The global "war on drugs" has been a catastrophic failure and world leaders must rethink their approach, a group including five Nobel prize-winning economists, Britain's deputy prime minister and a former US secretary of state has said.
An academic report published on Tuesday by the London School of Economics (LSE), called Ending the Drug Wars, pointed to violence in Afghanistan, Latin America and other regions as evidence of the need for a new approach.
"It is time to end the 'war on drugs' and massively redirect resources towards effective evidence-based policies undered by rigorous economic analysis," the authors said in a foreword to the report.
"The pursuit of a militarised and enforcement-led global 'war on drugs' strategy has produced enormous negative outcomes and collateral damage."
Citing mass drug-related incarceration in the US, corruption and violence in developing countries and an HIV epidemic in Russia, the group urged the UN to drop its "repressive, one-size-fits-all approach" to tackling drugs, which, according to the report, has created a $300bn black market.
The UN is due to hold a drug policy summit in 2016. Debate on the merits of drugs liberalisation is already growing, Reuters news agency reported.
The report said "rigorously monitored" experiments with legalisation and a focus on public health, minimising the impact of the illegal drug trade, were key ways of tackling the problem instead.
It was signed by George Shultz, the US secretary of state under Ronald Reagan, British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, and former NATO and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana.
Nobel Economics prize winners Kenneth Arrow (1972), Christopher Pissarides (2010), Thomas Schelling (2005) Vernon Smith (2002) and Oliver Williamson (2009) also signed the reports.
"The drug war's failure has been recognised by public health professionals, security experts, human rights authorities and now some of the world's most respected economists," John Collins, coordinator of international drug policy at the LSE, said.
"Leaders need to recognise that toeing the line on current drug control strategies comes with extraordinary human and financial costs to their citizens and economies."
Some countries in Latin America have begun to turn away from US-led attempts to stamp out drugs through prohibition.
Uruguay's parliament in December allowed the growing, sale and smoking of marijuana. Colombia's president has called for a debate on alternatives to the war on drugs. And Guatemala's president has said that his country could present a plan to legalise production of marijuana and opium poppies this year.
Voters in the US states of Colorado and Washington passed backed legalising the possession and use of recreational marijuana in 2012.
Originally posted by 2.5: Well, its not like people didn't have a choice, their insistence to get high is probably more directly responsible wouldn't you say?
No. The money came from it being made illegal. The crime came from making it illegal. The cartels came from making it illegal. The prisons are full because it is illegal. Lives were/are ruined because it is illegal.
Yep, tons of people made tons of $$$$$$$$$ off the war on drugs, tho I believe the $3 billion figure is quite low. It is much closer, to $1Trillion, when you consider all the employees and public servant pay and benefits along with everything that went into supporting it for nearly 3 decades.
No. The money came from it being made illegal. The crime came from making it illegal. The cartels came from making it illegal. The prisons are full because it is illegal. Lives were/are ruined because it is illegal.
I'll give you the cartels, but they are still paid by users. Also I think they are probably allowed to exist because of corrupt dirty money changing hands.
We really need to define the drugs in this drug war. Which ones are being talked about, which ones count as what money, waht problem, and what effects. Because I know very few people who would like any and all substances to be legal for recreation.
Really? I'd say the opposite has been true for me. Brad
You know people who would like to see for example Meth, Crack, Herion, huffing paint or gasoline, synthetic pot, morphine, dilaudid...etc... be legal for recreation? I know of a few who have said they do, but only on this forum. Also on this forum is the only place I have heard anyone say they are pro driving drunk, and if they dont hit/kill etc anyone or anything then that is fine, there has been no crime until that happens.
You know people who would like to see for example Meth, Crack, Herion, huffing paint or gasoline, synthetic pot, morphine, dilaudid...etc... be legal for recreation? I know of a few who have said they do, but only on this forum. Also on this forum is the only place I have heard anyone say they are pro driving drunk, and if they dont hit/kill etc anyone or anything then that is fine, there has been no crime until that happens.
yup. I didnt say "pro" driving drunk - just yes - no crime until an actual crime happens. the act of driving drunk is not a crime on itself.
and, I would not suggest someone do meth, crack, heroin, etc for recreation - but - on its own - I do not see a crime in the use.
Pro driving drunk is just my on the spot my interpretation, actually I was thinking of someone else at the time I posted. I guess I consider supporting it to be "pro" it, as one is not in that case "anti" it. The act of driving drunk / high is endangerment, negligence, etc. and shows no regard for anyone else, on the road, in that city state or country IMO. It impairs ability, one does not have the capacity to make choices when high / drunk. Risk to others aside as I have posted that before and it doesnt get real responses... What are your thoughts on the aftermath, should a drunk / high driver be allowed to have the rest of us pay for their medical attention, their therapy, their rehab, have a probation officer follow them around? If it were not illegal to drive high or drunk, would you say those number of instances would stay the same?
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 05-09-2014).]
Pro driving drunk is just my on the spot my interpretation, actually I was thinking of someone else at the time I posted. I guess I consider supporting it to be "pro" it, as one is not in that case "anti" it. The act of driving drunk / high is endangerment, negligence, etc. and shows no regard for anyone else, on the road, in that city state or country IMO. It impairs ability, one does not have the capacity to make choices when high / drunk. Risk to others aside as I have posted that before and it doesnt get real responses... What are your thoughts on the aftermath, should a drunk / high driver be allowed to have the rest of us pay for their medical attention, their therapy, their rehab, have a probation officer follow them around? If it were not illegal to drive high or drunk, would you say those number of instances would stay the same?
I agree completely with the impairment aspects. why would anyone other than their own health insurance pay for their medical, therapy, etc? and - yes - if it were not illegal - I expect their would be a large jump in problems. but I would also say their are plenty of "not drunk" drivers who lack in ability, lack in good choices, and lack regard for others on the road. if someone drinks and drives and causes no problems - why is it a crime?
I do understand the idea. and, yes, the roads are in fact better because of it. it just flys in the face of personal choice & freedom.
2.5, I don't think anybody here has eve come out as saying they "pro" drunk driving, nor are they by default "supporting" any activity by not being in the "anti" crowd. I will can and will come up with some outlandish analogies if necessary.
One certainly can be pro freedom and pro free will though and not act like a busybody nanny worrying about what might happen. Instead, deal with the people that are the problem after they actually cause harm or damage. Seams we have done this a time or two already.
Yes, total and absolute failure if measured by what they sold the bill of goods as. I total victory for oppression, erosion of rights, promoting violent crime and increasing the size and scope of government power.
They used speed to make bombing runs in WW2 and truckers used it for years to run up the miles. I would vote to legalize it all. We would have to figure out the rest after. I hear heroin is a good pain killer and I have a sore throat right now.
I agree completely with the impairment aspects. why would anyone other than their own health insurance pay for their medical, therapy, etc? and - yes - if it were not illegal - I expect their would be a large jump in problems. but I would also say their are plenty of "not drunk" drivers who lack in ability, lack in good choices, and lack regard for others on the road. if someone drinks and drives and causes no problems - why is it a crime?
I do understand the idea. and, yes, the roads are in fact better because of it. it just flys in the face of personal choice & freedom.
It may for some, if you lived alone on an island you could do whatever you wanted, well maybe if there were animals there PETA would get upset..
Originally posted by 2.5: Also on this forum is the only place I have heard anyone say they are pro driving drunk, and if they don't hit/kill etc anyone or anything then that is fine, there has been no crime until that happens.
Did I hear my name ? You heard me wrong. You may have heard Pyrinthian right ... in that there was no crime committed unless there was a foul. Pro drunk driving ? Really, ? , interesting that you brought that up. 'Ya see, it is another fine example of gooberment making money by dictation. "Drunk Driving" used to be defined by a blood alcohol content of .15% by volume. Which was too high. Then, rightfully due to trajedies/deaths, they lowered it to .10% by volume. A funny thing happened. Money started pouring into the coffers. A few more trajedies and mom's formed MADD. Never let a good crisis go to waste. So, they dropped it to .08% by volume. The only thing was, people lawyered up and would not do a breath test. Before, if a breath test was refused, they could usually get a conviction from video evidence. At .08% they could not. So ... they allowed a violation of the forth amendment of the US Constitution to mandate blood draws. The revenue source is drying up. The push is on to lower "Drunk Driving" down to .05% by volume.
Do you really think anybody here really thinks drunk driving is ok, ?
You know people who would like to see for example Meth, Crack, Herion, huffing paint or gasoline, synthetic pot, morphine, dilaudid...etc... be legal for recreation? I know of a few who have said they do, but only on this forum.
I not only know those people, I'm one of them. Let people do whatever they want. If they get in a car impaired, or do something else that's illegal while taking the drug, that's a different story, then they have broke the law and need to be punished.
It would be the same as alcohol,
Drink at home or a bar= ok, no problem. Get in a car wreck while sober= ok, no problem (hope you are ok) Drink and drive, get in a wreck= Go to jail, lose money etc. (but I still hope you are ok)
We have laws against doing things that are a concern. How about enforcing those laws and seeing what happens?
Why are we worried about what people do to their own body, in their own home if they aren't effecting other people?
EDIT Now, all they have to do is smell, or say they smell alcohol on you and ... you have to prove your not drunk. Just like a cop shooting where they are trained to say "they feared for their life", the mantra is "you smelled like alcohol, glassy/red eyes, slurred speech".
2.5, I don't think anybody here has eve come out as saying they "pro" drunk driving, nor are they by default "supporting" any activity by not being in the "anti" crowd. I will can and will come up with some outlandish analogies if necessary.
One certainly can be pro freedom and pro free will though and not act like a busybody nanny worrying about what might happen. Instead, deal with the people that are the problem after they actually cause harm or damage. Seams we have done this a time or two already.
Yes, total and absolute failure if measured by what they sold the bill of goods as. I total victory for oppression, erosion of rights, promoting violent crime and increasing the size and scope of government power.
Well, the problem with that, is the purpose of laws. The purpose is to lay out what is acceptable and what is not, and in doing so, set what is legally a crime--therefore preventing the commission of the offense. Even our 225 year old US Constitution does this. "Congress shall make no law....". It's these amendments and Bill of Rights that prevent govt from doing whatever the heck they want to--NOT, the actual commission of the breach of constitution after the fact. Not saying breaches of this document don't happen and have to be dealt with after they occur, but the intent is to prevent the incursion to begin with.
quote
yup. I didnt say "pro" driving drunk - just yes - no crime until an actual crime happens. the act of driving drunk is not a crime on itself.
To claim or believe no crime is committed until or unless the person has been caught is ridiculous. All that means is that the person committing the offense didn't get caught. Whether I get caught driving thru a stop sign or not doesn't change the fact that I committed the offense--it just means that this time, I won't be punished for it. Just because a person doesn't get audited by the IRS and gets caught avoiding paying their taxes doesn't mean they didn't break a law--they just squeezed by without being caught. Same with drunk driving. The law doesn't say it's only illegal if you get pulled over and tested--it says one cannot operate a motor vehicle while (legally) intoxicated. Sec. 49.04. DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED. (a) A person commits an offense if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place.
The moment the driver gets behind the wheel of a car in a public place while drunk, the crime has been committed--not one second later.
My last comment was in regards to the war on drugs, not drinking and driving etc. As to that, I don't think anybody is claiming a law is not broken. Laws are easily made, maybe too easy. I think there are laws to prosecute and sue the crap out of anybody already for anything they may do to cause harm, drunk, stoned or whatever the reason, stupid, not paying attention, driving recklessly for fun on and on. No more or less harm is done.
Personally I just don't like the direction of "preemptive" crimes where nothing tangible has actually occurred.
I guess you mean preemptive laws? All laws (or most) are pre-emptive in scope. Their purpose is to deter crime before they occur, not just punish the act after the fact. "Congress shall make no law..." ......shall, means going forward----'from this day forth'. It doesn't matter which aspect of wrongdoing or crime any law is focused on, they are all pre-preemptive in nature.
I should state, that I am (in general) against drug use in as far as currently defined illegal drugs goes, but I am also very cognizant of the fact that the current "war on drugs" is ineffective, overly expensive, unsustainable, has led to a high degree of militarization of our domestic police forces, has become overly intrusive into the private part of most recreational user's lives, has ruined at least as many lives as the drug use itself has, has morphed into a cash cow for both police departments and the corporations that support them, and is a constant drain on manpower of almost every police dept in the nation by it's own weight and is a self perpetuating entity. IOW, it, as currently structured, isn't working and something definitely needs to change.
I do not believe that banning anything makes it significantly more attractive---people (for the most part) are either going to drink and drive, smoke, snort coke, steal, kill, embezzle, or whatever--or, they are not. Pretty obvious after 35 years, that simply making a substance illegal has had very little influence on whether a person uses or doesn't. I do not know what the answer is, but status quo is not it.
part of accepting a drivers license is letting go of what was some basic rights in trade for using the common land known as roads. or "rights of way" from the old school. most of the systems in place have existed all of our lives, so we really have little thought about them. Like stop signs. is it a "crime" to not heed a stop sign? no. not really. and speed limit. buying auto insurance. safety belts. and so on. these items are not "criminal" in any way.
what the crime is: a breach of contract. when you agreed to/sign off on, your drivers permit. we all agree to the traffic laws which are not a list of "crimes" - they are a list of items we have all agreed on to make our time on the "peoples roads" safer, and more productive.
sorry - way of topic....but part of the discussion....
[This message has been edited by Pyrthian (edited 05-12-2014).]
part of accepting a drivers license is letting go of what was some basic rights in trade for using the common land known as roads. or "rights of way" from the old school. most of the systems in place have existed all of our lives, so we really have little thought about them. Like stop signs. is it a "crime" to not heed a stop sign? no. not really. and speed limit. buying auto insurance. safety belts. and so on. these items are not "criminal" in any way.
what the crime is: a breach of contract. when you agreed to/sign off on, your drivers permit. we all agree to the traffic laws which are not a list of "crimes" - they are a list of items we have all agreed on to make our time on the "peoples roads" safer, and more productive.
sorry - way of topic....but part of the discussion....
Not off topic. You cant drive drunk without driving and you need a license to do that or you are illegal wihtout even being drunk.
?
, interesting that you brought that up. 'Ya see, it is another fine example of gooberment making money by dictation. "Drunk Driving" used to be defined by a blood alcohol content of .15% by volume. Which was too high. Then, rightfully due to trajedies/deaths, they lowered it to .10% by volume. A funny thing happened. Money started pouring into the coffers. A few more trajedies and mom's formed MADD.
