• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

War on drugs a bust: commission

Temporal

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
3,691
Reaction score
2,243
Location
Everywhere and Nowhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
War on drugs a bust: commission - World - CBC News

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation said:
A high-level international panel slammed the war on drugs as a failure Thursday and called on governments to undertake experiments to decriminalize the use of drugs, especially marijuana, to undermine the power of organized crime.

Compiled by the Global Commission on Drug Policy, the report concludes that criminalization and repressive measures have failed with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world.

"Political leaders and public figures should have the courage to articulate publicly what many of them acknowledge privately: that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that repressive strategies will not solve the drug problem, and that the war on drugs has not, and cannot, be won," the report said.

...

White House differs

"Drug addiction is a disease that can be successfully prevented and treated. Making drugs more available — as this report suggests — will make it harder to keep our communities healthy and safe," Office of National Drug Control Policy spokesman Rafael Lemaitre said.

You can find a link to the full report on the CBC website.

This is big news on the international policy level. I am not at all surprised that American news sources are not talking about it (a co-worker forwarded it to me). The war on drugs has been a colossal waste mainly instigated and supported by private business interests.

It's time to end the cycle of social destruction and bring back freedom to people's lives. Spain and Portugal have both legalized small possession of all drugs and their drug use rate has been dropping like a stone. You give people agency and transparency, and they use it. What a shocker.

At the same time, keep targeting the drug lords who are bringing violence and destruction to our society. The best way to do that is to greatly reduce their black market.

The solution has been obvious for decades now but it is now reaching a cresendo. I expect this report to be buried because it speaks the truth, but I thought it was worth bringing up so that people know there is GLOBAL recognition that the UN drug policy (mainly a carbon copy of the U.S. DEA policy) has been a dismal failure with dire consequences.
 
No argument, here.

I'd also add that not only are drug treatment programs more effective than putting addicts in prison, it costs less.
 
It's good that this issue is receiving some attention, even if its not in the mainstream media, but honestly, we really don't need a commission or a study to tell us that the war on drugs is a bust. It has been in effect officially for about 40 years, and unofficially for many more years than that, and despite the untold billions of dollars poured into it, drug use, the very thing that it is purported to reduce, has risen. As has violent crime, gang violence, drug related crimes, cartel activity, etc. While I could go on and on quoting statistics and little factoids that demonstrate why the War doesn't make sense, but it really boils down to one thing: prohibition creates the problems that it is intended to solve. Prohibition necessitates the black markets, and therefore creates all of the crime that goes hand in hand with such organizations; and on the other side, it creates the now ubiquitous, completely unnecessary paramilitary type raids that plague our citizenry. Politicians/think tanks/pundits and conservatives in particular go on and on about the beauties of the free market, how it has created unparalleled wealth for our country and how the free market reacts to and provides all of our material needs accordingly. And yet, they can't seem to apply the principles of the free market to the drug trade. If anything, outlawing a product and thereby reducing its supply (or at least forcing its supply into underground channels) will only serve to increase demand for that product. The elevated demand allows dealers to command a very valuable commodity - clearly the huge profit margin and the black market status of drugs encourages the frequent violence. If there were no prohibition, and therefore no black markets, what incentive would people have to get their fix from some shady guy on the corner when they could go to a safe, clean dispensary? If all drugs were legalized and regulated ( and yes, I mean all drugs) there would no longer be a need for a black market, the free market would kill it. And if other countries who have chosen a similar path are any example, our overall drug use would be lower.

But, unfortunately, we will most likely never see such a thing happen in the US. The War on Drugs, while hugely expensive for the taxpayers, simply provides too many things for too many people. It provides a steady supply of slave labor for the prisons - with people getting put away for years for smoking some weed - and it provides jobs, both for police departments and prisons; and it gives polices departments a great excuse to request ridiculous grants/weaponry so that they can play cowboys and Indians with their fellow citizens - busting in peoples houses in the middle of the night only to kill them/their dogs/their neighbors/etc. all over an oftentimes trivial amount of drugs (and indeed, sometimes no drugs at all). Constitutionally dubious (read: illegal) no knock warrants are the best, aren't they?

It serves an unspoken social function as well: it gets the undesirables off the streets and out of society. Why, heroin/cocaine/meth/etc. addicts are subhuman - they are bound to rape and murder and rob your entire family at any moment just to get high - better to lock them up just to be safe - you know, instead of offering them the help they need to treat their medically recognized disease. You know, the one that leads to a pattern of behavior where the acquisition and the ingestion of a particular drug become behaviors completely outside of the control of the addict? The one that many scientists are beginning to believe has roots in certain individuals genetics and brain chemistry, ie, even before trying their first drug, they are already "predestined," given the right circumstances, to become an addict? Since when did it make sense to take away someone's freedom because they are hurting only themselves, especially because of a medical condition? It's like locking a clinically depressed person up for surviving a suicide attempt.

It prevents the profits of major pharmaceutical companies from being diminished - they know full well that no one would pay the outrageous fees to get hooked on oxycontin when they could get adequate (in some cases) pain relief from marijuana (which happens to be a substance that you cannot patent). It's why pharm lobbyists are the first to contribute to anything that empowers the War on Drugs. So honestly, we can bitch and moan all we want, and point out facts and argue rationally and offer compromise, but when it comes down to it, this country relies, in part, on the War on Drugs. It confers too much power and too much profit on the right people, and such a thing will not go away simply because it doesn't make any sense. A lot of things about this country don't make any sense rationally, but make perfect sense when seen from the eyes of the beneficiaries. Some people still think that smoking weed leads directly to mainlining heroin, and that somehow using drugs makes one deserving of whatever punishment comes their way. Attitudes like that, coupled with the above mentioned factors, will make the War on Drugs a difficult nut to crack. What I'm saying is, basically, if you want the freedom to ingest whichever substances you like, move to a country that already tolerates it. It's not happening here.

PS: Sorry, I know that was a bit long winded, I got kinda carried away.
 
In other shocking news, a large ball of fire rose above the horizon today in the early AM hours, causing stars to no longer be visible and temperatures to increase across fully half of the planet.
 
In other shocking news, a large ball of fire rose above the horizon today in the early AM hours, causing stars to no longer be visible and temperatures to increase across fully half of the planet.

Can you post scientific evidence to support your outrageous claim?

:mrgreen:
 
Great comments on the op. We've known this for a long time that it's not working and it's more expensive. Again, another policy that needs to change. We are in an economic crisis and we don't have the luxury to handle things in a stupid way anymore.
 
Actually, MSNBC ran the story yesterday.
 
So, how do we know that The War on Drugs isn't working?
 
So, how do we know that The War on Drugs isn't working?

You must live in a rural area. The war on drugs fuels crime, just like prohibition. Thinking other wise is delusional, willful ignorance, or being part of the problem.
 
There is no war on drugs. You are legally allowed to get as high as you want on as many drugs as you want as long as you buy your drugs from Big Pharma instead of a Mexican cartel.
 
Well, I think we all agree this is the most obvious statement ever. So the question is, do you think the gov cares, and what do you think the real solution is?

For my part, no I don't think the gov cares, and I don't think anything will change in the near future, though possibly in the mid-term future.

So, solution. What's yours?

I've always been for legalizing drugs and just ending this stupid war against human nature all together, but a friend of mine told me his idea which I think has a lot of merit so I've sort of blended it into mine and I'm working out the bugs.

Make use legal, but not necessarily easy, and not necessarily re-sale. For meth, heroin, and crack ("the big three"), make them available by prescription which is extremely difficult to get. Make their re-sale a simple misdemeanor - no time. My friend originally wanted use to also be a minor crime, but I would like to have harm-reduction like facilities for their use, which are proven to lower crime and increase addicts going to rehab. I think it would work better. For all other drugs, legal for use and legitimate sale and re-sale.
 
Last edited:
Well, I think we all agree this is the most obvious statement ever. So the question is, do you think the gov cares, and what do you think the real solution is?

For my part, no I don't think the gov cares, and I don't think anything will change in the near future, though possibly in the mid-term future.

So, solution. What's yours?

I've always been for legalizing drugs and just ending this stupid war against human nature all together, but a friend of mine told me his idea which I think has a lot of merit so I've sort of blended it into mine and I'm working out the bugs.

Make use legal, but not necessarily easy, and not necessarily re-sale. For meth, heroin, and crack ("the big three"), make them available by prescription which is extremely difficult to get. Make their re-sale a simple misdemeanor - no time. My friend originally wanted use to also be a minor crime, but I would like to have harm-reduction like facilities for their use, which are proven to lower crime and increase addicts going to rehab. I think it would work better. For all other drugs, legal for use and legitimate sale and re-sale.

Meth and crack are both sched 2 and cannabis is sched 1. How about we work on that first?
 
Meth and crack are both sched 2 and cannabis is sched 1. How about we work on that first?

Agreed. Gotta start somewhere. I always have quite a laugh when people say weed is too dangerous to legalize, but they think enoying a nice stiff drink is fine. Remind me, which one of these 2 substances is connected to aggression? Which one of these 2 substances is one of the only drugs where the withdrawals alone can kill you (the other being heroin)? Oh yes, alcohol.
 
Agreed. Gotta start somewhere. I always have quite a laugh when people say weed is too dangerous to legalize, but they think enoying a nice stiff drink is fine. Remind me, which one of these 2 substances is connected to aggression? Which one of these 2 substances is one of the only drugs where the withdrawals alone can kill you (the other being heroin)? Oh yes, alcohol.

Which of these two has actually been attributed to a death before... hmm?
 
Marijuana is indeed a dangerous drug. Benzopyrene is not your friend, nor do your lungs appreciate it.
 
Marijuana is indeed a dangerous drug. Benzopyrene is not your friend, nor do your lungs appreciate it.

Elaborate on how it is worse than alcohol. Explain to me why this report says that Marijuana is less harmful than tobacco.

And with more potent strains of Marijuana existing today, the lung damage is extremely minimal. You can inhale twice from a bong and get the same high you would from smoking an entire joint 30 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Elaborate. And with more potent strains of Marijuana existing today, the lung damage is extremely minimal. You can inhale once from a gravity bong and get the same high you would from smoking an entire joint 30 years ago.

Benzopyrene is an extremely powerful carcinogen and is found in high amounts in marijuana. It will cause lung cancer.
 
Benzopyrene is an extremely powerful carcinogen and is found in high amounts in marijuana. It will cause lung cancer.

I know what benzopyrene is. And you didn't answer the rest of my post. The amount of "smoking" done by Marijuana smokers is extremely less than that of a cigarette or cigar smoker. That's why this report correctly identifies tobacco as more harmful than cannabis.

Not will, can, by the way.
 
Marijuana is indeed a dangerous drug. Benzopyrene is not your friend, nor do your lungs appreciate it.

Does Marijuana Cause Cancer? | Psychology Today

"To date, no large scale, epidemiological studies exist demonstrating a correlation between THC and cancer. During the early 1980s, Kaiser Permanente studied over 65,000 patients with a ten-year follow-up. About half of these patients, admitted to having tried marijuana. One hundred eighty- two tobacco related cancers were found but no effects of marijuana use on the risk of cancer. This study has some important limitations. First, the marijuana smokers were young (15 to 39), their usage was relatively light, and the follow-up period was short.

However, Tashkin's (2005) research at UCLA-MC showed increased redness, swelling, and white blood cell count in regular marijuana users. Furthermore, because marijuana smoke is very similar to cigarette smoke, it seems quite likely that long term effects may be the same. Doll et al. (2005) conducted a 50 year follow-up study of 40,000 volunteers and showed that half of all regular cigarette smokers eventually die of lung, mouth, throat, larynx, pancreatic or bladder cancer or asthma or emphysemas (Doll, 2005). It may be that cannabis, too, will prove lethal and it is just a matter of time."

Basically, as of now there is absolutely no proof linking marijuana to cancer. Assuming people have been smoking marijuana for a quite a lengthy period of time, I don't see too much of a reason as to why cancer instances would suddenly spike.
 
I know what benzopyrene is. And you didn't answer the rest of my post. The amount of "smoking" done by Marijuana smokers is extremely less than that of a cigarette or cigar smoker. That's why this report correctly identifies tobacco as more harmful than cannabis.

Not will, can, by the way.

Marijuana has 50% more benzopyrene in it than a cigarette. Also
The daily use of 1 to 3 marijuana joints appears to produce approximately the same lung damage and potential cancer risk as smoking 5 times as many cigarettes. (UCLA)
Source:Marijuana In The Body - A Fact Sheet On The Effects Of Marijuana | Busted - America's War On Marijuana | FRONTLINE | PBS

Benzopyrene will lodge itself into your DNA. It may not cause cancer, but just like cigarettes it can cause cancer and the risk is significantly higher. Marijuana isn't the healthy drug that people want to misrepresent it as. It may have a high tolerance in regards to toxicity, but it isn't healthy.


Does Marijuana Cause Cancer? | Psychology Today

"To date, no large scale, epidemiological studies exist demonstrating a correlation between THC and cancer. During the early 1980s, Kaiser Permanente studied over 65,000 patients with a ten-year follow-up. About half of these patients, admitted to having tried marijuana. One hundred eighty- two tobacco related cancers were found but no effects of marijuana use on the risk of cancer. This study has some important limitations. First, the marijuana smokers were young (15 to 39), their usage was relatively light, and the follow-up period was short.

However, Tashkin's (2005) research at UCLA-MC showed increased redness, swelling, and white blood cell count in regular marijuana users. Furthermore, because marijuana smoke is very similar to cigarette smoke, it seems quite likely that long term effects may be the same. Doll et al. (2005) conducted a 50 year follow-up study of 40,000 volunteers and showed that half of all regular cigarette smokers eventually die of lung, mouth, throat, larynx, pancreatic or bladder cancer or asthma or emphysemas (Doll, 2005). It may be that cannabis, too, will prove lethal and it is just a matter of time."

Basically, as of now there is absolutely no proof linking marijuana to cancer. Assuming people have been smoking marijuana for a quite a lengthy period of time, I don't see too much of a reason as to why cancer instances would suddenly spike.

Did you read what you quoted? Look at the second paragraph. THC is the psychoactive chemical in marijuana, I doubt that will cause cancer. However, smoking marijuana may cause cancer as the second paragraph and my source also points out.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. Gotta start somewhere. I always have quite a laugh when people say weed is too dangerous to legalize, but they think enoying a nice stiff drink is fine. Remind me, which one of these 2 substances is connected to aggression? Which one of these 2 substances is one of the only drugs where the withdrawals alone can kill you (the other being heroin)? Oh yes, alcohol.

By the Federal definition, alcohol is a sched 2 drug. Maybe even sched 1, if there is no accepted medical use.
 
Marijuana has 50% more benzopyrene in it than a cigarette. Also
Source:Marijuana In The Body - A Fact Sheet On The Effects Of Marijuana | Busted - America's War On Marijuana | FRONTLINE | PBS

Benzopyrene will lodge itself into your DNA. It may not cause cancer, but just like cigarettes it can cause cancer and the risk is significantly higher. Marijuana isn't the healthy drug that people want to misrepresent it as. It may have a high tolerance in regards to toxicity, but it isn't healthy.




Did you read what you quoted? Look at the second paragraph. THC is the psychoactive chemical in marijuana, I doubt that will cause cancer. However, smoking marijuana may cause cancer as the second paragraph and my source also points out.

potheads are on it! Check out "vaporization".

No combustion, so no benzopyrene.

Much more economical.

Better smell, lingers for a shorter time.

There's also about as many methods of oral ingestion as you can imagine.

Problem solved.:2wave:
 
potheads are on it! Check out "vaporization".

No combustion, so no benzopyrene.

Much more economical.

Better smell, lingers for a shorter time.

There's also about as many methods of oral ingestion as you can imagine.

Problem solved.:2wave:

We already have oral ingestion of THC. Dronabinol is a prescription drug that is THC. It's a controlled substance and may only be obtained via a prescription from a doctor and the dispensing/approval of a pharmacist. Nonetheless, it's a controlled substance and as such it should (and is) illegal to use without a prescription.
 
Back
Top Bottom