Former Brazilian president Fernando Henrique Cardoso made this issue his "post-presidency" flag. There's an excellent documentary called "Breaking the Taboo" [1] that follows him examining successful efforts around the world (including Portugal)
Time to end the war on drugs
81–90 of 217 posts
Re: Time to end the war on drugs
#82Great article. I would like to further suggest we end the use of the word "war" in contexts that do not involve mandatory conscription and the deaths of large numbers of combatants until one side totally surrenders. (This implies there is a "side" to be able to surrender.) Politicians have so destroyed the word "war" that it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion about any use of violence by the state. Perhaps…
> Drug use is a health-related issue, whether it is a doctor prescribing medications, a patient taking meds off-label, a person self-medicating, an addict, or some kind experimentation
> We have a caricatured view of the drug addict -- the unwashed, illiterate, toothless junkie hiding out in a crack house. Yes, addiction ends up that way for some, but by and large addicts are middle-class, educated, and live in houses with their friends or families
Excellent points. If there were just two things I wish everyone in the world (or at least in the US) would understand, it's this:
1. The drugs that you are prescribed and the drugs people consume recreationally are not fundamentally different. In fact, in many cases, they're essentially interchangeable from a chemical perspective (Adderall/Desoxyn/Methamphetamine/"Speed" are a great example; Marijuana/Marinol is a partial example too). The prescription vs. "everything else" divide is almost arbitrary. If someone told you that they were prescribed diacetylmorphine for chronic pain, what would you say? What would you say if they took heroin for pain?
2. The stereotypes of 'drug addicts' and 'drug users' are grossly inaccurate. Yes, some people who use heroin/meth/coke/etc. fall into the respective stereotypes. But many don't - you just don't know it, because they're the ones who manage to maintain normal lives. Look up diactylmorphine (heroin) maintenance programs in Switzerland and the UK, and you'll see that many people who used to fit the stereotypes of the homeless sex-working heroin addict are able to maintain steady 'normal' jobs if they are given regular access to heroin of a consistent quality/potency and with no adulterants (this requirement is key!)
In the UK, there was a 'Nice People Use Drugs' campaign, which was aimed at exactly that - demonstrating to people that the stereotypical drug users are just more visible; the invisible majority of people who use or have used drugs have no lasting/debiltating/noticeable problems (if any at all). Everybody knows people who use drugs of some sort; they just don't always know that those people use drugs. (And sometimes, they're not the ones you'd expect!)
Re: Time to end the war on drugs
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you suggest not to call a "war" has killed thousands of people in countries like Mexico and Colombia[1]. Is this what you mean when you say "deaths of large numbers of combatants"? I come from a country that suffers this "war on drugs", I've had members of my family kidnapped, I've seen people being assassinated in front of me by hit-men. Some others haven't been that lucky. I, with you permission, call this a "…
What he is saying is in support of your point. Those gangs are actually at war. They're fighting over money and control, directly enlisting soldiers and killing each other. Calling a prohibition "The War on Drugs" is a new speak tactic that not only takes the public eye off of real problems, but also waters down the impact the word WAR has. This produces 2 less that awesome situations: It is because of the prohibitio…
The US has been waging what can pretty validly be called a war on drug lords in Latin America for a few decades. After the fall of the USSR, that's basically what our military bases in Latin America do. Generally I agree with macuenca; claiming that it's a war on an abstract principle trivializes the very real combat between US-backed authorities and local drug lords.
Re: Time to end the war on drugs
#84There seems to be a lot of confusion on this thread about exactly what Portugal did, and the ramifications for the U.S. in terms of time-frame and difficulty. What Portugal did was decriminalize the possession of small amounts of drugs. They did not legalize them. There is a huge difference. Decriminalization essentially means that possession of small amounts of drugs is no longer an offense that warrants an arrest a…
> California, Colorado, New York and Oregon off the top of my head All decriminalization is not alike. In New York, for example, decriminalization is in in name only, because police can easily exploit a loophole that allows them to charge people with possession of more than an ounce (criminal) even if they only have a few grams (not criminal). Because of this, New York City arrests more people (per-capita and in tota…
In New York, the police will do a stop and frisk, tell people to empty their pockets, and then charge people with displaying the drug in public when they obey the order to empty their pockets. Is this the loophole you mean? Or is your loophole a different one?
Re: Time to end the war on drugs
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uh, you might want to look up the word "literally". I don't even find them terribly similar.
Parts are word for word identical. In school, this would be rightly be called plagiarism and probably get you in a lot of trouble. Not the point here, obviously, but sloppy nonetheless.
I clearly didn't read close enough, there are absolutely full sentences lifted from the referenced article. I would never be caught dead doing something so silly, certainly not in such a public and (seemingly) outspoken capacity.
Re: Time to end the war on drugs
#86One has to remember that Portugal did not completely legalize drugs. Possession of small amounts and usage were legalized. Dealing is still a big crime there, due to the citizens of Portugal not wanting to be akin the worlds drug den. The different viewpoint of legalizing usage was that it is a medical problem, and not a evil crime. Even that said, Portugal also made their problems less severe by bringing them out in…
Hey, sorry I downvoted you when the post was just "O". The lack of a socialised healthcare system is actually a boon in this case, since the state is basically getting rid of a large cost (funding the police work on the war on drugs) without creating another cost (since patients then have to pay for themselves). Isn't it?
No, it isn't. In Portugal, the healthcare system is free.
Re: Time to end the war on drugs
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
> California, Colorado, New York and Oregon off the top of my head All decriminalization is not alike. In New York, for example, decriminalization is in in name only, because police can easily exploit a loophole that allows them to charge people with possession of more than an ounce (criminal) even if they only have a few grams (not criminal). Because of this, New York City arrests more people (per-capita and in tota…
In New York, the police will do a stop and frisk, tell people to empty their pockets, and then charge people with displaying the drug in public when they obey the order to empty their pockets. Is this the loophole you mean? Or is your loophole a different one?
More or less. There are other variations on how to exploit the same clause in the law, but basically, marijuana that is 'open to public view or burning' can be prosecuted as if it is 28+ grams, regardless of the actual amount.
The history behind how New York's marijuana decriminalization and this loophole came to pass, especially in contrast to the Rockefeller drug laws, is actually a rather fascinating example of the sheer racial/socioeconomic hypocrisy within US drug laws.
Re: Time to end the war on drugs
#88There seems to be a lot of confusion on this thread about exactly what Portugal did, and the ramifications for the U.S. in terms of time-frame and difficulty. What Portugal did was decriminalize the possession of small amounts of drugs. They did not legalize them. There is a huge difference. Decriminalization essentially means that possession of small amounts of drugs is no longer an offense that warrants an arrest a…
Actually what Portugal did was much more profound than just changing the law: They reformed their system to treat drugs as a health issue rather than a criminal issue. That also changed the perception of the society towards the issue.
In the US even though in some states marijuana is decriminalized, drugs are still treated as a criminal issue.
Re: Time to end the war on drugs
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Replace "out of the job" with "back on jobs that actually further the best interests of the public", and your post starts to make sense.
All those other in-demand jobs that are available right now, that just can't meet the supply? Let see ... there is the $3/hour farm hand shortage going around in a few states. Or do you mean all the new jobs that are going to be created, you know, just-like-that? For which they'll be re-trained, just-like-that? For which they'll get the same pay/benefits, just-like-that?
The premise of the original post in this thread is fatally flawed – the livelihood of law enforcement, corrections officers, judges, lawyers, and everyone else does not depend on putting personal drug users in prison. They can keep their jobs, and put their talents to use on matters that actually benefit the public's best interests.
Re: Time to end the war on drugs
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bureaucratic issues aside, it does seem, on the surface, absurd that we can't just view the money spent fighting the War on Drugs as part of a big bucket that we could instead just pour all over medical treatment. Tossing the bureaucratic issues aside seems the larger problem.
I agree wholeheartedly. Viewing drug usage as a medical problem and funding free treatment seems to be a no brainer. That pesky problem seems to go back to Congress. I can just imagine the headlines: "Senator Blabla wants to release druggies who solicit behind YOUR KIDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL!!!!" Citizens already appear to want harsher and harsher punishments for crimes. And then is the open question about what we do wit…
"I agree wholeheartedly. Viewing drug usage as a medical problem and funding free treatment seems to be a no brainer. That pesky problem seems to go back to Congress."
How is drug usage a "medical" problem? It's a personal choice. Most addicts aren't born addicted and they make the choice to pick up that first joint.
I don't want to make it easier to be a drug addict in this country. Especially at my expense.