One more war that should never have been started.
The global war on drugs has failed and governments should explore legalizing marijuana and other controlled substances, according to a commission that includes former heads of state, a former U.N. secretary-general and a business mogul.
A new report by the Global Commission on Drug Policy argues that the decades-old worldwide “war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world.” The 24-page paper was released Thursday.
“Political leaders and public figures should have the courage to articulate publicly what many of them acknowledge privately: that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that repressive strategies will not solve the drug problem, and that the war on drugs has not, and cannot, be won,” the report said.
The 19-member commission includes former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and former U.S. official George P. Schultz, who held cabinet posts under U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon.
Who knows if it could be won? We stupidly went after the users instead of the sellers. No drugs, no users. An anonymous bounty system could’ve been devised to identify all sellers. Incredibly less resources could have been way more effective this way. The powers in charge didn’t want to catch the sellers (except for the occasional showpiece; probably someone who wouldn’t play ‘ball’).
#1 – True words from a person that’s never taken a psychoactive towards enlightenment. You are right about the sellers though, they are inherently douchebag in nature. which sucks..they should be stealing your car stereo instead.
A Japanese warlord did win his war on drugs. He used his military to terminate all users and sellers.
Recreational drug use is a social disease spread by people. If you have no users and no sellers keeping it under control isn’t all that hard.
I do recognize that most aren’t going to go for this but half way measures seriously don’t work which is the only reason I’m will to support some level of legalization.
PM==I agree whole heartedly, not that that is the outcome I would prefer “but” decades ago during the War on Drugs they sprayed the MJ crops in Columbia with paraquat that caused some kind of illness/death in white kiddies in America when the drug dealers cut the crop and sent it to America. Spraying the MJ crop in Columbia stopped. I thought then to myself: this ain’t no war, just a market control to keep the prices high so that Regan can buy illegal arms to support the contra’s. Stuff like that.
There is “war” and then there is hype. Always good to keep the difference in mind, although whenever the issue is close, or you don’t have a clue: go with hype.
The “drug war” is big business. Don’t look for changes that will reduce the profit – for either side.
It can be won – there are only about 11,000 starbucks in the USA and we know their locations.
Even assuming there are an equal number of independent suppliers of the worlds favorite pyschoactive substance we should be able to wipe them all out with a 25,000 cruise missiles tops – at a cost of only $20Bn
#8 ReadyKilowatt I stand corrected. Thank you.
The drug trade is a business, much like any other (with an outstanding enforcement arm, second only to the United States Military).
Once we start to comprehend this, we can start to employ simple business rules of supply and demand.
When there is no demand, businesses crumble. So why is there such a high demand for drugs in the US?
No jobs? Unsafe cities? Broken households?? etc.
So here is the crux. Follow along.
No jobs? We will hand you free food, medical, and housing. Just vote for me.
Unsafe cities? We will protect you from the boogie man. Just vote for me.
Broken households? Husband ran off? No problem, let me take his place. Father abandoned you? Not to worry, I’ll take his place. Just vote for me.
Don’t look to the government to help. It’s in their best interest not to.
Poppies… Poppies. Poppies will put them to sleep. Sleeeeep. Now they’ll sleeeeep!
There’s been no war on drugs, there’s been an advertising campaign against drugs. We talk about it, we never actually do anything about it. That’s not a war, that’s a joke.
You want to win the war? Put every single dealer to death. All of them. Convict them, take them outside and shoot them. No exceptions. You’ll run out of dealers really damn quick.
That’s how you fight a war. We have no war on drugs.
Cephus–you fight a war by killing the enemy on the battle ground. Cops given a free license to shoot whoever they suspect. Oops–I meant “soldiers”/warriors/Army of One or whatever gets the unemployable to sign up. Jeeze!!!
Syria has no real oil, but it is between Iraq/Kuwait and the Mediteranian coast. And there to Europe. That oil pipeline, would cut out the Persian Gulf and the Iranian influence on western oil interests. Go for it!
Sorry, wrong article.
Well, legalising the bank activities so they could rob the general public blind seems to have enlarged bank activities in this area into fields they were not formally interested in. So I’m not sure that legalising things would produce any reduction. Similar outcomes seem to also be the case on the taxation front.
If the war is lost, then look at those in charge of the war, try sacking them without compensation. Drug measures which don’t produce the desired reduction show a lack of ability in those charged with reducing drug usage. So, why are they still being paid?
Government, An activity where success is not one of the required outcomes. Where failures are rewarded.
I don’t get it. Are we losing the war on cocaine, heroine and ecstasy too? Should we legalize those as well?
This blog is hilarious, you censor someone for quoting southpark and let stand the idea that executing every bartender in ameika is acceptable…lol Keep dreaming that punishment is the answer because waking up to the fact that prevention is the answer will only sober you hipocryts up to the fact that your just as broken as the junkies.
“I don’t get it. Are we losing the war on cocaine, heroine and ecstasy too? Should we legalize those as well?”
Yes, every damned one of them, just like alcohol. How many people were killed over control of the whiskey traffic in NYC (or any other city) last year? I’d rather have Walmart selling the shit than MS13 or the other gang-bangers.
A war on drugs is about as smart as a war on bowling balls. Why not just buy a chair for jogging? It makes as much sense.
It is very hard to stop drugs from being used when the whole culture of the world is based around drugs from nicotine, to caffeine to alcohol.
To the chemical make up of humans, the body couldn’t care what triggers the dopamine, just that it is triggered.
It was there to help us in emergency and mankind makes it a toy. And so effs it up.
The real culprit is mankind not being able to get past still being just an animal.
Cursor_
I believe it boils down to Jules Verne’s Robur-Nemo dilemma. Trying to force a morality upon mankind, by means of a punishment or all out destruction. IOW, “…destroy the world, in order to save it.” That was an actual line used in the 1960s movie “Master of the World”, that Charles Bronson spoke. And possible the first time it was ever used. But I believe it applies to a less degree for this so-called “war on drugs”. It’s just another technological, militaristic solution, to a moral problem. Punishing the users, punishing the dealer (or killing them), doesn’t work. Punishing the chemical suppliers for not being more responsible for who they sell to, might work. But the likelihood of that ever happening, is nil to none. They’ve always got the government in their pocket. During the 1990s, the FDA couldn’t get the drug companies to curb selling OTC pseudo-ephedrine. The White House slapped the FDA down. Thus the Meth labs found ways to get it, even if not directly from the drug makers. In war, there are always compromises. Starting at the top.
The only real way to end the drug abuse problem is to educate the users, that its a very stupid idea. Like drilling a hole in one’s head, would be. The pain stops most who are idiot enough to try it anyway. Illegal drugs simply are painful. And their damaging side effects, not immediately evident. But by showing young children what happens to them for using these drugs. This would turn things around fast. Accept I’m convinced that the drug makers, and alcohol and tobacco industry fear such education. Because of the negative effect it will likely have on the sales of their legal products.
Right now, Obama can’t get the US Congress to agree to a Consumer Fraud Protection Agency. Because apparently Congress (mostly the GOP) wants to protect companies that rely largely on fraud, for some of their profits. Like the financial industry. So these “wars on” things, are often compromised from the start. The government refusing to reign in the major players.
It’s like that movie “Eight Men Out”, where the ball players got canned, for possibly rigging the game for profit. Everyone else outside of the Ball Clubs, gambles like hell on the game scores. So how are they combating the problem, when there’s always big money at stake?
Yep. We need government to protect us from ourselves. Any idiot that believes that has never cracked open a history book. My freedom has always, is, and will always be more important than your security.
Derek: “I’m more important than you.”
typical
Halfway is one word.
Just a tokey a day
keeps Doktor Alzheimer at bay
They could easily win the war on drugs. You can be a buyer – you just need to agree to support this ugly, fat chick with multiple kids from different daddies. You’ll need ’em (the drugs).
Well said, Glenn.
Any war not fought to win will be lost. War on drugs – see Singapore on how it is fought to win it.
@#23 No, we need Government to protect us from illegal actions of others. Or you want to imply that drug addicts are highly productive people earning a ton of money which they can spend on drugs? Drug addict is unproductive member of society who needs expensive substance and is (scientifically) ready to do almost anything for it, no laws or even ethics or moral limits apply. It is not something that can be done without serious impact on society, behind private door.
#28,
The same can be said for alcoholics. How productive is someone that is drunk 24/7. Does that mean we should punish everyone that enjoys a glass of beer with dinner?
Several years ago Rolling Stone ran an article on this subject, which included a list of the DEA heads and their success rates, and lots more. The DEA has been successful at times, but loses due to political pressure.
Great article, I remember it vividly, it’s too damn bad RS doesn’t allow access to their archives.
“Drug addict is unproductive member of society who needs expensive substance”
Many of the most productive members of society are drug addicts. Ban coke, Jolt and espresso and see how silicon valley and Wall st do.
But wait! RS has finally opened up.
Here it is! It’s a long one.