The War on Drugs has Failed

Remove all ads!

So says a report by the Global Commission on Drug Policy. And a decision that should have been realized decades ago. The Commission has several US members, including former Reagan Cabinet member Geroge Schultz.

Most telling:

Link.

 

I agree. I think of all of the countless lives and billions of dollars wasted. You would have thought that after prohibition we would have figured this out. If you make it legal and tax the **** out of it (like we do for cigarettes and alcohol) it will wipe out the criminal element of drugs, free up the prisons and courts, and I can't help but believe improve things.

 

Here in my neck of the woods, the province of Alberta, and in particular my city of Edmonton is considering opening a safe injection site for heroin users. It'll be the second in Canada, the first being currently located in Vancouver.

This'll piss off the American law enforcement bodies no end!

 

Can't imagine that will do much for property values in the area either.

"Oh, and here's where all the heroin addicts hang out and practice their "hobby" in a safe and sane manner."

"Oh gee honey, the heroin addicts in this area are responsible. We should definitely move into the neighborhood!"

 

I doubt it. More than likely they'll start encouraging the drug users to go to Canada -- you can deal with it.

 

In the US we actually have places where they give out a drug that's like heroin in its effects, but it isn't actually heroin - I forget the name of the articifical heroin, but such clinics are the basis of the song "Hotel California". And they are completely legal. I don't see a safe injection site being any more or less offensive.

 

Unless I'm mistaken, I believe he was referring to Methadone, Montresor.

 

That's it - methadone. I couldn't think of the name for some reason - we have legal methadone clinics in the US. So I don't think that cops are going to get angry with Canadians when we have a comparable thing in the US. One point of note - while methadone has a similar bodily effect as heroin, the thinking is that since it isn't addictive, you can break the heroin user's habit by having him use methadone instead. The results are mixed, but unfortunately for many, it doesn't work. They just become methadone users instead of heroin users.

 

We have had methadone for a while here in Canada. And I agree that some similarities exist. There are some differences which bother some people, and to be honest I'm not sure how I feel about it right now. Here goes!

1: The methadone is administered via a doctor's prescription under controlled circumstances. It's purpose is to wean the user off harder, illegal drugs.

2: It is my understanding that the safe injection sites supply clean needles and a somewhat sanitary location to shoot up, but the heroin is NOT supplied. In other words, the use brings in his illegally purchased heroin for use. No prescriptions or quality controls are in place. I'm pretty sure I'm right on this -- I'll have to double check my facts and get back to you all.

The thing is this -- drug users often commit crimes in order to finance their addiction. They steal, rob, and sell their bodies in order to get the money to finance their fixes. Now, stealing is wrong, and regardless of the addictions a person may have, it doesn't give them the right to take the property of others who have obtained that property through hard work, sacrifice, and legal means (in other words, they bought that stuff fair and square.)

These sites then encourage the use of a drug that was likely purchased illegally and with stolen funds. As a citizen, I don't think it's right that we should be making it easier for criminals to profit off of stealing from me or my fellow hardworking, law abiding citizens.

However, if the government provides the heroin, ensuring quality, then that removes the need for the criminals to steal from me. Instead, the government takes money from me to finance their habit. Still not ideal, but at least I see the government coming and they are not likely to leave broken windows or dead bodies behind them when they appropriate the resources for the drug use.

So as of now, my thought is this -- if such a safe injection site can demonstrate that its presence in the community is contributing to a reduction of violent crime in the community, then I'm all for it. If the crime rate stays the same, then what benefit is it to the community at large? Keeping the drug users alive so they can steal more from us is kind of a silly policy.

 

Well, it still keeps money - theirs, and if they turn to stealing anyone else's - out of the pockets of organized crime. A lot of the most dangerous criminal groups have made their fortunes selling what the state proscribes, and use it to corrupt the state and commit other crimes, harming honest people in other ways as well. Reducing the junkies' reliance on them means less money for them to bribe cops and politicians, hire hitmen, or funnel into other criminal ventures. Also, I doubt many people want to execute any junkie who breaks in someone's office and steals from it - so they'd have to be imprisoned. That can end up costing no less than the rehab programs. I'm curious - what percentage of the people currently in US or Canadian prisons are there for drug-related crimes?

As for marijuana, I think we're better off decriminalizing it and keeping it under close watch (and high tax, like tobacco). It's cheaper, and from what I know most people who every now and then smoke pot can function well enough in society (like most who occasionally drink). Right now we are wasting everyone's money, the police's time, and their lives by making them criminals for no other reason that they smoke something else than most others.

 

I've heard varying figures, but most of them state that it's nearly half of all US people in prison are there for drug related crimes, and more than half of those (so roughly 1/4 of all inmates) are in for a marijuana related crime. That's one of the biggest reasons I'm for legalizing pot - 1/4 of all criminals there for MJ? Probably not worth the cost, especially since over-crowding in prisons is considered such a problem.

 

A question (maybe off-discussion, but not off-topic): long ago, I heard that the 80% of (illegal) US drug shipments enters the USA in Miami. Is this still true?

 

I don't know if it's true, but I would be surprised if it was. I believe that we get a signficant portion of our drugs from Mexico, more than 20%. I'm no expert on this, however.

This article is interesting. It claims that 80% of Meth in the US enters from Mexico.

And this. Of particular note:

And

 

While I doubt it's still true - for reasons already outlined by Marceror - it wouldn't surprise me at all if it were true at one time, like back in the 1980s or 1990s. (And since you said you heard this a long time ago perhaps it was true at the time.)

Mexico has never been a low drug trafficking zone, but the real explosion you've seen has happened relatively recently. Going back to the 80s and 90s, most of the drugs coming in the US were coming from Caribbean and South American nations - most notably Columbia. As such, the drugs arrived in the US by ships most commonly, and southern Florida would be a logical landing spot. The ships were usually small ships, and they usually arrived at night, when the chances of being detected by the Coast Guard and such were the least.

 

Legalizing drugs is a bad idea. Most drugs anyway. Pot maybe, it isn't as damaging as Heroin or Crack. I found smoking a joint to be less satisfying than having a drink to tell the truth. SO I see no point in having pot illegal. I never heard of someone who got so messed up on pot that they went on a killing rampage. Heroin onteh other hand could do this. When I was a teen I tried a couple "lines" as well as acid, didn't like that lack of control from acid, coke jsut makes you race hard. I wouldn't recommend legalizing it either.

But won't we be opening up Pandora's box when it ocmes to the side-effects. If it's legal and someone commits a crime, will they now have a shield to hide behind???? Also, when their bodies rapidly decline from drug usage, who is going to foot the medical bills. I don't want my tax dollars going there....

 

Many risky procedures won't be performed on 'at risks' such as alcoholics or recreational drug users. Making it legal also means health providers can turn around and refuse service on those grounds at least. Drug interaction and long term damage are viable reasons to turn people away and hiding relevant medical information is also grounds for hospitals being absolved of responsibility, however accusing a person of consuming illegal drugs is still frowned upon