Global panel: end the war on drugs

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thomas Veil, Jun 2, 2011.

  1. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #1
    ^ This.

    The only quibble I have with the above is the idea that drugs "do no harm to others". A (admittedly distant) family member of mine was murdered for drug money by someone who needed his fix, and I'm nowhere near alone in that regard. But the rest of the argument makes perfect sense.

    The Mexican situation is out of control. You know, I think that perhaps, maybe, possibly that would be a good place to start. The only real question is, does any government have the balls to get this done?
     
  2. McGiord macrumors 601

    McGiord

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Location:
    Dark Castle
    #2
    I haven't read anything recently about this, but I believe that Brazil got their act together and cleaned the 'favelas' in Rio de Janeiro and their communities are really happy about it. They use military operations instead of the traditional local police, and successfully captured and killed the drug criminals. Their main motivator, I believe was, be a safe city for hosting the Olympic games and Soccer World Cup. So I think it is possible, but the toll is high.
    Colombia has made significant progress in their war on drugs, and their success has been thanks to the US support, the problem has been that poor governments like Venezuela and that the operations have been moved to Mexico. The toll there has been even higher.
    So my initial thoughts on this are:
    Yes, it can be eradicated from any place by using good military actions, by good I mean effective and efficient, and the tricky part is to prevent the emergence of the business in other places, and reduce the need for consumption.
    Supply and demands economics apply here, if there was no demand, a few 'customers' the market will be so small that it will not grow so fast and generate those cartel empires.
     
  3. firestarter macrumors 603

    firestarter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Location:
    Green and pleasant land
    #3
    While I agree in general that prohibition has failed, the headlines about this are a bit misleading. The 'Global Panel of Leaders and a business tycoon' sounds like a lot of significant people have had their minds changed on this subject. In reality, it's the 'usual suspects' who you would expect to hold this viewpoint - South American ex presidents (including from Columbia) and Richard Branson (who is definitely at the 'hippy' end of big business).

    Prohibition hasn't worked - and driving drugs underground has put the whole drug economy into the hands of organised crime and other 'bad guys'. While full legalisation is an unattractive idea from a health point of view (alcohol is already very damaging to society, and legal hard drugs would be no better) it's probably less damaging overall than illegality and crime.

    Would that murder have been committed if drugs were available through legal means, rather than at hiked-up prices from bad guys? Would the druggie have been operating in a criminal sphere if drug taking were open and legal? To me, your example is more of an argument for legalisation rather than against.
     
  4. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #4
    The war on drugs has empowered the drug dealer and the police state and everyone who doesnt fit into those 2 professions has been screwed with the bill.
     
  5. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #5
    Nothing wrong with hippies...

    A little wiki piece about hard drugs in the Netherlands:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands
     
  6. IntelliUser macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Location:
    Why does it matter?
    #6
    This and the military is where spending should be cut, not medicare or education.
     
  7. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
  8. likemyorbs macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #8
    Good stuff. Hard to imagine a day when the US legalizes drugs though. Whether they do or not, i will continue using cannabis recreationally. Maybe if they legalize it will be cheaper.
     
  9. arkitect macrumors 601

    arkitect

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Location:
    Bath, United Kingdom
    #9
    Oh just wait until they get their hands on all those extra taxables…
    It'll still be cheaper "elsewhere". ;)

    Of course nothing beats cultivating your own herb garden. If you can grow tomatoes then the climate is good enough. :)
     
  10. Thomas Veil thread starter macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #10
    We talkin' drug cartels or drug companies? ;)

    But yeah, I see your point.
     
  11. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #11
    I personally know someone who would benefit from legalizing medical marijuna, and will NOT use it illegally no matter how much it might benefit them.

    It's not fair that the medicines available are limited by the war on drugs.

    The stuff available by prescription are so much worse...
     
  12. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #12
    Most illegal drugs are pretty easy to manufacture and don't require particularly sophisticated equipment. Allowing heroin addicts to get their dose shouldn't cost too much.
     
  13. firestarter macrumors 603

    firestarter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Location:
    Green and pleasant land
    #13
    I'll admit to owning Mike Oldfield's Tubular Bells/Hergest Ridge/Ommadawn boxed set (and about 10 of his other albums). So I don't have a problem with Mr. Branson's hippie projects! :D

    (Also have the '25 years of Hawkwind' boxed set!)

    Interesting stuff.

    Of course, there are two ways that drugs hurt people (medically). One is the poor and variable quality most druggies have access too - and the Dutch scheme addresses that well.

    The second is the danger of overdose, psychosis, intoxication, dependancy, demotivation etc. that can occur as a side effect of taking even good-quality drugs (and I'm thinking more about hard drugs here). While I think a lot of the government 'this is your brain on drugs' type advertising is overblown, there are harmful side effects - which makes the moral question regarding the wisdom of legalising slightly more tricky.

    On balance, I do think legalisation would help more people than it hurts.
     
  14. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #14
    Sure, but alcohol has a lot of harmful side effects too.
     
  15. firestarter macrumors 603

    firestarter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Location:
    Green and pleasant land
    #15
    Oh, absolutely. More harmful, arguably.
     
  16. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #16
    For me I always had a problem of jailing the users. Dealers yes should be put in jail but users and abuses of the drug should go threw mandatory drug treatment were they are lets say lock up in a drug treatment place. Long run it is cheaper for us because the junkies are got off the stuff so they are not going to be in the system. Health problems go down and so on.

    My big fear of legizing the drugs is I could see it forcing companies to hire those people. I would say company should still have the right to say if you use XYZ you can not work here and can be fired for using it.
     
  17. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #17
    Unless the drug use affects his or her ability to perform the job, companies shouldn't bar people for drug use. Fire someone if they're wasted while on the clock but if the person shoots it up at home on their own time I disagree. Just like drinking on the weekend, alcohol use doesn't prevent people from being hired. I detest drug screening. So how will a company know someone smokes marijuana or does cocaine without being invasive? It's a suspicionless search and that's wrong.
     
  18. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #18
    Ah, but "Society" (i.e. Big Business/Government) wants business to join them in the interdiction of recreational drug users.

    God forbid that they may actually have the temerity to ask for personal time off, to "find" themselves.
     
  19. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #19
    Judging by their behaviour, most of Big Business and Government want to restrict all the recreational drug-taking to themselves.
     
  20. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #20
    No doubt. Do what I say, not what I do.

    'Twas ever thus.
     
  21. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #21
    Well, who the hell do you think imports the stuff and exports the materials to make more? ;)

    I remember listening to someone on the radio talking about if the government really wanted to stop things like meth, they would have long ago audited the massive amounts of specific chemicals shipped overseas every year that basically go directly to the drug trade. Lets not forget the automotive companies that sell fleets to foreign "businessmen" who are well known in the drug trade.

    Lets not even mention that in many countries like mexico (or even here with their corporate ties) government officials are directly involved in the narco trafficking.

    Its an international game. There are easy methods that would actually stop the madness, but we love to do nothing but reactionary political things (with exception, of course, to warfare).
     
  22. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #22
    The only think holding back legalized pot IMO is instant testing. They can tell your blood alcohol level in seconds but knowing if you're smoking pot and driving is harder to pinpoint. As far as I know the only real test is pissing in a cup.
     
  23. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #23
    normally it is a condition of employment. Not like it is hard not to get caught and since the drug company is a 3rd party you can tell them if you are taking something medically and show them the proof. If that would trip a drug screening that means they have to do more detail report or know that there will be a false positive.

    As for some drugs like heron or meth sorry but they effect your work lives no matter how you cut it. On top of that they do increase cost for the company in insurance. I have no problem with a company saying no smokers, or drug users period end of story. Health care cost for the company are lower and over all the company is a better work place.
     
  24. firestarter macrumors 603

    firestarter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Location:
    Green and pleasant land
    #24
    How about cocaine and amphetamines then?

    Both increase alertness and energy. Should a company test for them, since (if anything) they will increase work performance.
     
  25. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #25
    Personally I don't think companies should test with the sole exception of when people's lives are directly at risk. My piss is my own, if I'm a sub-par employee they should discipline me as such, just as they should if I appear obviously intoxicated in the workplace. Even were I to be on unprescribed stimulants that may in the acute short term benefit my performance.

    Testing is just ridiculous IMO, the primary reason people are tested is to make medical insurance cheaper, it has nothing to do with the dangers of being intoxicated in the workplace as if they are and it's a problem it's usually pretty damned obvious!
     

Share This Page