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 legalisation of some drugs and an end to the criminalisation 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 fuelling organised 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%.

 

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.

 

The authors criticise 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 criminalisation of drug use, experiment with legal models that would undermine organised 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."

 

 

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.

 

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

 

"Legalisation won't stop organised crime, nor its rivalries and violence," he said.

 

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

 

Analysis

 

 

Adam Mynott

BBC News

It is a damning indictment. The group of world leaders, including former Presidents of Mexico and Colombia which are blighted by the trade in illegal drugs, says urgent changes are overdue.

 

Their report says current policies to tackle drug abuse and the crime that preys on it are clearly not working, but result in thousands of deaths and rampant lawlessness.

 

It calls for an end to the 'criminalisation, marginalisation and stigmatisation of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others'.

 

The leading international figures behind the report do not pull their punches. They say sensible regulation of drugs is working in some countries but they accuse many governments around the world of pretending that the current war on drugs is effective when they know it isn't.

 

Drugs need to be decriminalised, they say, and addicts need to be treated as patients, not villains.

 

What are your views on this?

Drug decriminalisation etc.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL83WewagiM]YouTube - ‪Ron Paul on Drugs and Personal Choice (05/05/11)‬‏[/ame]

 

Ever thought you'd hear a Republican say something like that? ;)

 

I think the debate is shifting in favor of legalization overall... but there are many special interests that make a lot of money from drugs remaining illegal: cops, lawyers, judges, prison guards, prison owners, etc.

 

So it will be an uphill battle, but the economic disaster that awaits us might force governments to re-legalize them, just like the first Great Depression forced them to legalize alcohol again.

I support decriminalization and perhaps even legalization of marijuana, but what about cocaine or crack? Crack is a major problem here in Brazil, we must keep fighting against it, no matter what it costs.

Crack is a major problem here in Brazil, we must keep fighting against it, no matter what it costs.

 

I disagree, I think all drugs should be made legal.

 

Why do we lock up the addicts, instead of helping them?

 

Portugal had decriminalized all drugs, and they've had major success: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

 

"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."

 

Remember that very powerful people make money from drugs being illegal, so they will try to mislead us on this issue.

We actually had a sane drug advisor (Professor David Nutt) here in the UK until 2009 when he was sacked for questioning the current 'The Misuse Of Drugs Act'. He published several studies on the social and physical harms of certain drugs. Interesting to see which one came out on top on this particular graph:

 

 

Full paper here for anyone interested: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00638/Professor_Nutt_pape_638397a.pdf

 

If alcohol and tobacco can be legal, then all drugs should be. There really isn't any excuse but of course the whole thing is driven by power, money and disinformation, as opposed to an evidence-based approach. The fact that a victimless crime is an arrestable offense should really tell you everything you need to know about how corrupt the law has become.

I support decriminalization and perhaps even legalization of marijuana, but what about cocaine or crack? Crack is a major problem here in Brazil, we must keep fighting against it, no matter what it costs.

 

So what you're saying is that them being illegal has not stopped the problems?

So what you're saying is that them being illegal has not stopped the problems?

There's a difference between marijuana and crack. Marijuana is a soft drug. It IS possible to be addicted to it and live a normal life, with family, friends and a job. Crack is a heavy drug; it basically rottens your brain. Someone addicted to crack will most likely leave their jobs and families, focusing on obtaining and using the drug. Something like that just can't be made legal.

 

If alcohol and tobacco can be legal, then all drugs should be.

Alcohol is only the drug that makes the most damage because it's the drug most avaliable in the world. The legalization of crack would be terrible.

There's a difference between marijuana and crack. Marijuana is a soft drug. It IS possible to be addicted to it and live a normal life, with family, friends and a job. Crack is a heavy drug; it basically rottens your brain. Someone addicted to crack will most likely leave their jobs and families, focusing on obtaining and using the drug. Something like that just can't be made legal.

 

 

What a fallacious argument, my friend. If you knew exactly what crack does to people, you would see how ridiculous this analogy is.

 

But don't you understand? The best way is not to demonise the users. The effects of crack are the same whether it is legal or not. By making it illegal, you are making criminals, and treating the users as such instead of treating them like patients, which they should be. You can never wipe out crack. It wouldn't happen. It's too easy to make. If you regulate it you can have some form of control over it, and from the tax on it improve treatment for those who need it. It isn't ideal to legalise hard drugs, but they are going to find their way no matter what, and whichever way they reach you, the effects will always be the same, illegal or legal. If they were legalised the world wouldn't all take crack you know.

I think the fact that it is illegal prevents some people from even wanting to try it though, because of the fear of getting caught and having to face legal consequences.

But don't you understand? The best way is not to demonise the users. The effects of crack are the same whether it is legal or not. By making it illegal, you are making criminals, and treating the users as such instead of treating them like patients, which they should be.

I propose a very simple solution: just stop going after the users and start going heavily after dealers.

 

You can never wipe out crack. It wouldn't happen. It's too easy to make.

Of course you can't wipe it out, but you can reduce the damage it makes, by reducing its avaliability.

 

If you regulate it you can have some form of control over it, and from the tax on it improve treatment for those who need it.

It's almost impossible for a crack addict to recover. The odds are of about 3%, IIRC. If you can't cure it, the only way to fight it is to prevent people from using it. Therefore, control is irrelevant.

 

If they were legalised the world wouldn't all take crack you know.

Increasing the avaliability, you increase the consume. Simple as that.

 

I think the fact that it is illegal prevents some people from even wanting to try it though, because of the fear of getting caught and having to face legal consequences.

Yep, that's true.

Legalise it, so they can tax it

I think the fact that it is illegal prevents some people from even wanting to try it though, because of the fear of getting caught and having to face legal consequences.

 

I really don't think that's an issue. If they want to try it, they will try it.

 

Making drugs illegal is a very shortcut/lazy way of dealing with the problem of drugs and isn't a long term solution. Short term maybe but governments and authorities have to realise that by and large most drug use stems from unsettled social and economic factors. Tackle them and you will start tackling the problem of drugs.

Slightly unrelated but if they made them legal I wonder where and how you would go about buying them.

I say legalize marijuana just because no one has ever died from it and considering how many people use it, if you taxed it it would bring in a lot of revenue.

 

For other harder drugs as we've seen making them illegal hasn't helped. So perhaps decriminalize it. I still think drugs that are extremely deadly like Heroin, Crack and Meth should be made illegal just because of how harmful and addictive they are. But at the same time Alcohol is legal which is extremely deadly and addictive too, to many. So For those drugs I'm not sure. I don't know if legalizing them is the answer, yet clearly the war on drugs hasn't worked either.

no one has ever died from it[/color][/b] and considering how many people use it, if you taxed it it would bring in a lot of revenue.

 

I recently saw a report of how much it fucks up your driving ability (it included a video), so I'm gonna play the "how can you know that" card.

 

I know, I didn't make the greatest contribution to this thread.

I say legalize marijuana just because no one has ever died from it and considering how many people use it, if you taxed it it would bring in a lot of revenue.

 

For other harder drugs as we've seen making them illegal hasn't helped. So perhaps decriminalize it. I still think drugs that are extremely deadly like Heroin, Crack and Meth should be made illegal just because of how harmful and addictive they are. But at the same time Alcohol is legal which is extremely deadly and addictive too, to many. So For those drugs I'm not sure. I don't know if legalizing them is the answer, yet clearly the war on drugs hasn't worked either.

I disagree with you in only one point.

 

Alcohol isn't nearly as addictive as crack or meth. It is possible to "just really like" alcohol, without being actually addicted to it. It is possible to be a "social drinker". It's actually proven that some alcoholic drinks like wine, in small quantities daily, are good to the health. None of these affirmations are true for drugs like heroin, crack and meth.

 

Other than that, I agree with you.

Global? LOL

I disagree with you in only one point.

 

Alcohol isn't nearly as addictive as crack or meth. It is possible to "just really like" alcohol, without being actually addicted to it. It is possible to be a "social drinker". It's actually proven that some alcoholic drinks like wine, in small quantities daily, are good to the health. None of these affirmations are true for drugs like heroin, crack and meth.

 

Other than that, I agree with you.

The reason that wine is healthy to them is because their body has become so used to having alcohol daily, and I'm sure that it would be the same for drug users if they suddenly decided to give up.

 

Overall I'm not so sure legalizing drugs would work really, once it's legal it's much more available to school kids and there'll will be even more health problems.

Wine is good for health, It's proven, it has anti-aging properties. Needless to say you have to be moderate.

I think the increase of drug consumption is due to income increase. Since there is more middle-class people there is more money to spend on, that's why the sales of almost everything has risen, if people fail to have a satisfiying life and need the use of drugs it's their problem.

I think the increase of drug consumption is due to income increase. Since there is more middle-class people there is more money to spend on, that's why the sales of almost everything has risen, if people fail to have a satisfiying life and need the use of drugs it's their problem.

That explains somethings, but not everything. If a rich person decides to use cocain, I agree with you, it's their problem. They can afford their own addiction. But poor people can't afford an addiction, and might end up compromising even further their own family.

I propose a very simple solution: just stop going after the users and start going heavily after dealers.

 

 

Of course you can't wipe it out, but you can reduce the damage it makes, by reducing its avaliability.

 

 

It's almost impossible for a crack addict to recover. The odds are of about 3%, IIRC. If you can't cure it, the only way to fight it is to prevent people from using it. Therefore, control is irrelevant.

 

 

Increasing the avaliability, you increase the consume. Simple as that.

 

 

Yep, that's true.

I agree with everything you said here but

That explains somethings, but not everything. If a rich person decides to use cocain, I agree with you, it's their problem. They can afford their own addiction. But poor people can't afford an addiction, and might end up compromising even further their own family.

Then the problem is poverty. If people become drug-dealers is because they are needy. If they are not needy, then they are just shitty scum. The problem is too complex, the links of criminal organizations go beyond political limits, these organizations are found everywhere, i.e. just as there are guys that produce and send the drug from Colombia, there are dudes that receive it in Mexico and send it to the USA and there are guys that receive it and distribute it in USA. And most importantly, there are dudes that consume it in USA. If there weren't guys that consume it in USA all of these links wouldn't exist but if one or several of the links would not exist the drugs would still arrive to USA-

Also I'd like to say this war is everything but global, I remember of few drug-strikes in USA or in Europe who are not working either in controlling consumption.

Legalise it, so they can tax it

 

 

:dozey:

That explains somethings, but not everything. If a rich person decides to use cocain, I agree with you, it's their problem. They can afford their own addiction. But poor people can't afford an addiction, and might end up compromising even further their own family.

 

Why is cocaine expensive? Do you know?

I say legalize marijuana just because no one has ever died from it and considering how many people use it, if you taxed it it would bring in a lot of revenue.

 

Really? While marijuana itself won't kill you like a shitty cocaine, the effects of it can lead to a person to accidentally jump to his/her death, it's the same with every drug and it's silly to have them all illegal, you can easily go buy pain killers and put a bunch in your mouth, or have a go with specific drugs (legal) for your brain.

 

Haha, I should be ashamed of myself.