• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

The war on drugs has failed.

Migrated topic.
And of course the home office yet again dismiss all the glaring evidence, with more lies, that they will win the drug "war".....:lol:
 
christian said:
And of course the home office yet again dismiss all the glaring evidence, with more lies, that they will win the drug "war".....:lol:
Click to expand...

How dare you, they will win, all they have to do is use massive flamethrowers and heavy explosives to get rid of all the plants and trees that contain DMT and cameras could be put in everyones' houses and everyone's every move could be monitored by machines. This will cause the war to be won, average anti-drug people don't seem to care what happens as long as it stops druggies from getting their drugs.
 
"The US and Mexican governments have rejected the findings as misguided."

Who could've seen that coming :evil:
 
The funny thing is that many people who support the war on drugs would actually be in favor of legalisation if they'd followed their own arguments: If you ask the average person why drug users should be arrested, the answer will in most cases be "because it's illegal", and by saying this, they're more or less admitting that the use of drugs itself isn't that much of a problem, but that the legal status of it is. In their own words, they admit that legalisation would solve the entire problem.
 
The more I hear about this, the more obvious it becomes that the first step must be to separate out the non-addictive, mainly psychedelic (need a new word for the public), plants/substances - and get people to justify why they are illegal.

Because whenever this topic is discussed, the only thing people are talking about (and the listener is thinking about) is Heroin, Crack etc, and all the associated problems of addiction and the crime often associated with the need to raise money for the habit (you know...descriptions of dark doorways / public toilets / dirty needles and so on). I listened to an hour of phone-in this morning, and this is all people were addressing.

Because surely there are two distinct arguments here...

1.) Normalising the absurd situation of harmless (and we would say, beneficial) non-addictive plants being illegal, when the scientific evidence is quite clear that they really are harmless to both the user and society.

2.) Having Heroin/crack/meth etc. being sold in headshops or Chemists shops or freely available on prescription or whatever.

The argument against the war on drugs seems to be being presented by people who want 2.) , and the public, understandably, reject that out of hand as a first step from where we are now to where we want to be.

I'd be very interested to know what people here on the Nexus feel about 2.). Personally I loathe State control of almost anything, but even I can't really see how highly-addictive drugs could be integrated into society (I know alcohol can be highly addictive to some, but you do have to put a good few years in to become addicted).

I'm pretty sure most here would want to discourage as many people as possible from getting sucked into a pointless addicted life, but would legalisation really help towards that end?
 
I find it interesting how we use language. We refer to a war on drugs, when it fact what it really is, is a war on people who use drugs. If the government had declared "war on law-abiding, productive citizens who happen to use drugs", there would have been little if any support I think.

When government representatives, the media, or others talk about whether or not a particular drug should be made illegal, what they should ask is whether or not we should make otherwise law-abiding citizens criminals. We don’t throw drugs in jail – we throw people in jail, often with disastrous consequences for the imprisoned person, the person’s family, and the larger community.

The language used is very deliberate: The average person can find it easy to support a “war on drugs” and to support making previously legal substances (such as salvia) illegal.
 
It's good to see that there is some sense in the world. Of course Mexico and the US won't support legalisation. They're the ones profiting from these substances being illegal. At least, that's how I see it. Look at the military escalation in Mexico. Look to who is profiting from all of that, and you'll see once again, it's the American industrial war-machine. The counter arguments were pretty lame. "Drug addiction is a disease that can be successfully prevented and treated,". It's not a disease. It's an effect that happens when you take too much of an addictive substance. It cannot be prevented, it can only be treated if the addict wants it to be. You have to work with them, not against them. And throwing them in jail won't stop their drug habit. There is so much drug traffic through the jail system it's not funny.

"Making drugs more available - as this report suggests - will make it harder to keep our communities healthy and safe." This arguement is counter intutive. They're not proposing to make drugs 'more available'. They're suggesting legalising and REGULATING the drugs. Drugs are already plenty available. By regulating them, you'll make them safer. Take prostition in Australia for example. It's illegal to sell yourself on the street corner, where it's unregulated and there are many dangers of STDs, etc. It's legal to operate out of a brothel, where there are strict guidelines that you have to follow. Regular tests, protection for the girls, etc. If you regulate something that people are going to do anyway, you can provide a modicum of safety. You can't if it's being sold on the street corner. There's another thing everyone misses. Legalise and TAX this shit. If America wants to fix its economy, legalise and tax weed. Within a year, you'll be back in the black!
 
MerryPrankster said:
Legalise and TAX this shit. If America wants to fix its economy, legalise and tax weed. Within a year, you'll be back in the black!
Click to expand...

George Washington's generation slogan was "no taxation without representation," and in retrospect, our generation's is gonna be "tax this shit' :lol:
 
Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but...

Obviously, we're all agreed that non-addictive plants should all be legalised, but I just have trouble understanding what people think should happen with the most highly-addictive ones.

I can understand how legalising Heroin/Crack etc would help those who are already addicted, but if you are able to buy them in shops, that would surely encourage more people to use them, and many of those to become addicted.

And if it's legal but you can't buy it in shops, then we're still where we are now, with the black market satisfying the demand...so while using it might be legal, buying it would still be an illegal process.

So how do people here see this working in practice?
 
legalize them all..from heroin to LSD. Then maybe some of that money we used to waste on chasing drug users can go into better rehabilitation..like Ibogaine therapy.

Beyond that..let adults be adults..and make decisions for themselves. Not every single heroin user is going to be an addict, while at the same time alcohol is already legal and many are addicted to it. Prohibition does not solve the addict problem. Proper rehabilitation that is not based on some drug company making more money off drug users might be a good start.

Until someone starts harming others due to the drugs they use I dont think it is anyones business. When they start to break into cars, rob people or neglect they're children etc than it becomes the business of the law.
 
gobalswg said:
George Washington's generation slogan was "no taxation without representation,"...
Click to expand...
And let's not forget that the US citizens of Washington DC are taxed without representation. Although if they gave Eleanor Holmes Norton a vote, she'd probably lead the citizenry in a a violent overthrow of the government...so......

Limeni said:
Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but...

Obviously, we're all agreed that non-addictive plants should all be legalised, but I just have trouble understanding what people think should happen with the most highly-addictive ones.
Click to expand...
The most destructive and addictive substances (#1 tobacco, #2 alcohol; tobacco alone kills more people than every illicit substance combined) are already legal...so yea...

Like fractal said, let adults be adults. The state has no right to control what you ingest or do to your body if it causes no direct, acute harm to others.

Regulate all substances, address the small percentage of junkies through medical avenues, not legal ones, address the small percent of drug-related crime through the legal system (but most of the crime goes away with legalization anyways).
 
I think people are starting to see that something has to change, so how soon do you forsee a change?

A couple years, 5-10 years, or never?

Personally, I think that within the next five years the current drug laws will undergo a major change. Whether or not for better or worse I'm not to sure, but news like this does point toward change.
 
It's funny, every time I see a new hope for ending the war on drugs, I see yet more laws passed in favor of increasing the war on drugs, and enforcement of it. Next thing you know, every paper in the world will be calling for an end to the war on drugs, at the same time the federal government will call for life imprisonment for possession of anything not approved by the FDA.

I guess this is to be expected somewhat. Once people start pushing for change, the opposing side pushes back. Don't let them git to ya.

I hope that article is legit. It got me a bit excited until I read,
Meanwhile, countries with less-harsh enforcement -- like Switzerland, Portugal, the Netherlands, and Australia -- have not seen the explosion in drug use
Click to expand...

The fact that they would list Australia as a country with "less harsh drug enforcement", makes me wonder if they know what they're talking about.
 
SnozzleBerry said:
The most destructive and addictive substances (#1 tobacco, #2 alcohol; tobacco alone kills more people than every illicit substance combined) are already legal...so yea...
Click to expand...

I really would love someone to put that to the Home Secretary in an interview. Seeing as their response to the initial campaign was that drugs are illegal because they are harmful and addictive. I think it's only fair if they are going to make 'drugs' illegal on those grounds that they apply the rule to all substances, i.e. alcohol and tobacco. For consistency's and integrity's sake if nothing else.
 
It seems that the "war on drugs" is doing more harm to people and society than the drugs are. A fair government would listen to the people, and the overwhelming evidence stating that decriminalisation is the way forward, and find a way of reaching a compromise with it's people. But governments don't agree with it's peoples.

-We need a government that works for us, and treats us with the respect and freedoms we deserve.
 
Entheojen said:
I really would love someone to put that to the Home Secretary in an interview. Seeing as their response to the initial campaign was that drugs are illegal because they are harmful and addictive.
Click to expand...
Hahaha, or asking, "If that's the case, can you address the fact that nicotine can be more addictive than heroin or crack?"
 
No, don't say that. before you know it they've scheduled nicotine in the same category as heroin and crack. I think our prisons are full enough already.

Just let them do their little dance and be patient. The war on drugs is being lost. They've pulled back from vietnam, they will pull back from afghanistan and iraq and they eventually will pull back from colombia, bolivia and mexico, as well as our streets and homes.
 
Back
Top Bottom