Slashdot Mirror
World Health Organization Calls For Decriminalization of Drug Use
An anonymous reader writes: We've known for a while: the War on Drugs isn't working. Scientists, journalists, economists, and politicians have all argued against continuing the expensive and ineffective fight. Now, the World Health Organization has said flat out that nations should work to decriminalize the use of drugs. The recommendations came as part of a report released this month focusing on the prevention and treatment of HIV. "The WHO's unambiguous recommendation is clearly grounded in concerns for public health and human rights. Whilst the call is made in the context of the policy response to HIV specifically, it clearly has broader ramifications, specifically including drug use other than injecting. In the report, the WHO says: 'Countries should work toward developing policies and laws that decriminalize injection and other use of drugs and, thereby, reduce incarceration. ...Countries should ban compulsory treatment for people who use and/or inject drugs." The bottom line is that the criminalization of drug use comes with substantial costs, while providing no substantial benefit.
This is one of the most messed-up issues in the history of humanity. Hopefully we'll see an end to the insane war on drugs in our lifetime! Drugs are made more dangerous by being illegal, I don't know why so few of us in the United States didn't learn the lesson from alcohol prohibition.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Apparently the "druuuugs are eeeebil" lobby's influence is on the wane. Finally.
For reference: When was prohibition finally called off again?
...if its goal was to prevent drug usage.
No ads, no public displays of drug use, no public drug use, not even in designated public venues, and no brown paper bag bullshit either. Keep it private. No operating heavy machinery or participation in traffic while intoxicated. But yeah, the drug use itself should not be criminal.
Legalization of drugs means that government and its corporate masters can seize upon the opportunity to tax and profit from widespread addiction. Also, government should see legalization as an opportunity for greater control, as with the *right* legal drugs, a population can be kept high in a sedate way, and therefore under complete control.
A stoned society is a polite society, and one which can be easily controlled by government.
We're seeing more places around the world with so called "safe injection sites" which seem to be helping people's safety. I've often wondered if it idea was taken a step further. Create safe haven drug houses, drugs are free, safe from impurities etc provided by the government (likely far cheaper than current policing costs). But you have to stay in a small padded room with nothing to do until the drugs leave your system, and be monitored by nurses. Would they be very popular? Would this all but eliminate the illegal drug trade if drugs were free and safe? I would think for all but the worst addicts, the novelty would be gone, and they would hopefully move on in life.
I think 'tis pretty clear that certain drugs (cocaine for example) are in fact bad for thine health. As such, 'tis hypocritical and disingenous for a world HEALTH organization to deregulate them. OTOH, not all drugs are equally unhealthy, and some of the unhealthiest (ethanol and tobacco) are already legal..
Doctor Rockso does Cocaine
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
It will never happen as long as we have hypocritical, sanctimonious busy body types running things. People have to pay for their sin of using drugs according to them. The fact that the person is ruining their own health and relationships by abusing drugs is not payment enough for their sins we have to make it a criminal offense as well and feed the for profit prison industry and the gangsters who make a mint by pushing illegal drugs at inflated prices.
Relevant quote: "I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before." - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
The social cost off allowing the use of certain drugs (alcohol and marihuana for sure, maybe a few others) is preferable to to the cost of trying to ban them. But anyone who thinks legalizing drugs like cocaine or opiates will reduce street crime is living in a dream world; take away selling drugs to earn a living and it will be replaced by a different crime.
Unfortunately, these are not facts, but pure fantasy. First, outlawing drugs does not reduce their usage. The alcohol prohibition indicates that the converse is true. Hence this prohibition increases harm. Second, the harm done is massively increased by outlawing drugs. Most drugs are actually relatively cheap to produce in medical-grade quality, with clear instructions and standardized quality, yet the dangerous low-quality stuff on the market fetches premium prices that then go to criminal enterprises. This situation is purely crated by illegality. Finally, people that are in prison for no good reason are unproductive and cost money as well.
The whole thing is nothing but a massively misanthropic effort by religious and other authoritarians to prevent people from deciding about their own lives and to punish those that have other ideas as heavily as possible. It has zero intention to reduce negative effects and zero effect in that direction. It does increase negative effects massively though.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The use of drugs is not exactly confined in its impact to the immediate use, which is the theory behind why it was a crime in the first place. But the other bad effects can be made illegal separately. A lot of them already are, in the form of some variation of practising pharmacy without a licence. And if a huge pharmaceutical company creates a drug that has virtually no value other than to create addictions (and deducts all the research and marketing expenses on its taxes), then someone should be going to jail.
You can still say drugs are bad, which they are in many cases, but 'bad' does not necessarily mean something the criminal justice system should address. On top of which, a lot of the time it comes down to tastes in substance abuse. Alcohol is bad for all the same reasons, and compared to some drugs is worse.
- John D. Rockefeller, Jr., 1932
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
There hasn't been a good one since David Tennant
one reason $$$
The police have too much $$$ tied up or dependent on this war (Grants for equipment, programs)
The suppliers of the police would loose too much business (someone has to sell the police all their military grade weapons and equipment)
The firms hired to incarcerate the guilty (if there's a lot fewer people in jail, these guys would go out of business). Of course with drug charges also come other petty crimes they would still be in jail for, but on fewer charges.
While I totally agree with the WHO, I don't think it will work here for the above mentioned reasons. Not to mention the fact that since the United States does not have an industrial base anymore (being reliant on foreign countries for just about everything) these people, if not in jail, would have no jobs. this is the real crime, I think that if the US started domestically producing most of its own goods, the drug problem would decline on its own as these people could have productive lives if they so chose.
Very appropriate. Since the only reason they are employed is because of these stupid laws. They produce nothing.
Ending prohibition didn't kill the mob. They just switched from bootlegging to trafficking narcotics, and they reached the height of their power in the 50s and 60s, long after the prohibition ended. In the same way, while legalizing marijuana might reduce crime here in the US, cartels in Mexico are Too Big to Fail. They won't pack up their things and head home quietly if marijuana is legalized; they'll just start peddling something new.
As for legalizing highly addictive drugs like cocaine and heroin, I don't see how decriminalizing them good possibly be a good idea. The addiction rate for these drugs is 2.5 to 3 times that of alcohol. Heroin, etc. are dangerous and they weren't just banned because of moralizers.
Here is a recipe from my great-grandma's cookbook. Cough Syrup Syrup of squills four ounces, syrup of tolu four ounces, tincture of bloodroot one and one-half ounces, camphorated tincture of opium four ounces. Mix. Dose for an adult, one teaspoon repeated every two to four hours. She used to be able to go to the pharmacist and get tincture of opium.
I was initially hesitant with the legalization of pot in California and the other states. But what's fascinating is that now people get their weed from controlled environments instead some back alley with a drug dealer pushing lots of other stuff as well.
I could be 1000% wrong as I have no data to back this up, but it made me think the streets have been safer in California since the legalization of pot. Anyone have any data to back that idea up? Any stats of declining use of other more serious drugs? Maybe it hasn't been enough time yet?
Say a government wants to reduce harm without too much of a shock to the prison industry. Perhaps it could split the difference by approving medical diamorphine but giving the trademark on HEROIN® (diamorphine) back to Bayer. That way the feds could still go after street dealers for misusing the name "HEROIN".
It is true that the war on drugs is not getting as good a result as it could get. The same error was made in prohibition. Going after the user with the full power of law rather than going after dealers is the real answer. If we make it clear that a life long set of penalties will be applied on the very first, tiny violation the use of dope will fall to almost zero. For example a life long ban on the operation of any type of motorized vehicle might be applied on the first offense. An ongoing parole fee could be stacked on as well. The idea being that designing the system so that a one time user would live a life with very low wages would send a powerful message. No inheritance or other way out of low wage existence would be allowed. When people see friends and family members forced to live a very restricted life due to a drug conviction the message stays in stark view at all times. Society has seen a trend of hiding punishments rather than making punishments visible. For example we have teens that leave school during the school day without permission. A semester of wearing a pink, jail like uniform to school as well as duties such as picking up litter or shoveling snow off school sidewalks with their friends looking on would break up that nonsense quickly. The same is true of executions. Instead of hiding executions the effect upon the public will only work if those executions are very much in public view.
Right, because down that road comes denying medical coverage to anybody into "extreme" sports, not adhering to the government-approved diet, people not getting enough exercise, people in dangerous jobs, etc..
I'm sure we can find some way to deny your medical coverage for some unhealthy act you're guilty of.
...to end drug prohibition since at least 1996, on both practical and 10th Amendment grounds. Statists love the "War on Drugs" because it gives them more ways to control people.
Meanwhile, President Obama, the first president who openly admitted to using illegal drugs, has cracked down harder on medical marijuana and other uses of "choom" far harder than Bush ever did.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Just banning In App Purchases would be a big move at this point in time.
Without IAPs, what's the correct way to provide a limited playable version without offering the first episode without charge and offering additional episodes as IAPs? This "shareware" model, where the prices for additional episodes are stated up front, worked for Doom.
"a limited playable version without offering" snuck in and survived preview. It should be "to provide the first episode without charge". I apologize for wasting your time.
Decriminalize all drugs and when a ton of marijuana is seized at the border send it to a lab to confirm it is safe (good quality, safe for consumption) then sell to the public in a controlled manner. Most drugs could be handled this way. The war on drugs will quickly end when it is funded with drugs.
"Protecting others from the effects of drug use" would have to include neglect of dependents due to excessive spending on recreational drugs, as well as congenital impairments caused by the use of certain substances by a pregnant woman. One's children do not consent to such effects. This is where the "think of the children" crowd gets its ammo.
Desoxyn (methamphetamine hydrochloride) is a prescription drug in the same schedule as Adderall and Ritalin.
"...while providing no substantial benefit."
I'm going to be pedantic and call BS on this one. If they hadn't been so bold and instead said "while in almost all cases failing to provide enough benefits to justify the cost" I wouldn't be making this reply.
Why am I upset about their hyperbole? Because it cuts into their credibility.
What's the specific counter-example I can provide? Read on..,.
In some societies, criminalization leads to social stigmatization even if the laws are not enforced or only lightly enforced, a stigmatization that would be absent or less strong otherwise. You see this in some parts of the United States, where the existence of little-enforced laws such as laws against littering, talking on the cell phone while driving, etc. reinforce and amplify the existing social stigma against such activities to the point that it's the stigma of being seen doing "the wrong thing," not the fear of getting a ticket or getting arrested, that drives people to follow the social norm.
Even if the enforcement of drug laws doesn't lead to reduced usage in and of itself, the stigmatization can.
Reducing the use of harmful drugs can benefit society in many ways, including fewer early deaths and fewer health problems.
The key though is that whether stigmatization by itself will lead to less drug use or not will vary from society to society and even sub-culture to sub-culture. A sub-culture which is known for being defiant of the larger society may in fact see doing things that are stigmatized by the larger society as a way to rebel. The 1960s young-adult/youth counterculture sub-culture in the United States is one example where a "main culture" stigmatizing an activity may lead to more, not less, overall use.
Now, does the existence of drug laws result in an enhanced stigma that leads to overall reduced drug use worldwide? I don't know. Is there someplace on this planet where drug laws are creating or reinforcing a stigma where the social stigma (not necessarily the fear of being caught by the police) is driving lower drug use? Almost certainly.
What's the bottom line?
* Don't summarily throw out drug laws worldwide.
* Do encourage every country and locality to ask itself to examine the totality of effects of its drug laws both within its own borders and on the rest of the world, and make an educated, informed decision about whether to change the drug laws to achieve the desired goals (which I assume are nominally a safer and healthier society, but which I sadly acknowledge may include things like keeping trading partners happy, keeping a dictator's friends flush with cash, and other factors that are irrelevant to the nominal purpose of drug laws), and if so, how.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The bottom line is that outlawing drugs reduces their use, and correspondingly reduce their negative effects on society.
Even if I were to accept that as true (I don't), I would still be 100% opposed to the drug war, because it violates people's fundamental liberties. Such a thing would never be allowed in any truly free country, safety or no safety. It's people like you who cheer on the TSA, the NSA surveillance, free speech zones, DUI checkpoints, etc. simply because you think they keep people safe, without caring that you're supposed to be living in a free country.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
You can be addicted just as easily to legal drugs as to any substance on the federal schedule. You can be addicted to behaviors like gambling and eating. This problem needs to be addressed medically.
But then what excuse will we have to put all the poor black people into for profit run prison systems and turn them back in to slave labor?
You think civil forfeiture and revenues from private prisons are of no substantial benefit to US law enforcement's cash flow? -- sincerely yours, your unfriendly neigborhood cop.
Ezekiel 23:20
I really, really had to look to find the "ageism" in the comment you referenced. And yes, by using my magnifier I could read the fine print.
Hey Methadone clinic GFY I'm getting back on the good shit!
Perhaps the legalization of diet pills that used to work, for example, amphetamines, would reduce the epidemic of obesity and related illnesses such as heart disease and diabetes.
Drugs would probably be a lot safer if people didn't have to worry about SWAT kicking in the door and tossing a couple flashbangs into your infant's crib.
There is just way too much potential for legalized drugs to go sideways and in a serious way. Ferry operators, crane operators or any heavy equipment, train operators, pilots, your investment manager, or any person in a critical position where one wrong mistake could cause lots of deaths or financial loss i.e. crash the stock market. Would you really want someone who's high or jonesing for their next fix piloting the ferry you're on or operating the crane that's lifting an I-Beam at the construction site you happen to walk by on the way to work?
Not even extreme sports. Football, skiing, golf, jogging -- they all have dangers and people have suffered from accidents or repetitive stress injuries. Of course, sitting at home safe in your Lazyboy has its own health risks. Or driving -- that is probably one of the most dangerous things we do.
All of these people saying "I shouldn't have to pay for ...." fundamentally fail to understand that insurance about spreading risk, not concentrating it. Besides, there are risks in everything one does, and even risks in things one chooses not not to do -- attempting to fully regulate that through insurance coverage would mean everyone would be excluded for one reason or another, and only the extremely wealthy would be able to be fully free. Alternatively, by partially regulating activities -- choosing which risks to accept and which to exclude -- that is just a way for the powerful to exert control over those who have less power. Finally, there are financial costs to exclusion -- lawsuits and such. Any time litigation ensues between insurers (*) about who should pay, that is a pure unmitigated waste of resources. Better to just accept that through insurance, you might contribute a dime to a cause you don't like, but in all likelihood, someone else is going to contribute a dime to you for a reason he/she doesn't like. In the end, over hundreds of millions of people, it's a wash, and cheaper to just accept it than bitch and litigate and regulate.
(*) This could be Ins. Co. v. Individual Person (consider the individual a potential self-insurer)
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
I do not believe in recreational drugs. There is no need for them and I rather want to see less drugs in our society than more. It is never the drugs who break the law, but it is people and they will continue breaking laws, because it did not stop them before. If, theoretically speaking, drug dealing would get punished with the death sentence, would we get rid of drugs and drug dealers pretty fast. If you do not like my opinion then talk to the dad and his son in the following picture. They might agree with the World Health Organization:
http://www.pinterest.com/pin/2...
Deny somebody coverage based on bad genetics which most of us have. In the future in I can see the insurance industries arguing that the person's parents shouldn't have procreated knowing that heart disease ran in the family.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They're about control, typically of the underclass and poor.
To this end they are amazingly effective tools.
Just say no.
150x the THC is not the harmless stuff the hippies from the 60's smoked.
all this means is instead of smoking a full 1 gram joint, you can get just as high off 1 or 2 hits. Therefore you are inhaling less smoke. Therefore it IS safer than the pot of the 60s
next?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
If you read through the leaked intelligence files, it becomes apparent that the DEA may be the most important intelligence agency the empire has. The drug war provides justification for peacetime US intervention in the internal affairs of other countries in a unique and ongoing way. Politics and the drug trade are intimately linked in much of the third-world.
All this talk about the prison industry being the main driver of this mess or the government trying to stop drug abuse, but failing, are a bit naive I think.
where the points are valid, they necessarily become part of effective protection. pregnant women should not be served at a heroin bar (or other bar, really; BTW, is it legal to refuse to serve alcohol based solely on the obvious pregnancy of the patron?)
this is the EXACT attitude on why I am against government forced health care. As they can make arguments like that, whats next coffee?? red steak? carbs???
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Coccaine and heroin use to be legal.
Why where they banned. Was there some down side the people of the time found.
There appears to be no historical record. It is ashame.
> The bottom line is that outlawing drugs reduces their use,
Your bottom line is false. Look at this chart of US drug addiction rate versus US federal drug control spending from 1970-2010. Despite a massive increase in drug enforcement, the addiction rate is essentially unchanged.
Despite massive increase in enforcement, murder rate has dropped only slightly. Maybe it's time we decriminalized murders.
Let's take this thread, pull on it, and see how the sweater unravels...
While a few nut cases shooting up schools grab headlines, the majority of gun crime is committed related to drugs.
If you have the turf around school A and I have the turf around school B and we have a conflict on who sells on the streets separating our areas, then my only recourse is to grab the AK47s, jump in the pimp-mobile and go shoot up your street hoping to take out you, my rival. Of course, since our only education in firearm use is watching Die Hard movies, it is not surprising that we miss our rival drug lord and kill two dogs, the toddler next door, and three potted begonias on the neighbour's porch.
If drugs were decriminalized then we could lawyer up and take each other to court like civilised businessmen.
Gun violence would decline and the related gap in the political discourse related to guns would be, at least, tightened in scope.
Mush of our current gun violence and thus the
which is the cash industry for most of the UN member states
The private prison industry, over-staffed militarized police departments and politicians/regulators/bureaucrats on the take would heartily disagree.
Decriminalize the public hunting of dealers and addicts too please.
The bottom line is that outlawing drugs reduces their use
Does it? On the surface, it seems that what you say is true. Do you have any data to back that up with?
Personal anecdotes:
When I was in school, all the cool kids smoked marijuana despite its illegality. Numerous people were induced to use it despite not showing the desire to use it. Marijuana was most definitely illegal at the time. Legality had no effect on usage that I saw.
When I have visited Amsterdam, there were coffee houses and such that sold marijuana openly. The businesses did not seem overly busy and at most, i saw one or two small groups of people chatting away inside. Definitely not of apocalyptic proportions. Once or twice while wandering around downtown looking at the amazing architecture, I smelled some marijuana smoke but despite my efforts, I never saw who was smoking it. Legality had no effect on usage that I saw.
But do it factually rather than the misinfotainment spouted by both sides. Take pot for instance... the genetic and economic damage is huge.
Ok, let's talk facts. Provide links to reputable studies demonstrating genetic damage over and above genetic damage from background radiation, drinking water, or eating bananas. I did a quick search and the top article was this:
http://cosmosmagazine.com/news...
Honestly, it sounds rather hokey. They submitted cells directly to smoke condensates and they did not specify the type and amount of genetic damage. It seems to me that if they had subjected cells directly to any kind of condensed chemical that cell damage of some type is sure to occur. This is not normally how cells are exposed.
Tobacco was also measured this way and found to cause genetic damage. Again, seems rather suspicious to me. No studies not performed in this manner seem to indicate genetic damage.
150x the THC is not the harmless stuff the hippies from the 60's smoked.
I recognize this talking point. It is laughable because hashish has been available for thousands of years (condensed marijuana). Marijuana has been cultivated for thousands of years as a recreational chemical. It does not seem reasonable that all of the strains from the 60s were so weak when it is clear that farmers have known how to create selective strains for thousands of years, e.g. corn and wheat.
The political Right makes it a boogy man
Indeed.
but the political Left pushes "medical marijuana" which is a bigger lie than "Iraq WMD".
Hm. If it is a lie, then why does the federal government grant prescriptions for marijuana use? Sure, at the state level, the requirements are much (MUCH!) less strict, but even at its strictest, the federal government knows there are actual medicinal uses for marijuana.
Both drive from their marketing basis rather than act on fact.
It seems like you need to do some more investigation. Yes, there is a LOT of political spin from both sides. The idea is that YOU research the facts and come to a conclusion yourself. It appears as if you have not actually researched the subject deeply and are making an opinion based on "things you have heard".
Really, try researching it with an open mind. It will not attack you and hurt you.
Please note that I am not arguing for or against, I am merely responding to what you have written.
Kind regards
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
States have to give out non-driver ID without charge. Requiring ID to vote while charging for non-driver ID is an unconstitutional poll tax.
Notice how it's always "decriminalization" rather than legalization. The problem with this is that by keeping the production and distribution illegal, it retains the black market which is where much of the crime occurs. Also, this continues to justify the police apparatus that attempts to "interdict." Finally, the addicts are still going to be getting black market drugs of unknown and frequently unsafe composition. Thus, the harm is not fully minimized. The solution is legalization. Even with legalization, every effort will be made to fully corporatize it, by "regulating" it to high heaven. Pun intended! However, decriminalization recommended by an important entity such as WHO is a step in a better direction than what we have now.
The WHO recommendation is like a drug cartel/warlord's worst nightmare come true.
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
actually, they're finding game addiction (computer & gambling) are quite similar to substance addiction
http://www.webmd.com/mental-he...
and china & korea, i believe, have started to crack down (no pun intended;-) on online & gaming addiction
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01...
The government has got their filthy hands on every other vice...booze, gambling, cigarettes. If you ask me, alcohol is a much bigger problem than all the other vices combined. And yet you can roll up to a 7-11 a buy a 6 pack any day of the week. As long as Uncle Sam gets his (significant) piece of the action.
Just take a look at what is happening with the pot dispensaries in California. Due to the huge amount of tax, the price (and quality, so I hear) is better on the street than what they are selling in the shops. Now granted, the stuff they sell in the shops is supposedly medicine and not for getting high but the point stands. You can get better, cheaper stuff on the streets than what the government is blessing. I have no doubt the same would hold true if cocaine were legalized. Well, at least it would keep people from going to jail for posessing it.
Step one is decriminalizing getting stoned without approval from the state.
Step two would be decriminalize taking medicine without approval from the state.
Smoking in apartment buildings often affects the health of others in that building. This is why NYC regulates smoking in multi-tenant buildings.
Maybe Americans realize that there are few places you can smoke and not affect the health of others.
Hard drugs get you strongly and quickly Physically Addicted. Do not confuse that with a mild Psychological addiction. Many slashdot comments are getting this wrong. But not all addictions are the same
Many legal drugs will get you addicted. But that's why we control those substances as well. A large part of being on the federal schedule is that the illicit drug has no real medical use ( or so they say ). So it's not about which is most addictive, but rather what's addictive while arguably also having no medical use.
Dude, whatever it is you're doing, do less of it.
Or at least pass some.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'd support not just legalization, but free drugs for life...as long as signing up for the program required permanent sterilization.
Think about it...everyone wins.
-Styopa
Drugs that are dangerous should be prohibited and illegal.
If you buy your pot from the grocery store, you don't have to associate with people trying to give you free samples of more addictive, more profitable drugs.
you're only proving the point; Prohibition (big-P) was a constitutional amendment targeting alcohol, prohibition (little-p) describes any sort of preventing people from doing things that they might otherwise do. When the prohibition of alcohol ended, the mob capitalized on the prohibition of narcotics. see the pattern?
Never happen, so don't wait for it. Governments don't ever restore human rights that they have been habitually trampling on, except behind the barrel of a gun.
"Finally, people that are in prison for no good reason are unproductive and cost money as well."
Except in legislations where it is allowed to profit from the work done by imprisoned people... There the prison owner reaps the benefits of the harsh laws.
Well, yes. The prison operator gets a small profit in exchange for huge damage to society and individuals. The very definition of fundamentally evil.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Additional controls would need to be put in place to prevent the distribution of street drugs. Silly me, of course they would! The pharma mafia would demand it. They don't want to lose that part of market share.
The War on Drugs does provide a substantial benefit -- for the police forces who can buy shiny new toys by auctioning off stuff seized via asset forfeiture; the owners of private prisons; drug kingpins who earn their filthy lucre from peddling illicit wares; the members of public-sector prison-guard unions; and the laboratories who get to charge outrageous amounts of money to administer and process drug tests.
The general public, of course, does not share in this bounty and furthermore suffers from higher rates of violent crime spawned by prohibition.
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
Murder hurts innocent people, drug use itself doesn't.
I can follow the argument that decriminalization of drugs will free up funds that can be better spend elsewhere, but I think that the elsewhere will be taking care of the increasing number of drug addicts and their ailments. Yes, I know, I am making assumptions here that if using drugs is no longer penalized the consumption will go up as well as keeping penalties will keep the number of users low. We have an excellent opportunity to put some facts into this by monitoring marijuana use in those states where it became legal beyond medical uses. Do more people try it? Do more people use it? Do we see a spike in things like traffic accidents due to doped drivers? Do we see the decrease in intelligence given that continued marijuana use destroys brain cells similar to heavy drinking? Do we get the same amount of lung cancer cases as from tobacco? My prediction is that the cost will stay the same, but shift to other areas such as public health care expenses, public dependent care expenses, downturn in economy, etc. At the same time, is there any benefit from sending military after the drug lords and fight them in gun battles with no real outcome? The solution is in finding out what makes people not even want to try drugs, especially those that get one hooked instantly. Eradicating demand will take care of the rest very quickly.
War on drugs causes and sustains: .... ... ... violence .... ... few police ... no jobs .... .... ....
Criminal underground economics
Government corruption financing / bribes.
Bank crimes of money laundering and tax evasion
Law enforcement personnel deaths and disabilities
Low income communities’ exploitation / enslavement
More
Public health / welfare catastrophes
Spreads diseases HIV, hepatitis, most STDs
Gang, paramilitary, gun
Long-term hospitalizations / care
More
Political / Cultural inequality, excuses, bigotry
Excuses for underfunding schools
Depressed neighborhood economics
Bad teachers
Criminal exploitation of citizens
Death of generations
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Dr. William Stewart Halsted (1852-1922) was the father of modern surgery, and founder of Johns Hopkins Medical school. He developed the patient chart, surgical gloves, aseptic surgery techniques that cut the infection rate in half so he was among the most sought after surgeons in the country. He researched the use of cocaine as Nerve Block. He also did personal research on cocaine for euphoria, and became badly addicted. Its the same story, numerous rounds of rehab failed and he always relapsed to the cocaine. He disappeared for a while and returned with his cocaine habit finally cured.
Under careful scrutiny, he was allowed practice surgery, and his work was good enough for him to soon be elevated to Chief of Surgery. but after the coke he never was the same. In an era of Hack sturgeons when speed was everything, he became almost ploddingly slow but his results were good. He researched tissue healing, developing surgical techniques that kept blood loss and tissue damage to a minimum, and paved the way for modern surgery of today.
But how did he beat his "hunger for Cocaine"? He took morphine, becoming a lifelong morphine addict. He injected morphine on a daily basis for the last 40 years of his life, suffered no noticeable damage and was very productive Opiates mixed with alcohol or tranquilizers cause overdoses. Too many Vicodin (Opiates and Tylenol) will damage the liver due to the Tylenol not the opiate. People certainly overdose on opiates, but its obviously possible to live a long, productive life with an opiate addiction.
The first casualty of any war is truth.
The individual shared responsibility tax introduced in the Affordable Care Act doesn't change one thing about tax law in the slightest: if you have a taxable income, you have to pay tax. But you do raise a more general question about whether taking away a tax evader's right to vote through imprisonment is constitutional under the "or other tax" provision of the 24th Amendment.