing, or how it's any different to alcohol.

adrusi3• 10 years ago

What about the fact that drugs are incompatible with the lifestyle we want our society to have?

Society doesn't havena lifestyle. Individual members of society have lifestyles, so I'll rephrase that question to be more correct:

What about the fact that drugs are incompatible with the lifestyle we want our people to have?

Now it sounds as authoritarian as it is. And who is "we"? Sure, the majority is against drug legalization, but this is in a society where everyone has been exposed to lies and propaganda demonizing drugs since their childhood. Before the propaganda started, people didn't care about drugs.

What about the fact that religion is incompatible with the lifestyle I want people to have? Isn't it better instead of allowing churches to exist to find the root cause which is forcing these people to seek comfort and stability from these lie-peddlers?

I don't want to live in a society of devotees, I want to live among people of sound mind and spirit, who think for themselves and strive to consider the big questions in an intellectually honest way.

OhHeyItsE• 10 years ago

Have you considered that perhaps being fed a lifetime of propaganda has lead you to the conclusion that "drug"[1] use is somehow incompatible (if not actually assistive) to being of "sound mind, body, and spirit"?

[1] (that is, whatever we decide to lump together under that ridiculous umbrella term)

RIMR3• 10 years ago

You don't get a say over my lifestyle. My life is made up of my choices, and you get 0% say over what I do with it, unless my actions directly affect you.

If I want to smoke a little pot on the weekends, I am going to do it. If you have a problem with it, I don't care, because you're not invited to my smokeout.

You are treading a dangerous line trying to write lifestyles into law. That's the same school of thought that people that oppose homosexuality and premarital sex use to to justify their unfair restrictions.

ommunist3• 10 years ago

In the meanwhile NASA found a planet covered with marijuana. http://newswatch28.com/nasa-discovers-new-planet-covered-wit... Can these two agencies be in cahoots?

StavrosK• 10 years ago

That article is obviously fake, yet too unfunny to be a joke. Ouch.

cubano4• 10 years ago

I've always thought that, in the US, that States could provide a perfect market testing platform for various social ideas.

You don't want abortion? Make Kansas, say, a no abortion state.

Legalized drugs? Head your head to Colorado.

Socialism? Sure New Hampshire is almost there already anyway.

Well, you get the point. It's been proven that actual markets almost always work as well if not better than diktat, so these "experiments" could be monitored and all the rest.

I mean, why not give something totally new a try?

What we have now is killing people and ruining their lives as I personally live through its failings everyday.

hackerboos3• 10 years ago

The US works well because it's united at the federal level. What you are suggesting would only work if that level didn't exist.

cubano4• 10 years ago

The US works well for many reasons...being united at the federal level is only one small part of it.

Look of course I am aware of legal issues and all that, but doesn't make sense to enact such sweeping legislation as legalizing drugs or socialism on a small scale first before going national?

existencebox2• 10 years ago

This is a funny statement to me, since the initial federalization was supposed to exist without predisposing a much greater exercise in states rights than what we see today. (far fewer constraints on state law from federal)

I'd adjust your statement: "What you are suggesting would only work if the level (of federal power we have NOW) didn't exist"

That all being said, I'm not even sure my full level of pessimism is merited; certain states had been independently experimenting with e.g. health care reform 10+ years ago which ended up forming the basis for the ACA. This sort of state based trial seems like it s exactly what the parent was suggesting, and what was alluded to in Brandeis's famous "Laboratories of democracy" quote that seems very apt to this discussion.

bisRepetita• 10 years ago

Socialism in New Hampshire? Did you mean Vermont?

cubano4• 10 years ago

Yes I did in fact, but the actual states don't really matter as much as the idea.

zanny2• 10 years ago

The problem is you cannot test economic policy in the states. Social policy, absolutely. But if you try socialism in one state and its neighbor is a tax haven, business interests will just jump over the border and you will see wealth flight. It is too easy to move between states when you have money. It is much, much more complicated to move between countries.

magicGLASSman2• 10 years ago

this fact is what makes the experiment perfect. If people all move from one place because of poor policy it will give that state the incentive to adjust their policy. People should have the freedom to chose the goverment that is most inline with their values. Forcing someone to stay somewhere and pay taxes to a say unjust war or something they are morally opposed to seem to be a terrible existence.

mikeash3• 10 years ago

The problem is that a lot of these things are a human rights issue, and large segments of the population aren't sufficiently mobile to move to different states. So if you just allow the states to do whatever, then you're denying a bunch of people, mostly poor, human rights.

Jim Crow laws are an obvious example of that sort of problem. Abortion fits pretty well too. I'd argue that drug laws are another example, although in this case we have the human rights abuses imposed from above, and some individual states trying to break out of it.

e40• 10 years ago

I personally love the idea, but the people in the US have already proven themselves to be impervious to facts, like the ones that would come out of studies like you suggest.

What would happen, the results of the studies would be twisted and no further adoption would happen. It might happen because the media companies don't want whatever it is was shown to be "better". Lobbyists can overcome most facts by sheer force of their donations.

Yeah, it's what has doomed our political process these days.

cubano4• 10 years ago

I personally love the idea, but the people in the US have already proven themselves to be impervious to facts..

What a great insight, and yes it would seem that the political aspect and confirmation-bias issues would probably render any results moot.

This the age we live in I guess...seemingly solid oppo research on any subject are just a few clicks away.

pc2g4d• 10 years ago

I love this idea, and it has a long history. The states are known as the "laboratories of democracy". From Wikipedia[1]:

"Laboratories of democracy is a phrase popularized by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann to describe how a 'state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.' Brandeis was an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1916 to 1939.

"This concept explains how within the federal framework, there exists a system of state autonomy where state and local governments act as social 'laboratories,' where laws and policies are created and tested at the state level of the democratic system, in a manner similar (in theory, at least) to the scientific method."

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy

skyhatch1• 10 years ago

We were taught both sides of the story in our "drug diversion impact on public health" classes. Decriminalisation opens opportunities up to reduce harm to the public through reduced drug-related crimes, safer injecting (of the hard stuff) and less blood-borne viruses spreading. Australia has its own version of decriminalization known as the "harm minimisation policy". While all drug-related activities are illegal there, the judicial and healthcare systems are not so black and white about enforcing the laws.

Nonetheless, the other hand always wants its share. In the case of Australia, harm minimisation has reduced drug-related crimes, but the prevalence of drug use in the general population continues to rise, especially with regard to pills and amphetamines. Blood borne viruses are also on the rise, despite the ubiquity of safe injecting rooms in every major city and availability of "sharps kits" in every retail pharmacy.

Interestingly, the conservative party temporarily swayed from this stance and implemented a "tough on drugs" policy for part of the 90s[1]. It was dubbed to the wider public as a "harm prevention" measure i.e. protecting those yet to experiment with drugs and the wider community that didn't use illicit drugs regularly. There was a significant reduction in every measure: drug use, drug crime and spread of blood-borne viruses. This policy did not cut safe injecting and drug use services, but increased police activity and ephemeral "say no to drugs" cut-through education programs. The policy was reversed in the early 2000s.

[1] https://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2016/Contributions/Civ...

oh_sigh• 10 years ago

I love how all these world leaders always come out for drug legalization after they are out of power. Great timing.

hackerboos3• 10 years ago

Actually the UN thinks this already but politics got in the way of a statement being released:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11940643/United...

jernfrost7• 10 years ago

One thing I am surprised by is that it is almost never mentioned how China became drug free after Britain made China into the biggest dope user through the Opium wars.

They virtually got rid of opium usage in a relatively short time, and they did it without any sort of war on drugs approach.

They certainly fought the drug usage but they did not imprison or blame drug users. Rather than told abusers they were victims who needed help. They were given education to cope with addiction, jobs etc. Even drug dealers were, except the worst ones who were imprisoned.

It might have helped the narrative that they could blame Britain as the evil doer.

While not the same as legalization it does have some resemblance to the Portuguese approach where the focus is on helping people taken for abuse rather than punishing or imprisoning.

adrianm• 10 years ago

China is virtually drug free?

In that case, Wikipedia could use your help cleaning up this and many related articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drug_trade_in_China

Don't forget to cite your sources! They're sticklers about that sort of thing.

jernfrost7• 10 years ago

how China became drug free after Britain made China into the biggest dope user through the Opium wars.

I referring to the period following the opium ban. I believe this was the 50s, not the present day. We are also comparing to an insanely high level were the claims was that 90% of inhabitants of certain provinces were users.

bunkydoo• 10 years ago

I think if drugs themselves were legalized, non-violent drug offenders pardoned, and then former drug trafficking cartels treated legally as terrorist organizations - we would get somewhere. I really have no problem tight packing prisons if it's full of violent thugs. The only problem is how this could potentially affect the second amendment - because the war on drugs would no longer be on unarmed drug users, it would be solely on violence. Using an umbrella term like terrorism to encompass the actions of cartel gang members could potentially lead to further racial divides. It's tough. But legalize pot please, ha!

jernfrost7• 10 years ago

Treating terrorist organizations like terrorist organizations hasn't really helped either. The war on terror, is just as failed as the war on drugs. Basically the hard nosed simple approaches never work. You got to look and underlying causes and deal with those. But that is too intricate so people don't want to listen to such solutions.

Problem with tight packing is that lots of the criminals wont be violent but will become in these prisons, and those who are violent will become even more so. Unless you plan building prisons only for life sentences these people will come out of prison more violent and messed up than ever. That hardly a receipt for a more peaceful society.

As long as people are going to get out at some point, you can't ignore what happens to them while they are incarcerated.

talles3• 10 years ago

By contrast, there has been a near tripling of American deaths from heroin overdoses between 2010 and 2013, even though the law and its severe punishments remain unchanged.

But why heroin usage has raised?

I have read an (very convincing) argument that heroin usage is increasing due to the marijuana legalization. And no, it's not the typical "marijuana is a door the heavier drugs" thing, is merely supply and demand effect on the streets. Street dealers don't really sell weed as they used to now that better and legal weed exist, so they went on heroin. Heroin got a lot cheaper and widely available due to it (Unfortunately, I lost the article link).

I'm not arguing in favor or against legalization (I'm in favor all the way), my complain is how one folded the debate is. Numbers are great and they are definitely needed, but they may trick you into thinking that everything has a simple cause and effect when reality is much more complicated.

One striking example how lazy is legislation is the case of safer chemicals such as LSD or MDMA versus designer drugs such as 25i (nbomb). In some places such designer drugs are even legal (bath salts anyone?) due to how slow or careless the legislation is. As for LSD it's a long time in prison. The dealers are coerced to sell more dangerous substances.

iolothebard2• 10 years ago

Making Oxycontin harder to get is why. Also people trying to get clean, then going back to doing their "old" dose.

Tenhundfeld• 10 years ago

Yes, exactly, on both points.

According to the CDC, opioid painkillers addicts are 40 times more likely to be addicted to heroin than general population. “Most heroin users have a history of nonmedical use of prescription opioid pain relievers, and an increase in the rate of heroin overdose deaths has occurred concurrently with an epidemic of prescription opioid overdoses."

I can't say opioid painkillers are the only reason, but the experts seem to agree they're, at least, a major contributing factor.

I was listening to a social worker discuss the problem recently. His experience was that most new heroin addicts started on opioid painkillers, often with legitimate prescriptions, and weren't hard drug users previously. When their doctor refused to prescribe more painkillers (or the pills they were stealing from mom ran out, etc.), they turned to the black market, where it's much easier to obtain heroin than painkillers. He estimated 90% of his cases fit this pattern of prescription drugs being the gateway to heroin.

This same guy also discussed how a lot of overdoses he saw were from recovered heroin addicts that relapsed after being prescribed an opioid painkiller for a legitimate need, e.g., after an injury. As you say, they went back to their "old dose," without realizing a) their tolerance was lower and b) black market heroin is typically much better quality and a wider range of qualities these days. In the 80's (and 90's I think) heroin was usually <10% pure (i.e., 90% filler/other), but heroin on the streets today is often around 30% but sometimes as high as 70%. I don't remember the exact numbers, something close to that. He said you could tell when a super pure batch of heroin came through town, because overdoses would spike.

Another factor I've read, can't remember where, is that the higher quality heroin has made snorting it more feasible. So, that reduces some of the stigma/ickiness associated with needles, trackmarks, etc., increasing the pool of people who'll try it. And it can be easier to overdose via snorting, because it takes several minutes to feel the full effects, unlike injecting.

humbleMouse3• 10 years ago

"Street dealers don't really sell weed as they used to now that better and legal weed exist, so they went on heroin."

This is an extremely misguided statement. The demand for high quality weed has never been higher. It doesn't matter if you legalize it, because you are still taxing it 50%. The individual sellers and producers will keep doing their thing. I can tell you right now that people who sell weed don't just magically start selling heroin. The types of people who sell weed are TOTALLY different that the types of people who sell heroin.

Yes, some people exist who sell both - but those types of dealers have been selling every kind of drug they can get their hands on and will never stop.

I think you need to take another look at the supply and demand of high quality marijuana. It is hard to consistently produce high quality marijuana - and once you do cure it correctly and get it packaged, it flies off the shelf as fast as you can answer your phone, regardless of if you are in a state where it is legal or not. Furthermore, there are many people who deliver marijuana on bikes and in cars and make a very good living. These people are not going to loose business to legal dispensaries I can guarantee you. There is always demand for reliable dealers who deliver high quality to you asap. Independent producers and dealers will be able to consistently undercut dispensary prices because the government is taxing it 50%. Combined with the value of delivery and you are not going to see marijuana dealers switch to selling heroin because weed is legalized.... it doesnt work that way. Two completely different clientele/lifestyle/risk factors.

talles3• 10 years ago

The demand for high quality weed has never been higher.

That's my point too. And I believe that this increase in demand for high quality weed made many street dealers that sell shitty weed go for heroin. Now heroin is a cheap and common option at your local street corner.

(...) those types of dealers have been selling every kind of drug they can get their hands on and will never stop.

Exactly. As you put it, they will never stop. It's time to realize that and include them on the equation. Why there aren't policies coercing the typical street dealer to sell safer drugs rather than weird dangerous experimental stuff (like on LSD vs Nbomb)?

DanBC5• 10 years ago

The demand for high quality weed has never been higher.

A minor point, but cannabis use has gone down.

iolothebard2• 10 years ago

Lots of money in law enforcement, prisons, etc.

Just like getting simple tax code, lots of accountants/lawyers, etc.

pdkl95• 10 years ago

The best argument I know for legalizing drugs is the market argument. As long as demand exist (obvious, or nobody would care), supply will rise to meet it. Law enforcement tactics that see rising drug prices as a sign of success only make the market more profitable.

While many people engage in the popular delusion that people stop an activity when you pass laws banning, it's patently obvious that banning drugs is about as successful de facto as banning abortions. This means the real question isn't about the existence of a market for drugs.

Instead, laws that affect the market for drugs are about who is allowed to be the "supply" side of the equation. Obviously, some type of regulated market would be recommended if we want to have any amount of control over the market. Instead, we pass laws that ban legitimate businesses from entering this market, which is by definition a choice to turn the drug market over to criminals. By definition.

I suggest that choosing to give organized crime and violent gangs the profits from this high-value market. Usually, this is when prohibitionists claim that they can force the market to not exist by giving the supply side even more profit with ever stricter enforcement.

ThrustVectoring2• 10 years ago

And when the market is more profitable, it becomes more worth your while to engage in violent crime in order to further your drug-dealing interests. Fast food franchises generally don't engage in turf wars, and that's because fast food is a low-margin business. If dealing drugs becomes similarly low-margin, I suspect that will deal with a lot of drug-related violence.

gohrt3• 10 years ago

nitpick but important: it's time to decriminalize, not legalize.

The distinction is that we need to maintain a government force to compel the non-use of drugs that cause public harm. We need to make drug-use punishable, on the level of littering, trespass, vandalism, and disturbing the peace.

We need to be able to confine people who lose control of themselves and cause public harm when they are high, or in service of their high, but that confinement should be treatment oriented, not punishment oriented.

dragonwriter7• 10 years ago

The distinction is that we need to maintain a government force to compel the non-use of drugs that cause public harm. We need to make drug-use punishable, on the level of littering, trespass, vandalism, and disturbing the peace.

All of those except littering are generally nontrivial crimes (misdemeanors or felonies, not infractions), so making drug use punishable "on the level of" those is not only not legalization, its also not decriminalization.

(Actually, since drug use isn't generally criminal now -- possession, which is usually a prerequisite to use, is -- it would just be plain criminalization of drug use.)

kazinator• 10 years ago

One problem is that some people's careers in law enforcement are built on the "war on drugs". They need drugs to be illegal in order to justify the existence of their jobs and the meaning of their entire working lives so far.

frogpelt5• 10 years ago

Forget questions of legality.

Stop and ask this question: Why do we as a society need more and more and MORE mind-altering substances to cope with life?

Seriously.

Is society headed in the right direction if almost everyone needs some type of external chemical influence just to get through the week?

I already have an answer.

droffel2• 10 years ago

Stop and ask this question: Why do we as a society need more and more and MORE mind-altering substances to cope with life?

Citation needed.

Is society headed in the right direction if almost everyone needs some type of external chemical influence just to get through the week?

Who are you to decide what the "right direction" is, for anyone but yourself? Right vs Wrong is a moral judgement, not a legal one. No one should have the right to tell me what I (or anyone else) can put into my body. On a similar note, I think assisted suicide should be legal as well, but that's a discussion for another day.

frogpelt5• 10 years ago

Believe me. People everywhere who think just like you have decided what the right direction is.

RIMR3• 10 years ago

Answer me this: Have you ever consumed an alcoholic beverage? Have you ever consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication?

Well, if you answered yes, then you used a mind-altering substance / external chemical influence for your personal enjoyment. Don't you deserve jail for this? I mean, shouldn't you have been able resist the urge to intoxicate yourself, and instead pushed yourself in the "right direction" of sobriety? Since you failed at this, we might as well throw the book at you for it, right?

Alternately, if you answered "no" to my above question(s), then you're a liar and you can see yourself out.

frogpelt5• 10 years ago

How nice of you to be so presumptuous.

MisterBastahrd2• 10 years ago

Forget your answer.

Stop and ask this question: Why do we as a society need more and more and MORE stimuli to cope with life?

Seriously.

Is society headed in the right direction if almost everyone needs some type of external influence just to get through the week?

I already have a answer.

Problem is, every time you fire up a computer or a phone or a TV, you're seeking a stimulus which is going to fire off chemical signals in your brain. Your mind CRAVES the stuff. You COULD just sit around creating things all the time and stimulating yourself, but that's not convenient, is it? Drugs just eliminate the bullshit by applying direct stimulus without the idiot boxes, or obviously unnecessary items like books or live performances.

Oh, and drop the coffee and tea. And sugar. And salt. And any food that tastes good. You don't need those either. External chemical influences, after all.

frogpelt5• 10 years ago

Sure. Food and spices are the same as heroin and marijuana.

Ha ha. You're funny.

transfire• 10 years ago

No one loves freedom anymore.

harel• 10 years ago

ALL drugs should be legal. At least in the sense that using is not a criminal offence. Once drugs are legalised, regulated, quality assured by the government, and of course taxed, a large proportion of crime will be eradicated. Why would I buy illegal dirty drugs when I can buy the cleaner official versions?

volune• 10 years ago

It's cowardly to display these opinions after you have left office. When he had any kind of power to do anything, he toed the line.

mjw_byrne• 10 years ago

There's a strong parallel between drug policy and sex education policy. If you acknowledge that sex is a thing people are simply going to do and you give them the information they need to do it safely and throw in a free condom or two, STDs and unwanted pregnancies are kept under good control. If your policy is "you don't need education and condoms if you just don't do it!" then STDs and unwanted pregnancies soar.

In the case of drugs, it is clear that people will use them regardless. So the question for policymakers can't be "how do we stop people using drugs?", it has to be "given that people will use drugs, how do we minimise the harm caused?"

The other interesting parallel is ashtrays in aeroplane toilets. Supposedly they're there because sometimes, despite the warnings and no-smoking signs, people light up in the loo anyway. It's better for them to have an ashtray to put the cigarette out in than to try to improvise and possibly start a fire. In a situation where a planeload of passenger's lives could be at stake, there's no room for moral grandstanding - they've done the pragmatic thing and realised that when total prohibition cannot be enforced, you simply do what you can to minimise the damage.

conceit2• 10 years ago

how do we minimise the harm caused?"

I know one: we advertise drugs in movies and on billboards and put a liquor store on every other street corner, Oughta show'em.

Kofi Annan on Why It's Time to Legalize Drugs

Related Stories