Post: #226

(01-06-2017 06:44 AM)Pride male Wrote:  It is illegal to smoke pot because the state cannot tax you.

And because the majority of the community, (correctly in my opinion), see weed as an escapist drug that weakens the user's productivity and ambition, leading him to become a burden on the state in either middle or old age.

Post: #227

(01-06-2017 02:26 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 06:44 AM)Pride male Wrote:  It is illegal to smoke pot because the state cannot tax you.

And because the majority of the community, (correctly in my opinion), see weed as an escapist drug that weakens the user's productivity and ambition, leading him to become a burden on the state in either middle or old age.

This type of argument is not much different from the thoroughly debunked anti drug propaganda of weed as a "gateway drug".

Aside from being wrong about the majority, I believe you confuse cause and effect here, at least as far as this being the state's rationale for prohibition is concerned. Middle aged bums aren't lazy and unproductive because they smoke. They smoke because they are lazy and looking for an easy release. They'd just turn to booze or some other vice in weeds place. They weren't going to be doing anything productive anyways.

Post: #228

Proven dealers of the deadliest drugs should be executed by lethal injection. Mob leaders, middlemen, I don't care. The vectors of crime will be physically destroyed. Over time, this legal behaviorial conditioning will teach normal people to actively associate heroin and cocaine with death (much in the same way that people in totalitarian states associate political dissent with punishment and thus seek to avoid it) and the drug abuse will end.

Post: #229

Do places that implement the death penalty for drugs have a severe drug problem? Does the death penalty help?

Post: #230

Actually what works really well is the Singapore method, namely, corporal punishment. In Singapore jails, they tie the little darlings down in front of all the other inmates and beat them with bamboo canes. It's tremendously effective. The little fuckers NEVER want to go back to jail. Singapore has a near-zero crime rate. And they say it's not the pain that deters them, but rather the embarrassment of being whupped in front of all their mates. So humiliating. I fully endorse this method.

Post: #231

(01-06-2017 04:03 PM)JackStraw Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 02:26 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 06:44 AM)Pride male Wrote:  It is illegal to smoke pot because the state cannot tax you.

And because the majority of the community, (correctly in my opinion), see weed as an escapist drug that weakens the user's productivity and ambition, leading him to become a burden on the state in either middle or old age.

This type of argument is not much different from the thoroughly debunked anti drug propaganda of weed as a "gateway drug".

Aside from being wrong about the majority, I believe you confuse cause and effect here, at least as far as this being the state's rationale for prohibition is concerned. Middle aged bums aren't lazy and unproductive because they smoke. They smoke because they are lazy and looking for an easy release. They'd just turn to booze or some other vice in weeds place. They weren't going to be doing anything productive anyways.

You can probably tell that I've had this drug policy discussion before, many times. I was expecting you to appeal to my humanity by referencing the drug user's humanity. Something like, "All lives are sacred under God." or "Just because someone uses drugs doesn't mean they forfeit their humanity."

But, to my joyous surprise, you went total opposite.

If drug users are irreedemably unproductive (as you've asserted), then there's no reason to have any sympathy for drug users. Indeed, we use the phrase VIRTUE SIGNALING to lampoon those who knowingly back failed causes - especially when their support is just verbal, while they demand more serious commitments from others.

But it's also true that there's no reason NOT to beat the crap out of drug users, either. After all, it's not like they're going to be more productive if you don't regularly beat the crap out of them. So beating up drug users can never be an expression of hopeful reform through violence.

This means that Ghost Tiger and I have been lying to ourselves for months! Our bimonthly secret meetings where we stomp on homeless drug users was hatched via PM, and marketed as a way to cure drug use. Meanwhile, you've proven that our methods can't possibly help do this, and can only be a way to assault people who don't matter, and will never matter, because they'll never change.

This knowledge is somewhat saddening, but maybe we can find joy in assaulting those who can never change, because they can never change. New motto, "If nothing of value is lost, and it makes me feel better..."

Post: #232

Post: #233

(01-07-2017 12:10 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 04:03 PM)JackStraw Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 02:26 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 06:44 AM)Pride male Wrote:  It is illegal to smoke pot because the state cannot tax you.

And because the majority of the community, (correctly in my opinion), see weed as an escapist drug that weakens the user's productivity and ambition, leading him to become a burden on the state in either middle or old age.

This type of argument is not much different from the thoroughly debunked anti drug propaganda of weed as a "gateway drug".

Aside from being wrong about the majority, I believe you confuse cause and effect here, at least as far as this being the state's rationale for prohibition is concerned. Middle aged bums aren't lazy and unproductive because they smoke. They smoke because they are lazy and looking for an easy release. They'd just turn to booze or some other vice in weeds place. They weren't going to be doing anything productive anyways.

If drug users are irreedemably unproductive (as you've asserted), then there's no reason to have any sympathy for drug users. Indeed, we use the phrase VIRTUE SIGNALING to lampoon those who knowingly back failed causes - especially when their support is just verbal, while they demand more serious commitments from others.

Actually, you are the one who described drug users as "a burden on the state". Just like the gateway drug argumenet that smoking leads to hard drug use, you say smoking leads to users "becoming a burden on the state" in old age. It's the same stupid fallacy. I know you aren't that dense though

Post: #234

I used to be a full-retard libertarian until I realised it was every bit as fanciful as full-retard communism. Perhaps even more so.

How do you decriminalise drug use without first decriminalising self defence by any means?

How do you untagle my obligations to fund socialist health care against the right.of a junkie to get new internal organs when his "choices" destroy his body by age 35?
Unscramble an egg. THEN tell me how to fix drug laws in a way that protects everyone equally.

Post: #235

After pondering over this question, including in this thread I made, I have come to the conclusion that supporting cannabis being made legal and complaining about the decline of the West is hypocritical.

Post: #236

(01-07-2017 01:03 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I used to be a full-retard libertarian until I realised it was every bit as fanciful as full-retard communism. Perhaps even more so.

How do you decriminalise drug use without first decriminalising self defence by any means?

How do you untagle my obligations to fund socialist health care against the right.of a junkie to get new internal organs when his "choices" destroy his body by age 35?
Unscramble an egg. THEN tell me how to fix drug laws in a way that protects everyone equally.

Exactly Leonard. I'm glad you used the word "untangle". It's a Shrodinger's Cat scenario. Schrodinger coined the word "Verschränkung" (entanglement).

In this case, the junkie is the cat, and his binary states, like the cat's being alive or dead, are "accountable" and "not accountable". Just like there are no partial states of death in reality, there are no partial states of accountability. Ergo, Shrodinger's experiment is a "thought experiment" because it can never be conducted in reality. And neither can the legalization of drugs. Once the cat is dead, it's fucking dead. God rest its mighty soul. Once the addict wants off the fun train prior to the last stop, he becomes a burden on the community. Incidentally, Roosh's infamous "legalize rape" article is similarly a "thought experiment", and a damn good one at that.

All this talk of legalization of drugs is just a bunch of "Shrodingering" The addict is either accountable or he's not. I say he is. Anyone who says he's not... is a socialist.

Incidentally, this also explains clearly why we can't let women vote. Because voters will to be held accountable for the consequences of their voting by the economy, foreign nations, nature, God Himself, etc. And like Jack Nicholson's author character in "A Few Good Men" said when asked how he wrote female characters so well, "I think of a man, then I take away reason and accountability."

(01-07-2017 04:08 AM)britchard Wrote:  After pondering over this question, including in this thread I made, I have come to the conclusion that supporting cannabis being made legal and complaining about the decline of the West is hypocritical.

Aw hell, you done fucked up and joined a gang now britchard! MMX2010 and I will get your membership card, jack-boots, bamboo cane, and body-cavity search kit to you in the mail forthwith. Welcome aboard!

Post: #237

(01-07-2017 10:04 AM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  All this talk of legalization of drugs is just a bunch of "Shrodingering" The addict is either accountable or he's not. I say he is. Anyone who says he's not... is a socialist.

LIGHT is either a WAVE or a PARTICLE and anyone who says otherwise is a COMMIE!!! Right? RIGHT? RIGHT???

Dismissed.

Post: #238

(01-07-2017 10:33 AM)A.S Wrote:  

(01-07-2017 10:04 AM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  All this talk of legalization of drugs is just a bunch of "Shrodingering" The addict is either accountable or he's not. I say he is. Anyone who says he's not... is a socialist.

LIGHT is either a WAVE or a PARTICLE and anyone who says otherwise is a COMMIE!!! Right? RIGHT? RIGHT???

Dismissed.

Lower the dose sweet-heart.

Post: #239

(01-07-2017 10:35 AM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  Lower the dose sweet-heart.

I am glad you see straight into my sweet heart. Thank you, AMIGO.

Post: #240

Yeah, "untagle".

*sigh* Ugh.

I hate spelling errors, which is why I should stop posting from a shitty phone with a broken screen.

Post: #241

(01-05-2017 11:49 AM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  The argument that the prohibition on illicit drugs will lead to other ridiculous prohibitions is absurd. The drugs are currently prohibited. The ridiculous prohibitions are not forthcoming. Find another line of argument. This one has failed. Miserably.

(01-04-2017 07:02 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  By the way, I totally agree with you that no one owes any drug addict help before that last stop. And committing crimes should lead to loss of access and reputation in any given community (and any other repercussions according to the crime).

Everyone should own up to the responsibility of their actions.

But they don't. No one rides the fun train to the last stop. And we're not going to descend into unalloyed barbarism merely because some people find libertarian philosophy to be intellectually seductive. You know what else was intellectually seductive? Communism. See Holodomor.

I'm not making the case that more extreme prohibitions are coming. I'm making the case that the current (ridiculous) drug prohibition is similar to the past alcohol prohibition with its gangs and escalated violence -- as an unintended consequence of drug laws meant to "protect" non-drug users.

Do you really believe that the primary cause of the horrors of Communism came simply because it was intellectually seductive?

How about the fact that it:
- is subject to the economic calculation problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_c...on_problem
- removes profit incentives to work or produce
- centralizes power in the hands of the planners while removing the feedback mechanisms from their decisions

Those (and probably a hatred for provincials / Ukrainians) are some of the main things that caused Holodomor.

As you say, there are no atheists in a foxhole, and I doubt there are too many true believers seduced by fanciful ideas when their bellies have been empty for a week.

And to Leonard's point about "decriminalize drug use without first decriminalizing self defence"... I agree. It makes sense to secure unrestricted self defence first.

So why can't we advocate and hope for both, in that order? You guys just find it totally untenable, or there is some other ideological reason?

Post: #242

(01-07-2017 03:08 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  Do you really believe that the primary cause of the horrors of Communism came simply because it was intellectually seductive?

No. The horrors came for the reasons you mentioned, which were very good and very interesting by the way. The communism itself came because it was intellectually seductive to academics like Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky, and I dare say that even Lenin and Trotsky didn't see the horrors coming, because they were too busy being intellectually seduced by all their own masturbatory Marxist Shrodingering. Libertarianism is similarly intellectually seductive to academics like John Stuart Mill and Ron Paul. What I'm saying is that I'm not agreeing to the implementation of libertarianism, regardless of how much Shrodingering you do, because I (and Theodore Dalrymple and MMX2010) predict a catastrophe will follow. Once the cat is dead, it's fucking dead. For a preview, you can see a bunch of really dead cats in Vancouver's DTES.

(01-07-2017 03:08 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  And to Leonard's point about "decriminalize drug use without first decriminalizing self defence"... I agree. It makes sense to secure unrestricted self defence first.

So why can't we advocate and hope for both, in that order? You guys just find it totally untenable, or there is some other ideological reason?

First of all, you can't have unrestricted self-defense. As we've already hashed out above in the thread, crazy junkies should lose their privilege to own firearms. What you're arguing is that everyone should walk around armed to the teeth so that the junkies will be too afraid to mug someone for crack money. What we need is less junkies, not more self-defense privileges. Our reasons are not ideological. That's what Leonard lucidly observed above. Our reasons are pragmatic. We are your reality check.

"Y'all smoke that shit to escape from reality? I am reality."

- Staff Sgt. Barnes
"Platoon"

Post: #243

Kofi Annan makes an excellent argument in his essay:

Why I’m Calling to End the War on Drugs

Quote:In my experience, good public policy is best shaped by the dispassionate analysis of what in practice has worked, or not. Policy based on common assumptions and popular sentiments can become a recipe for mistaken prescriptions and misguided interventions.

Nowhere is this divorce between rhetoric and reality more evident than in the formulation of global drug policies, where too often emotions and ideology rather than evidence have prevailed.

Take the case of the medical use of cannabis. By looking carefully at the evidence from the United States, we now know that legalizing the use of cannabis for medical purposes has not, as opponents argued, led to an increase in its use by teenagers. By contrast, there has been a near tripling of American deaths from heroin overdoses between 2010 and 2013, even though the law and its severe punishments remain unchanged.

This year, between April 19 and 21, the United Nations General Assembly will hold a special session on drugs and the world will have a chance to change course. As we approach that event, we need to ask ourselves if we are on the right policy path. More specifically, how do we deal with what the United

Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has called the “unintended consequences” of the policies of the last 50 years, which have helped, among other things, to create a vast, international criminal market in drugs that fuels violence, corruption and instability? Just think of the 16,000 murders in Mexico in 2013, many of which are directly linked to drug trafficking.


A War on the People

Globally, the “war on drugs” has not succeeded. Some estimate that enforcing global prohibition costs at least $100 billion (€90.7 billion) a year, but as many as 300 million people now use drugs worldwide, contributing to a global illicit market with a turnover of $330 billion a year, one of the largest commodity markets in the world.

Prohibition has had little impact on the supply of or demand for drugs. When law enforcement succeeds in one area, drug production simply moves to another region or country, drug trafficking moves to another route and drug users switch to a different drug. Nor has prohibition significantly reduced use. Studies have consistently failed to establish the existence of a link between the harshness of a country’s drug laws and its levels of drug use. The widespread criminalization and punishment of people who use drugs, the over­crowded prisons, mean that the war on drugs is, to a significant degree, a war on drug users ­­ a war on people.

Africa is sadly an example of these problems. The West Africa Commission on Drugs, which my foundation convened, reported last year that the region has now become not only a major transit point between producers in Latin America and consumers in Europe, but an area where consumption is increasing. Drug money, and the criminality associated with it, is fostering corruption and violence. The stability of countries and the region as a whole is under threat.
I believe that drugs have destroyed many lives, but wrong government policies have destroyed many more. We all want to protect our families from the potential harm of drugs. But if our children do develop a drug problem, surely we will want them cared for as patients in need of treatment and not branded as criminals.


Stop Stigmatizing and Start Helping

The tendency in many parts of the world to stigmatize and incarcerate drug users has prevented many from seeking medical treatment. In what other areas of public health do we criminalize patients in need of help? Punitive measures have sent many people to prison, where their drug use has worsened.

A criminal record for a young person for a minor drug offense can be a far greater threat to their wellbeing than occasional drug use. The original intent of drug policy, according to the UN Convention on Narcotic Drugs, was to protect the “health and welfare of mankind.” We need to refocus international and national policy on this key objective.

This requires us to take four critical steps.

First, we must decriminalize personal drug use. The use of drugs is harmful and reducing those harms is a task for the public health system, not the courts. This must be coupled with the strengthening of treatment services, especially in middle and low­ income countries.

Second, we need to accept that a drug­-free world is an illusion. We must focus instead on ensuring that drugs cause the least possible harm. Harm reduction measures, such as needle exchange programs, can make a real difference. Germany adopted such measures early on and the level of HIV infections among injecting drug users is close to 5 percent, compared to over 40 percent in some countries which resist this pragmatic approach.

Third, we have to look at regulation and public education rather than the total suppression of drugs, which we know will not work. The steps taken successfully to reduce tobacco consumption (a very powerful and damaging addiction) show what can be achieved. It is regulation and education, not the threat of prison, which has cut the number of smokers in many countries. Higher taxes, restrictions on sale and effective anti­-smoking campaigns have delivered the right results.

The legal sale of cannabis is a reality that started with California legalizing the sale of cannabis for medical use in 1996. Since then, 22 U.S. states and some European countries have followed suit. Others have gone further still. A voter initiative which gained a majority at the ballot box has caused Colorado to legalize the sale of cannabis for recreational use. Last year, Colorado collected around $135 million in taxes and license fees related to legal cannabis sales. Others have taken less commercial routes. Users of Spain’s cannabis social clubs can grow and buy cannabis through small noncommercial organizations. And Canada looks likely to become the first G7 country to regulate the sale of cannabis next year.


Legal Regulation Protects Health

Initial trends show us that where cannabis has been legalized, there has been no explosion in drug use or drug­ related crime. The size of the black market has been reduced and thousands of young people have been spared criminal records. But a regulated market is not a free market. We need to carefully think through what needs regulating, and what does not. While most cannabis use is occasional, moderate and not associated with significant problems, it is nonetheless precisely because of its potential risks that it needs to be regulated.

And therefore, the fourth and final step, is to recognize that drugs must be regulated precisely because they are risky. It is time to acknowledge that drugs are infinitely more dangerous if they are left solely in the hands of criminals who have no concerns about health and safety. Legal regulation protects health. Consumers need to be aware of what they are taking and have clear information on health risks and how to minimize them. Governments need to be able to regulate vendors and outlets according to how much harm a drug can cause. The most risky drugs should never be available “over the counter” but only via medical prescription for people registered as dependent users, as is already happening in Switzerland.

Scientific evidence and our concern for health and human rights must shape drug policy. This means making sure that fewer people die from drug overdoses and that small-­time offenders do not end up in jail where their drug problems get worse. It is time for a smarter, health­-based approach to drug policy. It is time for countries, such as Germany, which have adopted better policies at home, to strongly advocate for policy change abroad. The United Nations General Assembly special session on the world drug problem would be a good place to start.

Post: #244

(01-07-2017 03:08 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  ...
And to Leonard's point about "decriminalize drug use without first decriminalizing self defence"... I agree. It makes sense to secure unrestricted self defence first.

So why can't we advocate and hope for both, in that order? You guys just find it totally untenable, or there is some other ideological reason?

No. It's simply the case that the vast majority of governments, liberal and conservative alike, are hostile to anything that puts power in the hands of citizens and positive toward anything that puts power in the hands of the state, even if that power is the power to "fix" shit (with the generous application of your tax money of course).

So if we're dumb enough to fight for the decriminalisation of drugs AND self defence then the government will shake our hand on drugs, fuck us on self defence and tell us "well you got 50% of what you wanted, and that's reasonable, right?

Of course the reality is that you're now fucked worse than ever.

So, no. It's not tenable to argue for both, because it's all the in the domain of the "fantasy land societal do-over".

p.s. I recognise you used the term "in that order" but that would imply that nobody is even going to bring up drug decriminalisation prior to securing self defence by any means, as the government uses what "grass roots support" it can, wherever it finds it.

Gathering consensus on an issue is by definition granting a license to politicians.

Also the idea that the only two issues in play are drug and self defence laws ignores my previous post. There's also medicine, welfare and even public decency in play. How do you propose to fix all of those competing issues BEFORE you let the genie of drug decriminalisation out of the bottle?

Post: #245

(01-07-2017 08:29 PM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  Kofi Annan makes an excellent argument in his essay:

Why I’m Calling to End the War on Drugs

Quote:I am a big fat globalist shill at the head of the largest public globalist organisation in the history of mankind and if you trust a single word that comes out of my mouth then you need to have your head checked. (quote paraphrased by Leonard)

'Bout sum it up, Mr first post UN SecGen quote man?

Post: #246

(01-07-2017 08:52 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(01-07-2017 08:29 PM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  Kofi Annan makes an excellent argument in his essay:

Why I’m Calling to End the War on Drugs

Quote:I am a big fat globalist shill at the head of the largest public globalist organisation in the history of mankind and if you trust a single word that comes out of my mouth then you need to have your head checked. (quote paraphrased by Leonard)

'Bout sum it up, Mr first post UN SecGen quote man?

...troll?

Post: #247

(01-07-2017 03:08 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  So why can't we advocate and hope for both, in that order? You guys just find it totally untenable, or there is some other ideological reason?

I'll build up to my answer with a response to the slippery slope argument. Liberals always declare that cracking down on one thing will lead to a slippery slope of controlling measures, but they get that exactly backwards. Slippery slopes exist all the time, but only regarding permissiveness.

If I time-traveled to the year 1941 on an American World War 2 submarine, I'm sure the first questions would be about the war. But then objections would come as follows.

Surely, America won't allow Black men to marry White women. (We do, and we have tons of commercials featuring mixed races couples.)

Surely, America won't tolerate single mothers. (We do, and we pay them more money (welfare) based on how many children they have.)

Surely, America won't countenance same-sex marriage. (We do, and we use taxpayer money to support gay pride parades.)

Surely, America won't allow millions of illegals to flood the country.

Surely, America won't suppress criticism of a religion that instructs its followers to rape non-believers - especially not after two straight New Year's celebrations involving organized sexual assault of hundreds of White European women.

Except all of these happened, and the response is always a detached sigh and a wistful "Why bother?" This is often followed by the ridiculous argument that I parodied in my last post, "It's inevitable that such events were going to occur. So why not just give in to the inevitable?"

I'm not as smart as Anonymous Bosch, but I think that when you begin with the assumption that certain social failures are inevitable, you end up with a generalized malaise that makes consistent ambitious striving nearly impossible. Rather difficult to work out consistently, approach consistently, and work consistently when its all hopeless, right? And if you can't bring hope to the world, then the only solution is something cheap that brings back simulation - hey, look! I'm describing drugs!

So we can't have a compromise between permissive liberals and self-defending conservatives, because the permissiveness that fuels pro-drug policies is the same permissiveness that fuels all other permissiveness.

The slippery slope is on the permissive side, not my side.

Post: #248

(01-07-2017 09:11 PM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  ...troll?

No, dude.

Did you even read the article? You posted the article without commenting on what you think is great about it.

Post: #249

(01-07-2017 08:29 PM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  Kofi Annan makes an excellent argument in his essay:

Why I’m Calling to End the War on Drugs

Quote:In my experience, good public policy is best shaped by the dispassionate analysis of what in practice has worked, or not. Policy based on common assumptions and popular sentiments can become a recipe for mistaken prescriptions and misguided interventions.

Nowhere is this divorce between rhetoric and reality more evident than in the formulation of global drug policies, where too often emotions and ideology rather than evidence have prevailed.

Take the case of the medical use of cannabis. By looking carefully at the evidence from the United States, we now know that legalizing the use of cannabis for medical purposes has not, as opponents argued, led to an increase in its use by teenagers. By contrast, there has been a near tripling of American deaths from heroin overdoses between 2010 and 2013, even though the law and its severe punishments remain unchanged.

This year, between April 19 and 21, the United Nations General Assembly will hold a special session on drugs and the world will have a chance to change course. As we approach that event, we need to ask ourselves if we are on the right policy path. More specifically, how do we deal with what the United

Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has called the “unintended consequences” of the policies of the last 50 years, which have helped, among other things, to create a vast, international criminal market in drugs that fuels violence, corruption and instability? Just think of the 16,000 murders in Mexico in 2013, many of which are directly linked to drug trafficking.


A War on the People

Globally, the “war on drugs” has not succeeded. Some estimate that enforcing global prohibition costs at least $100 billion (€90.7 billion) a year, but as many as 300 million people now use drugs worldwide, contributing to a global illicit market with a turnover of $330 billion a year, one of the largest commodity markets in the world.

Prohibition has had little impact on the supply of or demand for drugs. When law enforcement succeeds in one area, drug production simply moves to another region or country, drug trafficking moves to another route and drug users switch to a different drug. Nor has prohibition significantly reduced use. Studies have consistently failed to establish the existence of a link between the harshness of a country’s drug laws and its levels of drug use. The widespread criminalization and punishment of people who use drugs, the over­crowded prisons, mean that the war on drugs is, to a significant degree, a war on drug users ­­ a war on people.

Africa is sadly an example of these problems. The West Africa Commission on Drugs, which my foundation convened, reported last year that the region has now become not only a major transit point between producers in Latin America and consumers in Europe, but an area where consumption is increasing. Drug money, and the criminality associated with it, is fostering corruption and violence. The stability of countries and the region as a whole is under threat.
I believe that drugs have destroyed many lives, but wrong government policies have destroyed many more. We all want to protect our families from the potential harm of drugs. But if our children do develop a drug problem, surely we will want them cared for as patients in need of treatment and not branded as criminals.


Stop Stigmatizing and Start Helping

The tendency in many parts of the world to stigmatize and incarcerate drug users has prevented many from seeking medical treatment. In what other areas of public health do we criminalize patients in need of help? Punitive measures have sent many people to prison, where their drug use has worsened.

A criminal record for a young person for a minor drug offense can be a far greater threat to their wellbeing than occasional drug use. The original intent of drug policy, according to the UN Convention on Narcotic Drugs, was to protect the “health and welfare of mankind.” We need to refocus international and national policy on this key objective.

This requires us to take four critical steps.

First, we must decriminalize personal drug use. The use of drugs is harmful and reducing those harms is a task for the public health system, not the courts. This must be coupled with the strengthening of treatment services, especially in middle and low­ income countries.

Second, we need to accept that a drug­-free world is an illusion. We must focus instead on ensuring that drugs cause the least possible harm. Harm reduction measures, such as needle exchange programs, can make a real difference. Germany adopted such measures early on and the level of HIV infections among injecting drug users is close to 5 percent, compared to over 40 percent in some countries which resist this pragmatic approach.

Third, we have to look at regulation and public education rather than the total suppression of drugs, which we know will not work. The steps taken successfully to reduce tobacco consumption (a very powerful and damaging addiction) show what can be achieved. It is regulation and education, not the threat of prison, which has cut the number of smokers in many countries. Higher taxes, restrictions on sale and effective anti­-smoking campaigns have delivered the right results.

The legal sale of cannabis is a reality that started with California legalizing the sale of cannabis for medical use in 1996. Since then, 22 U.S. states and some European countries have followed suit. Others have gone further still. A voter initiative which gained a majority at the ballot box has caused Colorado to legalize the sale of cannabis for recreational use. Last year, Colorado collected around $135 million in taxes and license fees related to legal cannabis sales. Others have taken less commercial routes. Users of Spain’s cannabis social clubs can grow and buy cannabis through small noncommercial organizations. And Canada looks likely to become the first G7 country to regulate the sale of cannabis next year.


Legal Regulation Protects Health

Initial trends show us that where cannabis has been legalized, there has been no explosion in drug use or drug­ related crime. The size of the black market has been reduced and thousands of young people have been spared criminal records. But a regulated market is not a free market. We need to carefully think through what needs regulating, and what does not. While most cannabis use is occasional, moderate and not associated with significant problems, it is nonetheless precisely because of its potential risks that it needs to be regulated.

And therefore, the fourth and final step, is to recognize that drugs must be regulated precisely because they are risky. It is time to acknowledge that drugs are infinitely more dangerous if they are left solely in the hands of criminals who have no concerns about health and safety. Legal regulation protects health. Consumers need to be aware of what they are taking and have clear information on health risks and how to minimize them. Governments need to be able to regulate vendors and outlets according to how much harm a drug can cause. The most risky drugs should never be available “over the counter” but only via medical prescription for people registered as dependent users, as is already happening in Switzerland.

Scientific evidence and our concern for health and human rights must shape drug policy. This means making sure that fewer people die from drug overdoses and that small-­time offenders do not end up in jail where their drug problems get worse. It is time for a smarter, health­-based approach to drug policy. It is time for countries, such as Germany, which have adopted better policies at home, to strongly advocate for policy change abroad. The United Nations General Assembly special session on the world drug problem would be a good place to start.

You know what you can do with this text? Print it out on a soft paper and wipe your ass to it.
He completely manipulates argument. He talks about Germany dropping to 5% while others have still 40% regarding the needle exchange program. But the globalist stooge should have compared the percentage existing in Germany before and after the needle exchange program. To compare the two numbers. And see the effectiveness of the program. What if in Germany before the program the percentage was 2%. SHILL.

Post: #250

(01-07-2017 11:31 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(01-07-2017 09:11 PM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  ...troll?

No, dude.

Did you even read the article? You posted the article without commenting on what you think is great about it.

What I think is great about the article is that, in his essay he uses an evidence-based approach to assess the results of law enforcement, which legislators seem to regard much less than the passage of the law itself. Although I didn't think I needed to spell it out, my bad.