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.

28 of 474 comments (clear)

  1. Finally! by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Finally! by wisnoskij · · Score: 5, Informative

      It might cause a few deaths but it also sustains the multi billion dollar prison industry and employs well over 1 million people in the US alone, and that it just counting the lawfully employed.

      The government profits from illegal drugs even more than drug cartels do.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    2. Re:Finally! by David_Hart · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It might cause a few deaths but it also sustains the multi billion dollar prison industry and employs well over 1 million people in the US alone, and that it just counting the lawfully employed.

      The government profits from illegal drugs even more than drug cartels do.

      The reality is that law enforcement, and other areas of the government, used the war on drugs as justification for increased budget, manpower, weapons, laws (search & seizure), etc. Now that the justification has moved towards terrorism, both real and based on hype, and the drug war isn't needed any more. In fact, most law enforcement agencies now have bigger and more expensive toys today (i.e. drones, highly weaponized SWAT teams, etc.) based on terrorism.

      As you said, the one lobby that NEEDS the war on drugs to continue is the US prison industry. From Wikipedia "Drug related charges accounted for more than half the rise in state prisoners. The result, 31 million people have been arrested on drug related charges, approximately 1 in 10 Americans." Granted, a good portion of this includes people who are violent criminals and are also booked on drug charges. However, there can be no denying that if 1 in 10 people are going to jail based on a single type of crime, perhaps it's time to re-evaluate public policies and whether these activities should be considered crimes.
       

    3. Re:Finally! by strikethree · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hopefully we'll see an end to the insane war on drugs in our lifetime!

      No no no! If you are even slightly "high" you can not be pure and one with God. We absolutely MUST fight against the recreational use of chemicals, any chemicals, that might in any way lead to a sense of euphoria. Life is pain. Pain is suffering. It is only through suffering that we can be close to God. Drugs and drug use is absolute evil. We must go to ANY means necessary to prevent their use.

      Drugs are made more dangerous by being illegal

      Who cares? It is only the evil people that will be affected. It will afflict them with suffering and as we already established, it is only through suffering that we can be close to God.

      I don't know why so few of us in the United States didn't learn the lesson from alcohol prohibition.

      In the 1920s we did not have Echelon and TIA. The NSA and FBI have it all covered now. You can expect a reinstatement of prohibition rather soon. The only lesson that was learned from Prohibition is that without effective enforcement, the evil sinners will continue to seduce the righteous.

      Look, everything is in place for 100% enforcement. All of the sinners will be removed from society so that the righteous will not be distracted from becoming closer to God through suffering. 100% focus on work will ensure that the righteous never stray from the True Path. There will be Heaven on Earth... or Nuclear Apocalypse. It is up to you as to what happens. If you follow the one True Path, there will be pleasure in the afterlife when you have finished toiling and suffering in this fallen world. If you sin, this fallen world will be destroyed so that all may meet their Final Judgement soon.

      All of this absurd talk of weakening the battle for your soul is the work of the devil. The fight will not merely continue, it will intensify! The fate of the entire world is at stake.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    4. Re:Finally! by wisnoskij · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Granted, a good portion of this includes people who are violent criminals and are also booked on drug charges.

      But that number does not include the likely bigger number of people driven into other crimes because of the illegal nature of their drug addiction. The illegal drug trade not only puts some mostly innocent people in a compromised position, but also fuels the vast majority of crime.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    5. Re:Finally! by beelsebob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem with smoking is not that it harms your health, it's that it harms other people's health, and makes other people's environment less pleasant to be in. That's why smoking is (typically) banned in public places, or near public buildings, but not banned in the comfort of your own home (that said, even there, it can have severe impacts on children/other members of your family).

    6. Re:Finally! by Fjandr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if that's the case, how is any of that worse than what we have now?

    7. Re:Finally! by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I had a silly idea regarding this while visiting California last year. If you've ever walked the streets of either SF or LA at night, you will undoubtedly have found an experience with the homeless similar to that of a zombie movie, except instead of chanting "brains" they're chanting "change". So, once the war on drugs has been ended, some prisons could be converted to compulsory overnight housing: if you do not have a permanent address, and are found unconscious in a public location (either due to sleep or whatever), you get a free bus ride to a former prison for a good night's sleep. The same buses could take you back to the city you were picked up in the morning if you so desire, or you can stick around for 3 hots and a cot (maybe some job counseling and medical care), grab a later bus, whatever. The only prison industry jobs lost would be guard-related. All the administrative, catering, medical, and transport jobs would be retained. Some homeless people have a slightly better life (many of them are too proud/stupid/mentally ill to ask for help but if forced, they'd accept it), and American cities would have an overall better quality of life for all involved.

    8. Re:Finally! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't see a contradiction (although I'm not an American). I have no problems with people smoking, snorting, injecting, or otherwise consuming any drugs that they want. I do object if they blow smoke in public areas or leave needles (especially used ones) lying around in public places.

      I would be in favour of banning smoking anything in public places (including places of work) and permitting people to take any drugs that they want in their own home. There are some difficult areas (for example, should people with children be allowed to smoke whatever they like at home around their children?) but the general rule of thumb should be that you can do whatever you want to your own body and mind, just don't do it to anyone else.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re:Finally! by transporter_ii · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If someone breaks into a house, they should be in jail for breaking into a house. I know plenty of people who do drugs and *don't* break into houses or commit other crimes. Also, the high prices are driven by the prohibition of drugs. If they were more affordable, it becomes much less of an issue to break into houses or cars to get money.

      --
      Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
    10. Re: Finally! by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Are they? Or is it rather the crap that is used to turn a gram of $substance into ten for higher profits?

      There are drugs that are dangerous. No doubt about that. But one really has to wonder how many deaths are actually due to them not being available in a clean, regulated and reliable fashion. How many drug overdoses are due to addicts not knowing just how "potent" the stuff they buy is, and hence how much of it they should take? How many drug related diseases and deaths are due to the various shit cut in to maximize the profit and unsafe, unsanitary ways they are delivered?

      I have a friend working with an organization that "tests" the drugs you can buy. They're basically working on a "don't ask don't tell" base, i.e. they don't give a shit where you got it from and they don't care what you do with it. What they do is analyze what you got and tell you what it is. You'd be surprised if not horrified to learn just WHAT kind of shit is being mixed into drugs. In a nutshell, the additives are usually BY FAR more dangerous than the actual drug itself.

      To put it simply, making various drugs that are now "street only" available legally and reliably, regulated by law with strict requirements for companies producing them to ensure quality would by some margin lower drug related health problems. Even if consumption tripled.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Finally! by Mr.CRC · · Score: 4, Informative

      You are brainwashed with completely false propaganda.

      You can live a normal lifetime addicted to pure heroin, even if injected, if using sterile needles and proper procedures, and suffer practically no adverse health effects. You can even hold a job. Just not one involving safety-critical activities like operating heavy machinery.

      The same cannot be said about tobacco. It is far more harmful than heroin.

      Even meth isn't so bad. If it were legal, more people would consume it orally and get educated about how to maintain their nutrition and avoid destructive binges and loss of sleep. They would become workaholics and help the economy. Over-doing it with meth for a long period of time IS harmful, but I'm certain that if it were legal, the harm would drop dramatically compared to what we have now with impure garbage consumed by people who are forced into a criminal lifestyle to get it, which is the reason for much of the harm. It is fully possible also to be a meth addict, yet manage it so that it isn't harmful to the point of severely shortening one's life or damaging to one's mental health.

      Meth and cocaine addiction are actually self-limiting for most people. I went berzerk with coke for a few years, then one day decided that I would never touch the crap again because I never wanted to feel that depressed again during the come down. And that was the end of it. The same thing happened with meth. Ultimately, I decided to never take ANY rec. drugs again, including alcohol. They just aren't the answer for me anymore, and have remained out of my life for 26 years.

      The hardest thing to quit though, was smoking. Fortunately I did quit, because that would probably have killed me with cancer. Same cannot be said about heroin, meth, cocaine, marijuana, LSD, or any other banned drug.

      Alcohol can give you cirrhosis, and cause life threatening seizures upon withdrawal.

      It's totally f*ing surreal, that the truly most harmful drugs: alcohol and tobacco, are the only ones that are legal! What a hell-hole of nonsensical contradictions we have created.

  2. The war on drugs failed only.... by Tanuki64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...if its goal was to prevent drug usage.

    1. Re:The war on drugs failed only.... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...if its goal was to prevent drug usage.

      It's been a rousing success for the law enforcement and prison industries though!

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    2. Re:The war on drugs failed only.... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Talk to the Colombians and Mexicans to see how well that particular strategy has worked out

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  3. No public drug use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:No public drug use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Disagree. The point of legalizing drugs is to prevent an underground supply. The rationale is quite simple: You're not going to stop people from taking drugs. Someone is going to profit from supplying those drugs, so there is either going to be a legal source or an illegal source. A legal source is better than an illegal source.

      Anyone selling drugs should be required to inform the users about the risks and consequences. If you still want to take up an addictive drug, that's your own damn fault. It's been proven over and over again that you can't prevent people from taking drugs, so that cannot be the objective. The rational objective is to protect others from the effects of drug use (no second hand smoke, keeping intoxicated people off the streets, etc.)

    2. Re:No public drug use by itsenrique · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      No ads? OK, sounds reasonable. No public display? OK, we don't allow this for alcohol EXCEPT in designated venues. Do you see a problem with pot cafes? Or methadone clinics? If by public you mean on the street OK, but if you mean no consumption anywhere except the home this contradicts how we treat alcohol. No brown paper bag bullshit? Well you don't usually drink drugs, so OK. No operating machinery or participating in traffic while intoxicated? OK, although proving this for many drugs is much more challenging than alcohol. Example: marijuana.

    3. Re:No public drug use by jeIIomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The rationale behind "not in public" isn't that I don't like it but that drug use has significant deteriorating effects on society and can thus not be allowed to become normal social behavior.

      Bullshit. Any truly free country would not infringe upon people's fundamental liberties in the name of safety. Also, have you ever heard of personal responsibility? If someone sees you doing drugs and wants to try them too, then that is *their* problem and no one else's. And I think there are constitutional problems with the drug war, and constitutional problems with banning public drug use.

      I have a better idea: Stop trying to control people and just leave them alone. That way, maybe we'll move closer to becoming 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' rather than 'the land of the unfree and the home of the worthless cowards who sacrifice freedom for safety.'

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:No public drug use by znrt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, I see a problem with pot cafes. Drug use is not OK

      drug use IS OK. drug abuse is not.

      I see a problem with views like yours which shift the blame on the substance, righteously ignoring the root problems which are social and educational. this view solves nothing, perpetuates the real problems and just supports the status in quo in keeping the prohibition circus going.

  4. Re:It's finally time to do it by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, this is the old "Reefer Madness" mentality, meant to make happy both the Puritans and the prison profiteers while keeping the politicians in an elevated state of power.

    What actually happens, and Portugal ran this experiment with a sample size of over 8 million people during the past decade, is that when drug use is decriminalized, the usage rate quickly falls to about half.

    Most of those are people who are no longer afraid to seek treatment. Some are folks who wind up court-ordered to get treatment, and a few were drug users who were only doing it because drugs seemed cool because they were illegal.

    At the end, though, the incontrovertible fact is that the community has half the number of drug users as it did under Prohibition. Prohibitionists are responsible for a doubling of the drug usage rate in the community. Does that seem counter-intuitive? So what? The data is in.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  5. Re:Can we have some Facts please? by wisnoskij · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  6. Re:Can we have some Facts please? by gweihir · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  7. John D. Rockefeller, Jr. by wisnoskij · · Score: 4, Informative

    When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. 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., 1932

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  8. Re:Safe injection sites by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've been thinking along these lines for a few years now. Make the drugs legal, regulate them, and possibly even have the government sell them. Use taxes on drugs to fund rehab programs. Give sex workers a way to get out from drug induced slavery. Cut the head off the cocaine cartel by growing it here or importing it from someone else. Take a blow to the coffers of street gangs as well as more organized criminals.

    The obvious number one downside is the potential for an increase in number of addicts. I never really had the answer for how to counter that. Social stigma? Government monitoring program on those who buy from the "drug store" that encourages rehabilitation? But maybe if you make the harder drugs extra affordable in an outpatient setting like you describe, it offers a way out for the addicts, while making it inconvenient for dabblers and college kids to get into the really nasty stuff. You could still sell (and tax, of course) the less addictive/destructive drugs, as you would alcohol and tobacco.

    And bonus points if this reduces violent crime rates by people trying to get money to fuel their need.

  9. Re:HEROIN® brand diamorphine by itsenrique · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think what most people are suggesting is more like local police (or federals) still go after street dealers because legal regulated sale will be allowed that by and large will be the norm because people know it's safe. Like ALCOHOL. Sure, theres a few old timers and rural folk still running moonshine stills, but really, almost all alcohol sale and consumption in the US is legal and taxed. So, there will be some sort of clinic or dispensary where you to go to get your cocaine or heroin. Perhaps there are limits to amount and refusal of sale if customer is already visibly intoxicated, there are hours when sale is restricted (to prevent never-ending binges), and proper ID is required but hopefully goes back to no centralized database. This looks an awful lot like how we handle liquor already, it would be a little more complicated, but not much.

  10. Re:Use of drugs by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    No, the theory behind the first drug laws in the United States was that chinese immigrants smoked opium, so the consumption of opium via smoking was prohibited while oral consumption (the white peoples consumption method) remained legal. A racist law written by racist people to harm a racial group.

    Drug laws continue to be completely racist, even though the excuses for the laws no longer are. When it wasn't racism against the chinese-americans, it was racism against the african-americans...

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  11. The problem is addiction, not the use of drugs by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.