castledoom.com

[JuntaJoe]

Global war on drugs 'has failed' say former leaders

The global war on drugs has "failed" according to a new report by a group of politicians and former world leaders.

The Global Commission on Drug Policy report calls for the legalization of some drugs and an end to the criminalization of drug users.

The panel includes former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, the former leaders of Mexico, Colombia and Brazil, and the entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson.

The US and Mexican governments have rejected the findings as misguided.

The Global Commission's 24-page report argues that anti-drug policy has failed by fueling organized crime, costing taxpayers millions of dollars and causing thousands of deaths.

It cites UN estimates that opiate use increased 35% worldwide from 1998 to 2008, cocaine by 27%, and cannabis by 8.5%.

Cesar Gaviria said the US came in for criticism

The 19-member commission includes Mexico's former President Ernesto Zedillo, Brazil's ex-President Fernando Henrique Cardoso and former Colombian President Cesar Gaviria, as well as the former US Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker and the current Prime Minister of Greece George Papandreou.

The panel also features prominent Latin American writers Carlos Fuentes and Mario Vargas Llosa, the EU's former foreign policy chief Javier Solana, and George Schultz, a former US secretary of state.

'No harm to others'

The authors criticize governments who claim the current war on drugs is effective.

"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.

Instead of punishing users who the report says "do no harm to others," the commission argues that governments should end criminalization of drug use, experiment with legal models that would undermine organized crime syndicates and offer health and treatment services for drug-users.

It calls for drug policies based on methods empirically proven to reduce crime and promote economic and social development.

The commission is especially critical of the US, saying it must abandon anti-crime approaches to drug policy and adopt strategies rooted in healthcare and human rights.

"We hope this country (the US) at least starts to think there are alternatives," said former Colombian President Cesar Gaviria.

"We don't see the US evolving in a way that is compatible with our (countries') long-term interests."

Many crimes.

The office of White House drug tsar Gil Kerlikowske rejected the panel's recommendations.

"Drug addiction is a disease that can be successfully prevented and treated," said a spokesman for the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

"Making drugs more available - as this report suggests - will make it harder to keep our communities healthy and safe."

The government of Mexico, where more than 34,000 people have died in drug-related violence since a crackdown on the cartels began in December 2006, was also critical.

Legalization would be an "insufficient and inefficient" step given the international nature of the illegal drugs trade, said National Security spokesman Alejandro Poire.

"Legalization won't stop organized crime, nor its rivalries and violence," he said.

"To think organized crime in Mexico means drug-trafficking overlooks the other crimes committed such as kidnapping, extortion and robbery."



http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/Report

BBC © 2011


Personally, I think the commission is right. Prohibition of social vices never works.

[s_stabeler]

oh good grief, the war on drugs. that certianly tends to stir debate. Well, as for my opinion? I don't know if the war on drugs works, but complete legalisation could be a disaster for a different reason. Would that mean that other laws could be repealed if a large enough minority wants change? (I'm thinking anti-piracy here, although obviously abortion or gun rights are other topics where a potentially sizable minority want change. Or any other hot-button topic, come to that.)

my opinion depends on the type of drug, honestly. remember that heroin is actually simply a quicker-acting form of Morphine, a legal drug. Therefore, i could see the potential for strictly controlled use of it where it could benefit. However, drugs that have no medicinal benefit i think should stay banned. (ecstacy currently has little known medicinal use, for example)

[JuntaJoe]

It's not a slippery slope into lawlessness if you define it properly.

Personal vice that doesn't materially affect other's rights should be a matter of self determination.

Legal prostitution, any kind of mind altering substances, overeating, smoking, suicide, etc. They all do nothing to others if sensible precautions are made. Sure, they may bother others emotionally, but so can a host of perfectly legal things.

Ever seen your parents complain you play on the computer too much? If you are otherwise getting what is expected of you done then you aren't materially hurting them.

Yes, there does need to be some rules. You have to keep extortion and white slavery out of prostitution. Those that are high on anything need to stay off the road. You cannot smoke anything in a confined public space.

But if a person wants to shoot smack all day at home until they starve or overdose then their neighbor is completely safe. Unless they have to steal your hubcaps and give money to a terrorist organization to smuggle the drugs in and then drive home loaded to the gills. Then others are materially affected. We are made unsafe by laws supposedly to keep us safe.

It doesn't relate to other crime. There is no way to steal without affecting someone else's property or livelihood. Short of simulations, which are legal already, someone is out time, effort, or material wealth by theft. So these kinds of crimes are fundamentally different from personal vices. There is no hypocrisy when you differentiate between the two types of behavior.