Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
Posted on 02/15/2009 2:55:53 PM PST by neverdem
In the story of the emperor with no clothes, it took someone whose observations are rarely heeded -- a child -- to point out the obvious fact that no one else could acknowledge. In the case of drug policy, it takes people who are usually ignored by Washington policymakers -- Latin Americans -- to perform the same invaluable service.
Last week, a commission made up of 17 members, from Peruvian novelist Mario Vargas Llosa to Sonia Picado, the Costa Rican who heads the Inter-American Institute on Human Rights, did nothing but admit the truth: The war on drugs is a failure.
"Prohibitionist policies based on the eradication of production and on the disruption of drug flows as well as on the criminalization of consumption have not yielded the expected results," the panel said in a report (http://drugsanddemocracy.org/files/2009/02/declaracao_ingles_site.pdf). "We are farther than ever from the announced goal of eradicating drugs."
The panel was co-chaired by three former heads of state -- Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, Cesar Gaviria of Colombia and Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, all of whom were once leaders in the crusade. In 1996, Zedillo won attention for escalating the crackdown. But they have learned from experience that the old strategy doesn't work...
--snip--
"The enormous capacity of the narcotics trade for violence and corruption can only be effectively countered if its sources of income are substantially weakened," it argues. Unsaid is that the only way to drastically reduce the profitability of drug production and trafficking is to make them legal -- as we did with liquor after Prohibition.
Most people, here or in Latin America, may not be ready for that remedy. But facing the truth about the drug war is a step toward salvation. If you want to change reality, it helps to abandon your fantasies.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Ping
Duh....
L
***LOSERDOPIAN ALERT***
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
You haven’t the slightest clue do you?
Seems to work in Japan.
As if this is new we have only known this for what 80 years or so. If we are going to change the nanny state as in big government it starts here.
Seems to me that islamderthal terrorists keep telling us the same thing about the war on terror.
Also this in the O.C. Register today:
“Mexicans Die in Our Drug War” Steven Greenhut
http://headlines.ocregister.com/articles/_13648___article.html/_.html
All our fault ....
(sarcasm on)
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/022208dnintdrugs.3a98bb0.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2008-02-21-2221217072_x.htm
According to the USDOJ’s National Drug Threat Assessment for 2009 these Mexican drug trafficking organizations produced 15,500 metric tons of marijuana in 2007, with most of it coming here. The last government estimate I saw on total supply here was that between 12,000 and 25,000 metric tons are available on the market in a given year. It is probable that most of the marijuana on the market in the US comes from Mexico.
2009 National Drug Threat Assessment:
http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs31/31379/marijuan.htm#Top
I were to legalize and regulate the production and sales of marijuana similar to the way we regulate alcohol we would deprive these cartels of most of their income and make them much smaller and much less of a threat. We'd also make it harder for them to sell their other more dangerous drugs here. Americans consume more marijuana than all other illegal drugs combined. All the drugs from Mexico are coming in the same way and moving through the same channels, but down toward the bottom of the distribution line the distribution networks really fan out. The people selling to consumers and selling to those who sell to consumers are mostly dealing in marijuana, but a lot of them will deal in the other drugs as well. If they want to sell some cocaine or meth all they have to do is go to their pot suppliers who can help them get it from up the line. If the people up the line want to move more cocaine or whatever, lose some dealers down the line because of arrests, all they have to do is hit up pot dealers down the line and they'll be able to find people to move their other drugs. If we take the marijuana industry from them they'll lose this and it will be harder for them to move the hard stuff to end consumers. They'll lose most of their income and have a harder time moving the hard stuff. We should have done this a long time ago.
You’ve hit the nail directly on it’s head!
Or they could go to work for large farms that grow it. My guess is that it would be produced on large farms like other crops. We'd have people employed on farms. We'd probably have some sort of distributors that would employ people, along with the licensed shops. We'd have people employed by agencies who regulate the industry. All of these people, likely hundreds of thousands of people, would be paying taxes and the product itself would be taxed with sales taxes and excises like we see with tobacco and alcohol.
Legalizing pot like kali or BC have done would be nice
The problem I see with legalization, rather than just simple decrimminalization, is that govt already profits too much from alcohol and tobacco addicts. Govt should not be profiting from addiction. Plus, when you tax/regulate anything you drive up it's cost, and though you've eliminated a lot of the Mexican, Central/South American, & Asian cartel profits you will still make it more profitable through that taxation & regulation to smuggle in overseas drugs. Then what you end up with is the same drug war crap, except it's going towards tax & regulation enforcement.
Plus, we need to get the US/State/Local govts out of catching drug/alcohol/tobacco addicts when they fall. They need to be held accountable for the health and/or legal consequences of their addictions, or for those occasional users, the inappropriately timed use of their poison. Insurance companies should not have to pay for damages/medical-care for those who damaged property or injured themselves through drug/alcohol/tobacco abuse. Remove their bankruptcy protections and let hospitals and innocent victims seize all assets of idiots who can't handle the crap.
Given the choice I think most pot smokers would love to just be able to go to a shop and choose from a wide selection of quality product. Look at the medical marijuana dispensaries in California and the coffeeshops in the Netherlands. These places aren't cheap and they do gangbusters business, and in both cases these people could just grow their own if they wanted to do that but most don't. People like these places because they can choose strong pot, weaker pot, “sativa” or “indica” varieties that are supposed to give a slightly different buzz from one another. They can pick the ones with the smell or taste they desire and price they are willing to pay. These shops in California and the Netherlands buy their product from the black market. In a regulated market pot smokers would be even more inclined to go to the shops because they'd have some assurance that the product they are buying does not have toxic pesticides or other bad stuff on it. They aren't going to want to buy black market product any more than people want to buy black market booze. The black market stuff would have to be a whole lot cheaper than the stuff at the store for many people to buy it and if it has to be a whole lot cheaper than it is today it wouldn't really be worth the trouble and risk involved for people to supply it. I don't think we'll have that much of a problem with black market pot just like we don't have that much of a problem with black market booze.
How can you eliminate a lot of the drug cartel profits, and still make drugs more profitable to smuggle from overseas? Look, if you impose unreasonable taxes and regulations on any article of commerce in wide demand, criminal gangs are going to spring up. Try slapping on a $10/pack cigarette tax and limit purchases to 1 pack/week. You would get lots of drug war crap then.
Then what you end up with is the same drug war crap, except it's going towards tax & regulation enforcement.
There is very little drug war crap associated with alcohol commerce and regulation. Why would there be any more with the marijuana trade if it were regulated along the same lines?
Plus, we need to get the US/State/Local govts out of catching drug/alcohol/tobacco addicts when they fall.
Where do you think the Constitution delegates the federal government such authority?
I guess they don't have the open borders that we do.
Not to mention that the former heads of state could HARDLY be called libertarian or even SMALL government types. And legalization would surely cut deeply into Mexico’s overall revenues as well. But some idiots have this kneejerk reaction to the threat of liberty... I have less than no idea what these cretins are hoping to “conserve.” Obviously it’s neither the Constitution nor the freedom it once tried to guarantee (but not GRANT) to us.
I'd rather see neither. To profit from addiction is inherently immoral and unethical. If you're an amoral person, I can understand looking at it as just another business.
Plain decriminalization is stupid.
By not making it a legal product you allow employers to discrimminate against addicts, which are a business risk. Also, you do not give legitimacy to an immoral business that profits from addiction. Plus other businesses can refuse to conduct business with drug pushers, who would have no legal legitimacy to claim discrimmination. Let them stand or fall on their own. Plus, the cartels are probably going to want to discourage legal growers/makers of legalized/decrimminalized drugs, and so we'd have to provide protection for those "legal" businesses. I'd rather have it an "at your own risk" business that insurers/law-enforcement could refuse to protect.
Are you trying to counter or reinforce my point?
I always read about this on WOD threads, yet I have to wonder when this govt money comes in. When we were on the brink of losing our home while my Husband was in rehab, there certainly was no offer of govt money.(I'm not complaining... you do the crime, you pay IMHO) He paid his own legal fines (DUI) and he paid for his own rehab. Every recovering addict I met while he was in rehab and in the years following that we volunteered there, I never met a person who wasn't paying for his/her own rehab.
The rehab programs within the prison system may be funded by the govt, I'm not sure. If they are, it's a real shame because it is unavailable to so many because the waiting lists are so long people have to either spend extra years in prison or find a judge who will let them get out and pay for their own.
(for anyone interested... Hubby is over 8 years sober :)
Counter. Now, please answer my question with an answer, rather than a question:
Where do you think the Constitution delegates to the federal government such authority?
Plus, we need to get the US/State/Local govts out of catching drug/alcohol/tobacco addicts when they fall.
I agree. My apology.
This should tell us all we need to know about Government heading up ANYTHING.
Anyone have any idea HOW MUCH MONEY we've tossed at this problem since 1971?
Plus, we need to get the US/State/Local govts out of catching drug/alcohol/tobacco addicts when they fall.
I agree. My apology.
No problem.
And you're sure he was actually paying all of the true cost? And that there was no taxpayer dollars involved in his treatment? If that's the case, I have no problem. And if he fully compensated the state for every penny of court/incarceration costs etc...I also have no problem with that. If people are willing to volunteer and/or donate their own money to run rehab programs that's just fine. I don't think there should be rehab in prison either. If that means a prisoner dies in withdrawal, so be it. He/she made the choices that resulted in the addiction, if it removes the person from the gene pool, so much the better. I know that's pretty cold-hearted, but that's just what I believe. It's like with idiots that ski out of bounds and end up lost or in an avalanche. If people want to volunteer and/or financially assist in a rescue that fine, but the taxpayers shouldn't pay for a rescue. Let 'em freeze.
“...did nothing but admit the truth: The war on drugs is a failure.”
I disagree with this! It has been a HUGE success at SUCKING money out of the American pocket and into the gubmint black hole!!!
Rehab in prison has nothing to do with withdrawal... as far as I know, they deal with withdrawal just like any situation that requires medical attention (unless you prefer our already overly burden jail/prison system come under numerous lawsuits).
Maybe other areas of the country have all these govt funded treatment centers, just not around here.
Legalizing drugs would create problems, but it would solve a bunch of others. For one thing, most of the drug-related deaths I went to as an EMT involved stuff like unknown grade heroin (either too strong or cut with stuff like flour.) I know one thing. What we're doing isn't working.
“I know one thing. What we’re doing isn’t working.”
You summed it up perfectly with those two sentences! I know not the definitive, correct answer; however, our current path has no light at the end of the tunnel or even worse, I am not sure we have even found the dang tunnel!
I have seen ills and deaths caused by alcoholism and drug addictions. They are very limited in their differences, so I see nothing wrong with legalizing and taxing these items.
For those that complain about the immorality of legalizing and taxing this, then you must also be upset with credit cards, shopping malls, shoe manufacturers and any number of other vices that so many people seem to now be “addicted.” If not, then you are a hypocrite! There are people addicted to shopping and addicted to credit cards and addicted to shoes - so should we criminalize all of these items so as not to take advantage of someone that cannot control their own urges?
Seems to work in Japan.
My experience with Japanese animation suggests otherwise.
In any case is Japan a model for America? American values would dictate that we chose the course that is best for freedom. So the only American justification for prohibiting drugs is that they are damaging to freedom.
So I'll accept that one could argue that decriminalization of drugs are damaging to freedom. I disagree, but I'll respect that point of view. Even accepting that what is the net gain in freedom? Would we lose more freedom with legalized drugs or would we lose more freedom with a drug prohibition policy that actually worked? If you take that through to it's conclusion (honestly, what would it take for succesfull prohibition?) it is scary to think that some people would accept the answer to that question. So we have the status quo and it fails, and not to even mention the financial and social costs, it corrupts the law which is all that a civilized nation is.
Nobody who paid attention in economics 101 supports the drug war. Those little supply/demand cuves tell you everything you need to know about a supply side focused drug war. The supply is not driving the demand. The demand drives the supply.
Economically speaking all a supply side drug war can accomplish is an increase in prices that makes it more and more attractive to suppliers. Not less.
And morally how is a drug supplier more immoral than a drug user? Is a poor farmer trying to feed his kids more immoral in growing plants than a rich guy snorting coke? Is the poorer college roomate more immoral in smoking a joint than the rich roomate who buys from him? One is a "supplier" and one is not. I don't see the moral distinction.
And in 20 years, the liberal ambulance-chasing lawyers will be droning on and on about the evils of "Big Pot" the way they now do about "Big Tobacco."
I'll get the popcorn.
Cheers!
Will Michael Phelps finally have an endorsement contract he can count on?
Cheers!
It would still beat the way it's regulated now. Money from Big Pot would not be fueling the cartels as it is today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.