UN Commission Finds 'The War on Drugs' to be a Failure

[Border Patrol]

Honestly, I'm surprised it's taken this long for anyone so close to the US to admit such a thing. But does anything think this will actually lead anywhere, as opposed to the usual hall monitoring the UN partakes in?

For any of you that are unaware of my stance on the issue, I am heavily anti-contraband laws. They serve no purpose other than to line the pockets of local governments in my own country, and make it more difficult for people with actual addiction issues to receive help. It's high time the whole rotten thing was done away with and users were able to ingest into their own bodies what they want without some authority giving them a spanking. Perhaps even in a safer manner once companies start producing drugs instead of some guy in a trailer.
Your thoughts?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43248071...me_and_courts/

[Enemy of the State]

This will lead to nothing. Our drug policy isn't based on facts, it never has been. It's based on fear. Honestly nothing makes me more frustrated. The war on drugs is a monumental failure on every level and it's morally bankrupt. It's absolutely insane. I've never debated with a single informed drug war supporter. It's always people who believe you can overdose on marijuana and how we'd have absolutely every single person in the world doing drugs if it weren't for these insane laws.

[Plan C]

Yeah, saw this today:

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/865047-w...global-leaders

My favourite:

The Home Office said last night it will ignore the report. ‘We have no intention of liberalising our drugs laws. Drugs are illegal because they are harmful – they destroy lives, (...mmkay)’ a spokesman said.

We all pay for this d*ckwad to spew this tosh. Unbelievable. Un. be. lieveable

[Enemy of the State]

The Home Office said last night it will ignore the report. ‘We have no intention of liberalising our drugs laws. Drugs are illegal because they are harmful – they destroy lives, (...mmkay)’ a spokesman said.

Drugs are illegal and they're still being used. Wake up and smell the ing coffee.

[SonOfOdin]

Yeah, saw this today:

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/865047-w...global-leaders

My favourite:



We all pay for this d*ckwad to spew this tosh. Unbelievable. Un. be. lieveable

Coca Cola, Vodka, Deep Fried food and excess use of Nurofen are harmful too(if taken in large amounts) amongst many things, and yet they are legal and are capable(in a way) of destroying lives too.

This whole "War on Drugs" is a failure. All it did was create a mass black market of drugs and increase crime rates in almost every country on Earth. Moreover, the "War on Drugs" is built on hypocrisy, fear and lack of true and factual education.

It's all public opinion. The government would love to legalise drugs because they'd make billions. However, the opinion of the public towards drugs is negative, and it is the public who votes. When public opinion shifts in favour of drugs, they will be legalised.

The public have a negative view on drugs because that's what the public has been taught by their governments through mostly false and exaggerated claims in the education system.

[-Conan the Barbarian-]

This will lead to nothing. Our drug policy isn't based on facts, it never has been. It's based on fear. Honestly nothing makes me more frustrated. The war on drugs is a monumental failure on every level and it's morally bankrupt. It's absolutely insane. I've never debated with a single informed drug war supporter. It's always people who believe you can overdose on marijuana and how we'd have absolutely every single person in the world doing drugs if it weren't for these insane laws.

Also there are powerful people who want to keep the prison population up with those nonviolent drug offenders who will have to work for next to nothing in prison, it's practically slave labor.

Legalizing Marijuana may very well happen in America but it was never about using marijuana as a drug that was the main motivating force for making it illegal but rather the freedom to grow hemp was the reason big business wanted to make it exclusive and why they campaigned to make it illegal using the fear of minorities.
Hemp has alot of industrial usages that would be bad for the oil industry and the paper industry. That's why I believe that they would make it legal to smoke and buy the buds before ever making it legal to grow a field of it.

[Heathen Hammer]

But they destroy lives! Think of the children! Teh CHILDREN!!!111

[Poach]

When will they learn that legalised, controlled drugs means they are safer, remove a massive revenue stream from organised crime and channels it into Government coffers, makes tracking and keeping an eye on users much easier and therefore overall much reduces crime.

[Katsumoto]

It's all public opinion. The government would love to legalise drugs because they'd make billions. However, the opinion of the public towards drugs is negative, and it is the public who votes. When public opinion shifts in favour of drugs, they will be legalised.

[tarvu]

It's all public opinion. The government would love to legalise drugs because they'd make billions. However, the opinion of the public towards drugs is negative, and it is the public who votes. When public opinion shifts in favour of drugs, they will be legalised.

Except that in many nations (not just the US and UK) there are massive government programs aimed at defending the prohibition. Clearly the government wouldn't love to legalize drugs, and the public was not really asked whether they wanted prohibition in the first place. Any referendum on the matter (such as in California) is met with massive government backed campaigns to defeat liberalization. When the government ends or at least stops it's massive (and horribly expensive) campaign to mislead people on the issue there will likely be more public support for reform.

They have long funded faulty research exaggerating and even fabricating the harmful effects of many illegal drugs. If they wanted to legalize drugs, or relax current drug laws, they have had plenty of opportunities; they could be indifferent on the subject even and we would have long ago had reform but instead they are extremely active in combating any type of reform on the subject (even when it comes to support for treatment programs and drug courts versus simply throwing users/addicts into prison).

[wearycelt]

It's all public opinion. The government would love to legalise drugs because they'd make billions. However, the opinion of the public towards drugs is negative, and it is the public who votes. When public opinion shifts in favour of drugs, they will be legalised.

Speaking only of the US.... public opinion < prison lobby.

[mongrel]

It's all public opinion. The government would love to legalise drugs because they'd make billions. However, the opinion of the public towards drugs is negative, and it is the public who votes. When public opinion shifts in favour of drugs, they will be legalised.

Or is it the opinion of certain newspapers.?


If there is one costly fail of a policy that requires a proper review, it is this one.

[brandbll]

The whole argument that the government would make billions is sort of meaningless. The government makes much more money from the drug war than they would from taxing drugs. Why do you think there is such a strong opposition to legalizing these drugs? The people in charge of agencies like the DEA and federal and state prisons do not want drugs to be legalized. It means less money in their coffers and in turn less power.

[Azog 150]

Here's another article on the story (although this one is a bit more UK-centric about a campaign by many high profile British celebs and/or ex-politicians writing to No.10)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...gs-drugspolicy

I see the Home Office response has already been posted (although you missed out a little bit):

"We have no intention of liberalising our drugs laws. Drugs are illegal because they are harmful – they destroy lives and cause untold misery to families and communities.
"Those caught in the cycle of dependency must be supported to live drug-free lives, but giving people a green light to possess drugs through decriminalisation is clearly not the answer," said a spokesman.

Its make me want to laugh, cry and tear my hair out all at the same time.





Still, its good to see the global movement to end prohibition is gaining momentum. Its just a shame no serving politicians have the balls to speak out, instead waiting until they are retired to do so.

[Plan C]

I see the Home Office response has already been posted (although you missed out a little bit)

Metro did

Bloody Metro...

Its make me want to laugh, cry and tear my hair out all at the same time.

I barely even remember times when it made me laugh

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Still, its good to see the global movement to end prohibition is gaining momentum. Its just a shame no serving politicians have the balls to speak out, instead waiting until they are retired to do so.

Funny, talked about it last night with my wife. How, nowadays, public opinion is almost unstoppable. This can be a force for good or, more often than not, for bad. Watched Panorama about that care home in Bristol (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13611089) last night and then it turns out that the Mirror printed the culprits' full names and addresses. Formal investigation is so far behind the curve that it is almost irrelevant, public opinion has already convicted those people, their social and professional life is effectively over (although I would still like to slowly pull their teeth, watch the show, it's shocking). Same with DSK - outcome of the formal investigation doesn't even matter any more, he's finished.

I can see why politicians avoid controversy like the plague. It's easy to say they have no balls, and it's almost certainly true too, but let's not forget how fickle public opinion can be and how powerful trial by media has become. It's a mighty shame that the cretinous majority of our glorious nation happens to call the shots on "sensitive issues". As long as we cling to popular democracy it will remain so, I fear.

[Azog 150]

Funny, talked about it last night with my wife. How, nowadays, public opinion is almost unstoppable. This can be a force for good or, more often than not, for bad. Watched Panorama about that care home in Bristol (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13611089) last night and then it turns out that the Mirror printed the culprits' full names and addresses. Formal investigation is so far behind the curve that it is almost irrelevant, public opinion has already convicted those people, their social and professional life is effectively over (although I would still like to slowly pull their teeth, watch the show, it's shocking). Same with DSK - outcome of the formal investigation doesn't even matter any more, he's finished.

I can see why politicians avoid controversy like the plague. It's easy to say they have no balls, and it's almost certainly true too, but let's not forget how fickle public opinion can be and how powerful trial by media has become. It's a mighty shame that the cretinous majority of our glorious nation happens to call the shots on "sensitive issues". As long as we cling to popular democracy it will remain so, I fear.

All too true. But you'd think that the government spin doctors would be able to win people over with talk of less wasted tax money and all the rest of it. And indeed, currently, amongst the majority of people I have spoken to at least (Of voting age I should add), prohibition seems very unpopular and people are starting to see the benefits that could be had through decriminalisation or legalisation. This makes me think other forces aside from public opinion are at work (Lobbying by alcohol and tobacco companies who don't want competition maybe?)

Still, the likes of the Daily Mail certainly don't help the issue.

But at the end of the day, the job of politicians is to try and work towards whats best for the country. Instead we have politicians going against their views to pander to public opinion for the next election. Both Cameron and Clegg expressed support for decriminalisation earlier in their political careers for example. Both are now strangely silent...

And the number of ex-politicians coming out in support of this shows that they do at least have some sense, its just they didn't have the guts to stand up for their beliefs while in power

[Denny Crane!]

I enjoyed the White Houses response for hilarity. Didn't find it on a google search though my interwebz is being retarded today, anyone have it?

[Plan C]

I enjoyed the White Houses response for hilarity. Didn't find it on a google search though my interwebz is being retarded today, anyone have it?

Sound a bit like you just came back from the cruiser after a long lunch lol.

Did the White House even bother to respond or did you mean the home office?

[PoleCat]

I enjoyed the White Houses response for hilarity. Didn't find it on a google search though my interwebz is being retarded today, anyone have it?

http://ofsubstance.gov/blogs/pushing.../02/51896.aspx

Interesting read. But it mainly shows that the WH is still in denial.

And a editorial by the Director himself on Huffington.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/r-gil-..._b_816786.html

[Ancient Aliens]

I feel that this is residual from the 60's, as our leaders were either part of the 60's movements or part of the counter-culture. I believe that drug use is being associated with the entire movement, rather than seen as an individual issue with merits and demerits. Once these leaders retire it will be up to future generations and public opinion. Several illegal drugs will be legalized very soon I'm sure.

On another note, while I believe that individuals should make their own decisions and that it should be legalized, and that I realize that taxation could be placed on current illegal drugs, what exactly do all you proponents feel is the physiological benefit of drug use?