Global War On Drugs 'Has Failed' Say Former Leaders

[Barrister]

All of those are much less far-reaching than what you suggested.

I was interested in the last few words you quoted - my biggest concern about giving addicts an easy supply is that you make the drug more accessible to new users.

What I'm saying is that, in places where changes to the drug legislation have been attempted, actual evidence suggests that the evils that you are anticipating did not in fact occur - this, based on the latest study of exactly the question under discussion. Though of course I'm open to any facts that contradict this.

The problem here is that there is a huge asymmetry in the evidence - our model has been tried, and is a self-evident failure; other models have been tried, with better success. Why are we clinging to our failed model, when there is no hard evidence it works, and lots of hard evidence it doesn't? Why reject other models, which have been shown to have better outcomes? Sure, they ain't perfect, but they are better than what we do.

I reject, or at least demand further evidence, that "our model has been tried, and is a self-evident failure".

As with pretty much any crime, it will always exist.  Theft, murder, rape, have all existed for ages.

Some people will always demand intoxicants which are harmful to themselves and others.  The question is how best to manage that fact.  Is the best approach to let people have whatever intoxicants they want, and just try to minimize the harm?  I tend to disagree.

[Valmy]

I reject, or at least demand further evidence, that "our model has been tried, and is a self-evident failure".

One in eight prisoners in the US are in for pot possession costing us 1 billion annually.  These people are not dangerous and the imprisonment has clearly failed as a deterrent for pot use since we are one of the top nations in the world for pot use.  At the very least stop tossing people in jail for it.  Make them pay a freaking fine or something.  I want pot heads to fund the public treasury not drain it.

Though you Mary Jane loving canadians are ahead of us.  Is it hard to post there with so much smoke?

[Valmy]

Theft, murder, rape, have all existed for ages.

Um...at least have the honesty to compare it to other victimless crimes like gambling.  Don't be a douchebag.

[Barrister]

I reject, or at least demand further evidence, that "our model has been tried, and is a self-evident failure".

One in eight prisoners in the US are in for pot possession costing us 1 billion annually.  These people are not dangerous and the imprisonment has clearly failed as a deterrent for pot use since we are one of the top nations in the world for pot use.  At the very least stop tossing people in jail for it.  Make them pay a freaking fine or something.  I want pot heads to fund the public treasury not drain it.

Though you Mary Jane loving canadians are ahead of us.  Is it hard to post there with so much smoke?

In this country I have never, ever, seen someone get gaol for simple possession marijuana.

Simple possession will get a diversion on the first or even second offence, and a fine thereafter.

So does that mean our drug policy is succeeding?

[Barrister]

Theft, murder, rape, have all existed for ages.

Um...at least have the honesty to compare it to other victimless crimes like gambling.  Don't be a douchebag.

Who pissed in your cheerios?

[Valmy]

So does that mean our drug policy is succeeding?

It might mean ours is since we have a significantly lower rate of Marijuana use compared to Canada

Of course living in Austin nearly every single person I grew up with smoked dope and all ended up being successful, happy, married, contributers to society so maybe Canada wins here.

Edit: in all seriousness I wish the US would copy Canadian law here.  That sounds vastly superior.

[Valmy]

Who pissed in your cheerios?

Me?  I am in a good mood.

[Malthus]

All of those are much less far-reaching than what you suggested.

I was interested in the last few words you quoted - my biggest concern about giving addicts an easy supply is that you make the drug more accessible to new users.

What I'm saying is that, in places where changes to the drug legislation have been attempted, actual evidence suggests that the evils that you are anticipating did not in fact occur - this, based on the latest study of exactly the question under discussion. Though of course I'm open to any facts that contradict this.

The problem here is that there is a huge asymmetry in the evidence - our model has been tried, and is a self-evident failure; other models have been tried, with better success. Why are we clinging to our failed model, when there is no hard evidence it works, and lots of hard evidence it doesn't? Why reject other models, which have been shown to have better outcomes? Sure, they ain't perfect, but they are better than what we do.

I reject, or at least demand further evidence, that "our model has been tried, and is a self-evident failure".

As with pretty much any crime, it will always exist.  Theft, murder, rape, have all existed for ages.

Some people will always demand intoxicants which are harmful to themselves and others.  The question is how best to manage that fact.  Is the best approach to let people have whatever intoxicants they want, and just try to minimize the harm?  I tend to disagree.

What's your metric for "success"?

Is it money spent? Our system is an endless money pit, requiring expensive courts and prisions. Not to mention the costs of making prisioners out of some who might otherwise be taxpayers.

Is it preventing people from using drugs? Our system doesn't do that. The evidence demonstrates drug use is not really affected by criminalization - drugs remain readily available.

Is it reducing the human damage associated with drug use? Our system doesn't do that at all - in many ways, it increases the human damage, making addicts into criminals and getting 'em to take street crap that can kill them.

Is it reducing the criminality associated with drug use? our system multiplies it. Addicts are criminals by definition and the inflated cost of their drugs motivates them to commit other crimes to buy 'em. The income from illegal drugs fuels organized criminality of all sorts.

Is it reducing the "yuck" factor of having ugly druggies cluttering up the place? Our system doesn't stop that from happening. Allegedly, the Swiss system does.

The only thing our system does, that the alternatives do not, is express our moral disapproval of druggies in the concrete form of legally degrading them. Which doesn't seem worth all the costs.

[DGuller]

Theft, murder, rape, have all existed for ages.

Um...at least have the honesty to compare it to other victimless crimes like gambling.  Don't be a douchebag.

Who pissed in your cheerios?

He brought up a valid point. 

[Barrister]

Who pissed in your cheerios?

Me?  I am in a good mood.

I chalked your calling me "dishonest" and a "douchebag" up to merely a bad mood.

So you meant to call me those things?

[Malthus]

Who pissed in your cheerios?

Me?  I am in a good mood.

I chalked your calling me "dishonest" and a "douchebag" up to merely a bad mood.

So you meant to call me those things?

He needs to, you know, mellow out.

I know a way ... 

[HVC]

I chalked your calling me "dishonest" and a "douchebag" up to merely a bad mood.

So you meant to call me those things?

douchebag was too far, but it was a dishonest way of arguing the ills of drug use by making the comparisons you used.

[HVC]

He needs to, you know, mellow out.

I know a way ... 

been a long while since i used, but the last thing it did was mellow me out.

[Malthus]

I chalked your calling me "dishonest" and a "douchebag" up to merely a bad mood.

So you meant to call me those things?

douchebag was too far, but it was a dishonest way of arguing the ills of drug use by making the comparisons you used.

I'm not so fussed. Many anti-drug types truly believe that drug use is morally on par with stealing and rape (and of course, the punishments can be for things like trafficing). If so, using the comparison isn't "dishonest", though such a POV is so alien to the rest of us that it can appear that way.

[Malthus]

He needs to, you know, mellow out.

I know a way ... 

been a long while since i used, but the last thing it did was mellow me out.

The problem is that the most commonly available form of pot these days is hydro, which is bread to be very very potent. Take that when you aren't a steady smoker and what you get is paranoia, not a mellow buzz.

Sort of as if someone was to enjoy drunking a beer or two after work, but all they could get was 150 proof vodka - which they drank in the same quantities as beer.