Global war on drugs 'has failed'

[Robert]

Didn't see this posted here yet:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13624303

The Global Commission's 24-page report argues that anti-drug policy has failed by fuelling organised crime, costing taxpayers millions of dollars and causing thousands of deaths.
It cites UN estimates that opiate use increased 35% worldwide from 1998 to 2008, cocaine by 27%, and cannabis by 8.5%.

The 19-member commission includes Mexico's former President Ernesto Zedillo, Brazil's ex-President Fernando Henrique Cardoso and former Colombian President Cesar Gaviria, as well as the former US Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker and the current Prime Minister of Greece George Papandreou.
The panel also features prominent Latin American writers Carlos Fuentes and Mario Vargas Llosa, the EU's former foreign policy chief Javier Solana, and George Schultz, a former US secretary of state.

The authors criticise governments who claim the current war on drugs is effective.

"Political leaders and public figures should have the courage to articulate publicly what many of them acknowledge privately: that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that repressive strategies will not solve the drug problem, and that the war on drugs has not, and cannot, be won," the report said.
Instead of punishing users who the report says "do no harm to others," the commission argues that governments should end criminalisation of drug use, experiment with legal models that would undermine organised crime syndicates and offer health and treatment services for drug-users.
It calls for drug policies based on methods empirically proven to reduce crime and promote economic and social development.

The commission is especially critical of the US, saying it must abandon anti-crime approaches to drug policy and adopt strategies rooted in healthcare and human rights.
"We hope this country (the US) at least starts to think there are alternatives," said former Colombian President Cesar Gaviria.
"We don't see the US evolving in a way that is compatible with our (countries') long-term interests."

Too sensible for most, I reckon.

 

[the_leander]

Not so much too sensible, but there are certainly too many vested interests in maintaining the status quo.

 

[cecilia]

idiots

 

[redrumloa]

So you think we should put crack pipes at the bottom of every Froot Loops box?

 

[Robert]

So you think we should put crack pipes at the bottom of every Froot Loops box?

That's right, Jim.
The same way you already give away a litre of 100% proof moonshine with multipacks of kids fruit juice and give free packets of cigarettes away with Hershey bars.

Any other knowingly absurd suggestions?

And who were you asking; me, Paul Volcker or George Shultz?

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Too sensible for most, I reckon.

It's not so much about what's "sensible" in the way that we think about it. The policy is "sensible" in other ways and there are several different groups that buy into it for their own reasons.

First, and most trivially, there are the moralists who believe that since they are dedicated to refusing themselves certain pleasures other people shouldn't have them either. That's not how they generally see their own viewpoint but it is the underlying psychology that makes them so rabid. The temperance movement is very vocal - but they are not a majority - just as in prohibition. These nut-jobs are used by other groups who have more practical concerns.

Minority suppression. Generally speaking, the worst drugs are the ones that poor people take. If you are in a minority then when you take drugs you are worse than an affluent white person. The law won't be evenly applied and will end up as an excuse to incarcerate minorities (already has). With confiscations of assets without proof in these communities the cost of suppressing is born by the minorities themselves. It keeps them poor, it keeps them in their place and it provides a pool of expendable manpower, and in beautiful feedback it produces a pool of hopeless people that it is easier to sell drugs to.

Just the money. Drugs make money and the illegal drugs make a lot. They are generally cheap to produce and being illegal there are no real safety requirements or studies necessary. Back in the prohibition days people would go blind or die from time to time because of bad moonshine. This doesn't happen much these days - manufacturers would be liable. If Capone had managed to get enough people into Federal Government seats I'm sure he'd have loved to keep liquor illegal.

Wall street is also dependent on drug money. Giant globs of the stuff come through all the time needing to be cleaned. Illegal money is willing to pay good fees to be cleaned up which means plenty of opportunities to run "investments" that may lose a chunk into someone else's side bet just to come out untraceable on the other side.

Intelligence operations also, as was proved by Reagan and Ollie North, love the lucrative and unpublic nature of drug profits. The CIA and the US armed forces have shown themselves to be quite adept at moving large amounts of drugs at low risk with high margins. Bases all over the world with US owned landing strips and host countries with no right to inspect makes for fabulous conduits for moving drugs. The drug money can then be used to buy drugs, fund terrorists (or rebels, or "activists" or whatever they chose to call them) to destabilize uncooperative regimes without having to go to the Congressional cheque-book.

Whether the policy is good for people is the very last consideration - or rather - it isn't a consideration at all.

 

[Robert]

If Capone had managed to get enough people into Federal Government seats I'm sure he'd have loved to keep liquor illegal.

This is an excellent point that goes as long a way to summing up the situation as could be expected.

 

[cecilia]

This is an excellent point that goes as long a way to summing up the situation as could be expected.

for you folks outside the USA you may have missed the first season of the HBO series "Boardwalk Empire" which essentially plays out the history of Prohibition. The first scene of the first episode was the criminal element in New Jersey celebrating Prohibition because they KNEW they were about to get stinking rich.

It's really quite an excellent series and we will be regaled with another season. But aside from that, the story it tells is ALL about how stupid laws are there to make a few people rich.
Pay attention, kids. History repeats itself

 

[Robert]

for you folks outside the USA you may have missed the first season of the HBO series "Boardwalk Empire" which essentially plays out the history of Prohibition. The first scene of the first episode was the criminal element in New Jersey celebrating Prohibition because they KNEW they were about to get stinking rich.

I actually saw that episode a few months back and liked it but have yet to catch up on the rest.