Finally. I hope this will signal a turning point on this insane approach to national health in all countries. Drugs are a <i>health</i> problem, not a criminal problem.<p>Lone experts have been fired in western countries when they have expressed this common sense sentiments alone [0]. I hope this groups fares better.<p>Nixon started the war on drugs anyway as a mean to attack left and black activists [1]. Any previous legislation for control has been instigated on behalf of race and class warfare.The fact that some drugs have been the staple narcotic in some groups has been used as a control mechanism upon those groups by criminalizing the substance.<p>Substance distribution should be controlled by law. But that is status quo anyway - governments control the distribution of any number of dangerous substances at any point.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-adviser-david-nutt-sacked" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-advis...</a><p>[1] <a href="https://qz.com/645990/nixon-advisor-we-created-the-war-on-drugs-to-criminalize-black-people-and-the-anti-war-left/" rel="nofollow">https://qz.com/645990/nixon-advisor-we-created-the-war-on-dr...</a>
"scientific consensus"<p>I am very troubled by this phrase -- it's almost an oxymoron. Science is not democratic, and scientists aren't anointed arbiters of facts.<p>Anyone can be a scientist simply by following the scientific method and collecting data in good faith; and a lone outsider with new data can challenge 100 years of "consensus". Obviously they are subject to challenges themselves, or if it's unlikely enough they might reasonably be ignored (e.g. a known charlatan saying they observed cold fusion).<p>Did this terminology start with the "scientific consensus" on anthropogenic climate change (which I do not dispute, by the way)? I think I understand why it was used in that debate, but I don't think it was a good precedent. Now it's being used to directly apply to policy ("growing scientific consensus on the failures of the global war on drugs").<p>Before long, it will be used directly in political debates to try to force some scientific organizations to choose a side. And then all credibility is lost.<p>Researching policies that require deep analysis of scientific (or other) data should be left to think tanks or something similar.
Here in Germany politicians are still stating that Cannabis is a gateway drug, causes psychosis and makes stupid. They will even actively lie and twist statistics.<p>My theory for why many politicians - especially from the right-wing - are so opposed is b/c they didn't like their weed smoking and long-haired fellow students. It's a Pavlov thing.<p>Like many people dislike golf (justly so in my humble opinion) b/c they dislike the stereotypical golf enthusiasts.
Perverse, plentiful incentives to addict and sell -- or invest in the manufacturer who does so -- act quicker than panels of doctors, and dodge responsibility too easily.<p>Living long lives as a beacons of philanthropic humanism on top of your legal drug empire (or profits gained through accompanying ownership) counteracts much stigma accrued from the deaths of your customers.<p>> On Tuesday [July 17, 2017], OxyContin manufacturer Raymond Sackler died at the age of 97. The same day, 91 other Americans died due to lethal overdoses of the pill that made Sackler a billionaire. Sackler died in comfort, in a hospital bed, with the best possible medical care, “following a brief illness."<p><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/raymond-sackler-oxycontin-dead_us_596f881ee4b0bb3867496f43" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/raymond-sackler-oxyconti...</a>
As Chomsky said, the way to deal with drug abuse is through education and treatment. That’s how we successfully reduced smoking, drinking coffee and other unhealthy habits in the USA. Not by throwing people in jail.
Drugs were not made illegal because they're bad for your health and they don't remain illegal because they're bad for your health. Poisons are generally not illegal. Drugs are illegal because they make people feel good or make them happy which offends the Protestant Work Ethic. The Protestant Work Ethic says that the only legitimate route to happiness is through physically difficult labor which causes you to suffer. The greater the suffering, the greater the virtue and the greater the happiness you 'deserve' as consequence. The PWE is not openly advocated or consciously held much any longer, but it was a large part of US history and its effects stick with us.<p>Aside from just the people who have bought into the scaremongering about drugs, there is a significant contingent of people who see it as 'unfair' that anyone could use a drug and get even temporary happiness. Nothing offends Americans (I simply don't know how prevalent this is in other countries) more than the idea that someone else might be having an easier time than themselves. It's why many would prefer companies to go without substantive punishment for harming many people over having one person receive a large punitive judgement in court cases. The McDonald's coffee lawsuit is usually the canonical example. If McDonald's had only paid the lady actual damages, they would have simply continued their practices and harmed more people. But that is preferable to the situation where that one lady got a 'payday'. Apparently nothing is worse than the feeling that someone else has had it easier than one has had it ones self.
And not just recreational drugs. All drugs.<p>We trust people to manage their own life, this includes medicine. Maybe insurance won't pay for it without a Dr, but if someone wants to self pay, that's their choice.
It's worth noting that this article is from March 2016 (e.g. before the UN failed to course correct at UNGASS 2016), and that this and many other efforts have failed already.<p>There are some related discussions in this thread from last year after UNGASS: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12601956#12602296" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12601956#12602296</a>
Some reasons for decriminalization of use and possession, summarized:<p>(i.e., removing criminal penalties or making it no jail time possible, but not government supplied)<p>- War on drugs has failed. Criminalization has consequences on community - in many cases, most of the negative effects come from the criminalization, not the drug.<p>- Consensual crimes that don’t harm others shouldn’t be crimes.<p>- Drug prohibition doesn’t seem to decrease use — Portugal. (Also perhaps Czech, Italy, Spain?)<p>- Drug war enforcement costs a ton, we could save tax money.<p>- 1.2 million people arrested for drug possession in 2015. <a href="http://www.drugwarfacts.org/chapter/crime_arrests#arrests" rel="nofollow">http://www.drugwarfacts.org/chapter/crime_arrests#arrests</a><p>- Prisons are crowded. Would reduce this a little.<p>- Easier for addicts to seek treatment.<p>I think the strongest reasons are that drug use should be treated as a health issue and not a criminal issue, and that consensual crimes that don't harm others shouldn't be crimes.<p>What is the single strongest reason for or against decriminalizing all drugs, in your opinion?
Full steam ahead with decriminalization of possession/use, and with regulated markets for psychedelic and most stimulants<p>However after seeing how business behaves when it can sell opiates, I'm in favor of even more regulation than we currently have on some drug markets<p>(Also, if it were up to me, I'd ban ads for drugs, including alcohol and prescriptions)
Bottom line is deaths from overdose.<p>Drugs criminalized, USA:<p>150 deaths/million people/year<p>Drugs legalized, Portugal:<p>3 deaths/million people/year
While I support the decriminalizing of drugs, I also have to question how effective it would be if all drugs were decriminalized and became highly regulated.<p>Example 1: prescription drugs are highly regulated, yet their legal availability has not stopped criminal activities surrounding the illegal trade. Legalizing may solve some social issues relating to the war on drugs, but not all.<p>Example 2: alcohol is legal, easily available, and has a (proportionally) low amount of illegal trade. On the other hand, a lot of people do illegal stuff when impared by it. Perhaps some drugs should not be legal, particularly since there is worse stuff ou there.<p>On the other hand, you have example 3: tobacco. Reasonable precautions taken, its main issue is self harm due to the impact on health. While there are obvious reasons to regulate its use (e.g. people frequently smoke in environments where it can harm others), do we really want to regulate self-harm?<p>Perhaps we should be regulating based upon the drug, keeping some illegal, rather than pursuing blanket legalization and regulation.<p>Edit: an occurance of legal should have been illegal.
Decriminalization of drugs would have to come with a massive restructuring of our social programs. You could get into a lot of trouble by financially supporting people who become addicted beyond their control.
The article is about "decriminalization of all nonviolent drug use and possession". This sounds noble, but as we found out in the Netherlands you will have to make a distinction between soft drugs and hard drugs. Hard drugs is always associated with crime and most of the time violent crime and gangs.<p>So I would say. Been there done that. We are cracking down on this type of policy, since 'education' does not work and it seems that prisons do not make the criminal as some other comments claim... Well they can always wish for it, but reality does not care either way.
Why would medical experts be considered authoritative? It's a legal and political problem. For the record, I agree with the doctors, but I think decades of research into marijuana have already demonstrated that medical facts have jack shit to do with legislative agendas.<p>My guess is, the only way we'll move past this ridiculous situation is if a majority of individual states decide to legalize hard drugs the same way a minority of them have already legalized weed, and eventually the federal government will cave in once they realize it's not going to cost anybody an election. That is, it will take lots of baby steps over a couple of decades. I hope I'm underestimating progress, though!
What about other drugs like steroids and growth hormones? Those are schedule 2 drugs which can be prescribed but have no addictive properties. Testosterone is something your [male] body produces but even if you have a low free T count doctors often still won't prescribe it, and since you cannot buy it legally most men live out their lives feeling the negative affects of this.<p>Of course the focus is always on weed, opiates, and other common hallucinogenic drugs, but what about all the other drugs that aren't.<p>What is the reason for those to be illegal? I legitimately don't know the reasons because even the reasons for 'harmful' drugs causes lots of debate such as the comment thread here shows.
Even if you had a staunchly anti-drug stance, it's also fair to say that law enforcement resources are not unlimited. Dealing with drugs like cannabis and cocaine are a waste of taxpayer dollars relative to serious issues of opioids and methamphetamine.
Full report: <a href="http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)00619-X/abstract" rel="nofollow">http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67...</a>
The drug war not working does NOT mean that all the drugs should be decriminalized.
If you fail to fight drug cartels, it's a political and organizational issue.
We should never fall into the trap of mixing everything.
The way to "win" the drug war, is the way you win in capitalism. COMPETITION!!! No one would go to illegal drug gangs if they could go to 7-11(or similar).
Imagine a old dam. It's in poor condition, with cracks here and there, letting some water through. Its maintenance is extremely expensive and seemingly useless, since for ever crack that is fixed, a new one appears.<p>Now some guy shows up and says "this dam costs us too much and we are failing to fix it. Let's just blow it up!"
This was a very good interview with a neuropsychiatrist, Dr. Phyllis Bonafice, who has a different opinion, <a href="https://youtu.be/W_i2mC5fAmI" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/W_i2mC5fAmI</a>. I do think focusing on treatment more than punishment may be a better idea in most cases.
a lot of drugs used to be legitimate drugs,but are now illegal to be able to sell other shitty substances which are more expensive and often less effective. example: mdma treatment for ptsd. most ptsd treatments are ill effective these days, but before wo2 mdma treatment was very effective. it's now only able to be given in certain places, usually from people who can't licence themselves properly, adding risk to this treatment where before it was solid.
<a href="http://www.mdmaptsd.org/news.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.mdmaptsd.org/news.html</a>
most banned substances are just 'buisness deals' between pharma industry and government.
For the US people, this is not just due to war on drugs. war on drugs is an effect , not a cause.
Instead of drugs, I think we could ban fried chicken and watermelon exceeding a diameter of three inches. It would be more effective for the goals the government has in mind. Fried chicken is well, fried, and a large watermelon can be used to hit someone and cause head injury.
Honest question: How would decriminalization of drugs work in practice? Would it be legal to e.g. import and sell cristal meth in stores? What about cheap self-made alcohol that might contain dangerous stuff like methanol; where do you draw the line?
I think the best approach is to allow each neighborhood to decide what recreational drugs, if any, can be consumed in public. And only enforce such restrictions with fines, not jail time.<p>Regulating at the neighborhood level makes it easier to live in or travel to the kind of neighborhood you want to be in. People that want to use drugs in public where they live can pick their neighborhood accordingly.<p>The more permissive neighborhoods can tax drug use to pay for any negative consequences of drug use. Maybe they need more enforcement of traffic laws, for example.<p>If we allow everything everywhere, eventually there will be pressure to control everything again. Better to allow people who want drug-free neighborhoods to have them, while ensuring that those who want to use drugs are still able to.
I can't read the article because I have no Washington Post subscription.<p>But isn't this more of a question for an economist than one for a medical doctor?
I'm thinking internally if all this buzz on drug decriminalization isn't just the visible part of darwinian process that will naturally eliminate the stupids and the mentally weak from humanity gene pool.
So 22 medical experts state the War on Drugs "directly and indirectly contribute to lethal violence, disease, discrimination, forced displacement, injustice and the undermining of people’s right to health."<p>In Mexico 23,000 people were killed in drug related violence in 2016. Drug overdoses in the USA jumped to 59,000 in 2016. Arrest numbers in the USA in 2015 totaled 10.8 million. Drug related: 1.49 million; (Broken down: 1.25 million for drug possession; 340,000 for sale or manufacture.) 1.09 million drunk driving; 11,092 for murder or manslaughter.<p>Ratios of note: 438:1 Possession:Sale or manufacture; 1.25:1.5 Drunk driving:Drug related.<p>Government v Science: In 2009 a British psychiatrist and neuropsychopharmacologist was sacked from his position chief drug advisor position in government after publishing a list of most to least harmful drugs.<p>"Alcohol and tobacco are more harmful than many illegal drugs, including LSD, ecstasy and cannabis..."<p>He also stated horse riding was safer than ecstasy with 100 riding fatalities per year(on average).<p>The political blowback was massive. On the floor in House of Commons MPs vehemently rebuffed the document and its author. It was a parade of "my ignorance trumps your expert scientific opinion."<p>The congress and courts in the USA are no better. There's no official list but there is a pattern that has no scientific basis. The crack epidemic of the late 80's saw congress pass mandatory sentencing laws for crack. Crack is the crystalized version of cocaine. It was popular in the inner city minority population. Movie stars from the 80's would have a "cocaine nail." The nail on the pinky finger (it could be any finger) would be noticeably longer. Carrie Fisher in the Empire Strikes Back has one that really stands out.<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/29/nutt-drugs-policy-reform-call" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/29/nutt-drugs-...</a><p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-adviser-david-nutt-sacked" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-advis...</a><p>It was difficult to locate reputable sources of recent data on costs in the United States. Tobacco and alcohol combined total slightly over $600 Billion/year while illegal drugs are estimated at just under $200 billion.<p><a href="https://www.verywell.com/what-are-the-costs-of-drug-abuse-to-society-63037" rel="nofollow">https://www.verywell.com/what-are-the-costs-of-drug-abuse-to...</a>
Joshua J. (2017) The Consequences of the Use of Illicit Drugs and Their Associated Private and Social Costs. In: The Economics of Addictive Behaviours Volume III. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham<p><a href="http://ktla.com/2017/05/09/23000-killed-during-mexicos-drug-wars-in-2016-making-it-second-deadliest-conflict-in-the-world-after-syria/" rel="nofollow">http://ktla.com/2017/05/09/23000-killed-during-mexicos-drug-...</a><p><a href="http://www.occnewspaper.com/americans-are-still-getting-arrested-for-marijuana-possession-at-staggering-rates/" rel="nofollow">http://www.occnewspaper.com/americans-are-still-getting-arre...</a><p>So you discussed your drug habit with your physician? Physician–patient privilege isn't a sure thing anymore. The police are requesting and getting warrants to access a person's medical files. I didn't know this was happening until I started writing this post.<p><a href="https://www.aclu.org/other/faq-government-access-medical-records" rel="nofollow">https://www.aclu.org/other/faq-government-access-medical-rec...</a><p>Anythingnonidin has a good list of reasons.<p>A few others:<p>- Alcohol is legal yet it's the only drug where stopping cold turkey can be fatal. Most people have heard of DTs or the shakes. So drinking too much too fast and not drinking afters of hitting the bottle every day can both be fatal.<p>- It's impossible to overdose on cannabis. People do have bad reactions or trips and go to the hospital but it's nothing life threatening.<p>- For profit prisons (almost always) cannot take prisoners who've committed a violent crime. Wonder why the dealer to possession ratio was 1:438? This is probably a factor.<p>- We have 5% of the world's population but 25% of the world's prisoners<p>- Tuberculosis, HIV, Hepatitis C - The sentence wasn't for live but these transmissible diseases are.<p>- "If we legalize drugs think of the damage to the economy. ATF, prison guards, police, cities that are only financially solvent because of the income from the courts and prisons would face financial ruin.
- Innocent until proven guilty unless there's a empty cell? How is this not a conflict of interest for the parole board?<p>- So we hear nothing about how many drunks get behind the wheel of a 3000lb vehicle. Only after 3-5 DWI's will they possibly face prison time. Someone smoking weed is "a threat to national security?" They pose a threat to the safety of the community. That car swerving down the road only get a slap on the wrist.<p>- I don't think it should be all drugs and I don't think the article made that argument. The point was to stop treating a health condition as a crime and end what Nixon started.
Drugs cause psychopathic behavior in those who didn't take them.<p>It is all because of a self-enslavement formula where it is magically expected to have every angle of everyones life managed by others.<p>I say we force them to smoke the weed and calm them the fuck down. It's just better for them.