
Kofi Annan: Stop 'war on drugs' - weedow
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/05/opinion/annan-cordoso-humane-drug-policy/
======
tokenadult
"We called on governments to adopt more humane and effective ways of
controlling and regulating drugs. We recommended that the criminalization of
drug use should be replaced by a public health approach." So the request here
is not to say that everyone should use drugs however they wish without
regulation, but rather that use of certain drugs should no longer be subject
to criminal penalties. A few years ago, Richard Branson's blog post on drug
regulation[1] similarly pointed to reducing criminal penalties without saying
that drugs should be entirely unregulated, by looking at the example of
Portugal. (How is Portugal doing these days?)

The state I live in in the United States, Minnesota, has a low rate of
incarceration in large part because it has a low rate of criminal prosecution
of drug offenses, with even the small number of persons convicted of drug
offenses being unlikely to do time in prison. But this state has a thriving
private industry of drug treatment centers, drawing in people from all over
the world who want to become clean, and responses to drug use often include
judicially ordered drug treatment. Stopping a war on drugs waged by the police
and courts and prisons doesn't have to include giving up on discouraging drug
use.

[1] [http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/time-to-end-the-war-
on...](http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/time-to-end-the-war-on-drugs)

AFTER EDIT: I'll use the last bit of my edit window to post two more links to
news reports about the experience of Portugal. These links are in
chronological order, and newer than Richard Branson's blog post.

[http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-
drug-d...](http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-
decriminalization-in-portugal-12-years-later-a-891060.html)

[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-01/news/ct-met-
po...](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-01/news/ct-met-portugal-
drugs-20130502_1_treatment-facility-portugal-drug-policy)

~~~
mgkimsal
"Stopping a war on drugs waged by the police and courts and prisons doesn't
have to include giving up on discouraging drug use."

There's big business in prisons and law enforcement. There's also big business
in rehab and pharma. Getting the monied interests to shift their focus from
one of incarceration to one of health shouldn't be this hard. We just need to
shift dollars from one big industry to another. Perhaps pharma and health
companies need bigger lobbying efforts?

~~~
rayiner
Man the "money" argument for the drug war is so stupid. Private prisons are a
small minority of prisons even today, and were very uncommon in the 1980s and
1990s when the drug war really heated up. Blaming monied interests is a cop
out here. They are just the opportunists. Its "just say no!" moms and dads,
teachers and school officials, that keep the drug war alive.

~~~
chongli
It's more than just prison owners. What would happen to the DEA? Hell, huge
numbers of local police would be unnecessary without the drug war.

~~~
stretchwithme
And there wouldn't be any justification for seizing people's property before
they are even proven guilty, if ever. Not that it ever was justified.

The Netherlands closed prisons after it decriminalized drugs.

Personally, I think this should be decided at the neighborhood level, like
many social issues. If people are ok with it where they live, it should be
allowed. If they don't want it around their kids, that should be possible as
well.

~~~
DerpDerpDerp
> If they don't want it around their kids, that should be possible as well.

Restricting other people's rights because "THINK OF MY CHILDREN!" is how we
got in to a lot of these messes in the first place.

I mean, what if your daughter got high on the marijuanas and dated a Negro?
The shame it would bring on the family!

~~~
stretchwithme
Thee is always some rational for curtailing freedom. For example, some people
want to prevent me from lying down on the ground, just because some cars want
to use the space to go places.

The line must be drawn somewhere. We all draw it at our own front door for
example.

I think the problem is that shared spaces are usually created and governed by
coercion rather than by mutual agreement governed by a contract.

When you have a contract with your neighbors, the rules are in the contract.
To change it requires mutual agreement. The contract can also end. I think
this is a more appropriate arrangement than forcing people to live a certain
way.

If your neighborhood wants nudity and crack cocaine and bike only trails
instead of car traffic, that should be your business. People that want those
things can move to these neighborhoods. And those that don't can avoid them.

This seems like more freedom than we currently allow. Freedom to do and
freedom to avoid. Good fences make good neighbors and this just seems like a
logical extension of that.

------
oh_sigh
I love how whenever a major world leader comes out against the war on drugs,
it is always after they are out of office and generally retired from political
life.

~~~
dman
Do you risk your career and your livelihood for your innate principles often?

~~~
mildtrepidation
While I agree with this, it's exactly the reason many governments right now
get almost nothing done (and what they do get done is awful): People in power
who care more about their job security than their -- or anyone else's --
principles.

A politician's career should _be_ based on reconciling principle with reality.
Their livelihood should be linked directly to their ability to do this
successfully.

That comes with a certain level of idealism, true, but without that we have to
concede that our lives are in the hands of people we don't even expect to
care.

~~~
rayiner
It's more complicated than that. Politicians have a limited amount of
political capital, and in American politics even getting little things done
requires spending a lot of it. Obama put up some huge numbers and ultimately
spent all his political capital just doing two things: 1) getting us out of
Iraq; and 2) passing the Affordable Care Act.

Ending the drug war is important to some people, but there are tons of people
who support the drug war for moral reasons, on both sides of the aisle.
Meanwhile, with an aging populace people are much more concerned with
Medicare, Social Security, healthcare, pensions, etc, than the justice or
injustice of the drug war.

Even a politician who does care sincerely about ending the drug war wouldn't
waste his political capital actually doing it, not in face of all the more
important things that people want done.

~~~
proksoup
Support the drug war ... for moral reasons?

That mother showing pictures of her 4 missing boys in the article this thread
is about, I think she would argue the war is immoral.

I think the people who think the drug war is moral, would change their mind if
they spent more than 30 seconds thinking about it.

Baffles my mind, and when pressed in person, even pious blowhards admit there
are serious violent death problems with their methods --- but the people who
support them seem totally oblivious to the violent oppressive death that their
war causes.

How the fuck is it a moral war?

~~~
harryh
If your daughter was routinely going over to a friend's house where the
friend's parent was visibly high on a regular basis how would you feel about
it?

~~~
PeterisP
It's either up to you and your daughter to decide if going over is a good
thing; however; it is not an argument that says wether that parent should be
put in prison.

~~~
harryh
If drugs are legal, and allowed everywhere it takes that choice away from me
unless I want to lock my kid up and not let her leave the house.

~~~
PeterisP
Alcohol is legal and allowed everywhere (especially at peoples' homes), but it
doesn't in any way preclude you from telling your daughter that she's not
allowed to visit mr.X because he's an alcoholic, or he's a pothead, or because
you simply distrust him.

But "I don't want my daughter to meet X" is something that you need to handle
within your family, not by asking armed men to forcibly remove X from the
community. In your given example (daughter visits friend whose parent is high)
you can punish cases if your underage daughter gets offered drugs, as
currently would happen if she'd get offered alcohol or sex; but saying that
your neighbor should be imprisoned for what he's doing in his own home simply
because "my daughter might visit..." seems a bit ridiculous reason.

It's perfectly okay for your neighbors (and parents of your daughters
classmates) to do all kinds of wierd sh*t that you wouldn't allow your
underage daughter to do - they can practice crazy religions, have freaky sex
including blood and bondage, do near-suicidal acts for thrills, implant horns
in their foreheads, whatever. If you don't like that, then that is a valid
reason for you to avoid them, but it's not a valid reason for requiring them
to stop.

~~~
harryh
I can not allow my (non existent btw) daughter to visit Mr X the Alcoholic,
but it's impossible for me to shield her from a culture of alcohol unless I
basically remove her from US society. A lot of people don't like that.

Even more people feel that way when it comes to other drugs, which is why they
are still mostly illegal.

I'm not saying I agree with their position. I actually largely agree with you.
I was just trying to explain to proksoup (the commenter who I originally
responded to) how others view the world. He was baffled how people could
support the drug war. I think it shows a real lack of imagination and empathy
to not see other people's point of view. You don't have to agree with it, but
I think it's pretty easy to understand where they're coming from.

------
tokenizer
IMO the battle is won in stages, and the first step in the legalization of
Marijuana at the Federal level.

The next step is when we recognize the victims of the War on Drugs,
specifically persons who were sent to jail because of Marijuana. You expand
the affected to be people who've committed all non-violent crimes, and
advocate for reform from that angle.

I don't care what the law really has to say regarding Heroin, as long as
victims/addicts get helped instead of aggregated and exploited by a pseudo-
warrior class.

~~~
pstuart
I care what the law has to say regarding heroin. Legalize it, regulate it just
like alcohol.

Being illegal didn't keep my brother from becoming addicted and dying from it.
If it was legal and pure he might have had a chance.

But on the other hand, nobody is trying to outlaw tobacco and alcohol, which
are the biggest killers of all. Thats what did my mom in.

So yes, legalize it and keep it pure. Educate people on proper drug use and
spend money on health resources for those who need it rather than jail.

~~~
7952
A concern is that the practicalities of such a legalization would just make
things worse. It could make it much easier for children to get hold of. You
would also need to define what is "pure" and police that for an endless list
of possible products. It is difficult enough to keep salmonella out of food,
effective regulation of cannabis sounds impossible. Any regulation would need
to be sufficiently loose that you do not need a black market.

I would argue that the most important impact of drug use is to people who are
not drug users. Any legislation should put the interests of those people
first.

~~~
Bsharp
> _It could make it much easier for children to get hold of._

There are currently no age restrictions on heroin. All a child needs is a
morally-bankrupt drug dealer, which imo is easier than finding a morally-
bankrupt store clerk if it were legal.

> _You would also need to define what is "pure" and police that for an endless
> list of possible products._

'Pure' can be easily defined, and it doesn't have to be 'pure' anyway, just
not increasingly harmful - beer isn't pure alcohol, McDonald's burgers aren't
pure beef, etc.

> _It is difficult enough to keep salmonella out of food, effective regulation
> of cannabis sounds impossible. Any regulation would need to be sufficiently
> loose that you do not need a black market._

Comparing keeping salmonella out of food to keeping drugs clean is apples and
oranges - they're entirely different problems. Also, given the insane markup
drugs are subject to today, primarily due to the risk of distribution, prices
would fall with regulation, and imo enough to undercut any current black
market. Also, the quality could be better or worse, but you know it would be
safe.

~~~
7952
> There are currently no age restrictions on heroin. All a child needs is a
> morally-bankrupt drug dealer, which imo is easier than finding a morally-
> bankrupt store clerk if it were legal.

It is very easy for underage people to get hold of alcohol. It is ridiculous
to suggest that drugs would be any different. It would make it much easier to
buy.

> Beer isn't pure alcohol, McDonald's burgers aren't pure beef, etc.

I still don't understand how you can regulate that. How exactly do you define
"not increasingly harmful"? Presumably whatever the definition it risks
creating a black market, or being very cheap; both outcomes would be negative.

> Comparing keeping salmonella out of food to keeping drugs clean is apples
> and oranges - they're entirely different problems.

Why? It would presumably need a similar system of inspection and rules. It
doesn't just need to be safe for current drug users, but all the other people
that may decide to give it a go. Why would people give up basic consumer
rights?

~~~
ahlatimer
> It is very easy for underage people to get hold of alcohol. It is ridiculous
> to suggest that drugs would be any different. It would make it much easier
> to buy.

While I was underage (I'm 24 now, so not long ago), it was easier to find weed
than it was to find alcohol. The repercussions for selling weed to a 16 year
old are the same as selling weed to an 18 year old are the same as selling to
a 21 year old and so on. The repercussions for selling alcohol to a 21 year
old versus an 18 year old or cigarettes to an 18 year old versus a 16 year old
are entirely different, in that there are none if you sell to someone of legal
age.

If you're already selling an illegal substance, there's no legal reason not to
sell to someone who would otherwise be under age if the substance was
legalized. What you're doing is illegal either way. With alcohol and tobacco,
you're asking a store clerk likely making minimum wage to take a risk so you
can buy alcohol. It's just way less likely to fly.

------
pstuart
Part of the problem is too many people have been brainwashed into the
"protecting us from dangerous drugs" lie. Your average Jane/Joe will say
"legalize pot, but ew, meth is bad!"

The fact that we collectively choose to participate in this madness is, well,
maddening.

~~~
phaer
> "legalize pot, but ew, meth is bad!"

Which, I would say, is true. Our argument should be where the facts are: It's
bad, but it should be handled like a public health problem, not like a
criminal problem, because criminalizing it does not protect you from dangerous
drugs as the last century shows, but it primarily finances mafia groups which
cost even more lives than even the most evil drugs.

------
mlyang
I feel like politicians are to their constituents what parents are like to
teenage kids with respect to substance use advice/"laws." Parents of teenagers
ban their kids from substances even though they themselves definitely did them
when they were younger. The hypocrisy is kind of funny to me-- it's like there
are two different worlds going on (one public facing, one the reality) that
everyone just plays along with for reputation's sake even though we all know
we're kidding ourselves -- it's ridiculous that this social play we put on
actually seriously affects the lives of those touched by the global drug
trade.

------
xacaxulu
Drug usage is a medical problem. Without medical care, it becomes or has the
potential to become a criminal problem. In the USA drug usage and mental
illness are generally lumped into the criminal category, sending sick and/or
mentally ill people into a the criminal justice system without any chance of
treatment or remission.

~~~
pstuart
We should be examining a "medical court" system. It's basically each
individual's right to do whatever they want but there's a line that gets
crossed when they are truly sick and need help.

------
knodi
No one in the government cares because this only effects poor people and they
don't have the money to make a difference.

If Obama wanted to make a real change he would have stopped the war on drugs
already.

------
arca_vorago
The real issue that needs to be discussed, but no one wants to, is how one
particular three letter uses drugs as a source of black ops funding, so that
it is beyond congressional oversight. Of course, congress is so compromised
they are much less afraid of oversight these days, but until people understand
that the drug war is about money more than just in regards to asset forfeiture
and other LEA uses, and the very top structures in government benefit from it.

------
Roboprog
Prohibition was great ... for Al Capone.

Cue Homer Simpson sound bite: "I haven't learned a thing"

------
jmerton
Here's an analogy some may find crazy: I've been collecting data that
classifies sugar (cane / corn / etc.) as a drug, rather than a food.
Considering that type 2 diabetes is a self induced illness caused by sugar
abuse, should we imprison sugar addicts? I know, I know, that may be a bit of
a stretch for some persons. Still, think about it.

------
api
At this point I think a big reason prohibition is kept alive is to save face.
To end it, they'd have to admit they were wrong.

------
rodolphoarruda
I believe the results of decriminalization may vary according to your social
context. I live in Brazil and I don't think decriminalization would reduce
violence around here, it would, at its best, move the focus away from the drug
addict to other parts of the society.

Collaborators from large drug organizations (tens of thousands of criminals,
running millionaire operations, heavily armed) won't simply boo-hoo, go home
and look for real jobs once drugs are decriminalized. They would look for the
new weaker link of the chain and then concentrate all their violence on it.
Once drugs are legalized and are freely sold on public points of sale
(whatever government calls them), criminals would target the "supply chain"
and distribution network. All of the sudden drug organizations would find
themselves operating wholesale, not retail anymore. They would steal cargo to
sell it at poor city areas or in places where official suppliers haven't
established POSes yet. Stealing (buying for zero) and selling is much more
attractive than "cooking" and selling. It's like outsourcing your production
the bad way, keeping the benefit of higher profit margins. Higher margins lead
to more competition, thus guns, thus violence among organizations (this is the
current scenario in cities like Rio where drug organizations fight for
territory dominance[1]). On the bright side, anyone interested in consuming
drugs would be spared of this fight. They would be the same people who ever
bought drugs, but now with the benefit of new regulations, treatment and care
from the government.

[1] This video shows a battle between two drug organizations in Rio that
mobilized around 100 members coming from different slums. You can see a great
deal of collateral damage in the local population, and this is what my point
is all about. Watch from 1:00 onwards (sorry, Portuguese language all the
way). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etu6YWC-
rT4](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etu6YWC-rT4) Criminals were even able to
shot down a police helicopter killing two officers. Drug war at its finest.

~~~
MichaelGG
I'm unfamiliar with Brazil drug operations. But certainly these other crimes
have significantly less profit/risk than the huge markup on illegal drugs?

If they are properly legalized, the price should plummet. So even stealing or
going wholesale is far less lucrative. You can already steal other goods. You
could hijack a shipment of beer - but end-users aren't going to pay $15 a
bottle for it because the normal price is known to be far less. So even if
these organizations moved into theft, they wouldn't be able to finance huge
armies anymore.

I'd also note that stealing does not have a cost of zero. You need to finance
people to attack, pay for their weapons, etc. And the cap on pricing means
even if stealing was cheaper, the absolute profit still won't be as high,
overall.

Unless Brazil has a problem with criminal gangs already monopolizing
distribution of other goods (like aspirin, tabacco, or alcohol), it seems like
a stretch to say they'd do this for drugs.

Even in the US, people have been killed in hijackings of trucks containing
Intel processors.

~~~
rodolphoarruda
Yes, this is very complex and there are a lot of points we could discuss from
a factual perspective.

It's very hard to know what's the most profitable LOB of crime organizations
here. What is well known is that they operate on a wide "portfolio" of
products and services since there are strong dependencies between them. Drugs,
weapons, bank robbery, ATM stealing, truck robbery, kidnapping... the list is
long.

Drugs is a relevant LOB because it employs a great deal of terror on the human
structure of the organization. Debt with a drug dealer is usually seen as a
death sentence. So the dealer knows he can manipulate those who cannot pay
their debts by forcing them to commit various crimes as compensation. Dealers
don't need money to finance crimes, they do it mostly through terror. Drugs
are just the foundations.

Black market. If the legal drug is sold for $15, drug dealers would sell the
same amount for $10. Like the do with stolen medical drugs sold mostly in
slums.

Government/private companies would have a hard time trying to sell legal drugs
anywhere near slums. Not only the dealers would exterminate the workers of
those places, but would also steal the products to resell them.

I'm pro drug decriminalization. I believe people should be free to experiment
anything they want in their lives, of course, being properly accountable for
that. But my problem is with people that generalize the success of ANY
decriminalization campaign only because Portugal made it right. There are so
many variables in this game, so many social and cultural pre-requisites that
we cannot treat this subject with just a couple of lines.

I appreciate you time articulating your ideas while commenting my point. I
think that's the type of exercise that this subject deserves.

~~~
MichaelGG
>Debt with a drug dealer ... Dealers don't need money to finance crimes, they
do it mostly through terror.

So if the people are working for them to pay off a debt, then the dealer paid
for the service still. Additionally, someone has to buy weapons to hijack
shipments.

>If the legal drug is sold for $15, drug dealers would sell the same amount
for $10

Going along with fictional numbers, currently they're getting, say $100 for
the same amount. Legalization might bring it to $15, and black market guys
might sell at $10. That's still 1/10th of the revenue flowing in. They'd have
to have very thin profit margins to benefit from a major reduction in prices.

>Like the do with stolen medical drugs sold mostly in slums. ... . Not only
the dealers would exterminate the workers of those places

Sounds like this is a problem with slums and Brazil's law enforcement
capabilities in general than anything else.

If your point is that Brazil will still have massive problems after
legalization, yes, sure. Legalizing all medications won't solve hunger,
either. Legal sales reduce criminal pressure on end-users (maybe not an issue
in Brazil) and reduce revenues to criminals.

Why would a policy of open drug sales make things worse in Brazil?

~~~
rodolphoarruda
> ...someone has to buy weapons to hijack shipments

Yes, "soldiers" pay off debts by robbing banks and handing over money to
dealers, whom in turn buy weapons on the cheap in Paraguay (country) or from
corrupt police forces (aka milícias[3]).

> Sounds like this is a problem with slums and Brazil's law enforcement
> capabilities in general than anything else.

That's my point.

> Legal sales reduce criminal pressure on end-users

Absolutely, for the middle class alone. Can't say it for the poor.

> Reduce revenues to criminals

Not for the big organizations like PCC [1] or Comando vermelho [2]

> Why would a policy of open drug sales make things worse in Brazil?

I don't know if it would make it worse. But I'm almost sure it wouldn't make
it better to most of the population (basis of my point) simply because
violence wouldn't be reduced. Organized crime finds its ways to keep its
dominance, and it has been like that for decades.

Thanks for the "debate". :)

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primeiro_Comando_da_Capital](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primeiro_Comando_da_Capital)
[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comando_Vermelho](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comando_Vermelho)
[3]
[http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil%C3%ADcia_(Rio_de_Janeiro)](http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil%C3%ADcia_\(Rio_de_Janeiro\))
(use a translator, sorry)

~~~
MichaelGG
Sorry to persist - how does it not reduce revenues? If the illegal restricted
rate of a certain opiate is $1/mg, but the free-market, competitive rate is
$0.10/mg, then the revenues will drop approximately to 1/10th.

In the slums, is Pepsi, alcohol and ibuprofen priced at obscene rates? Why or
why not?

Either way, even if it doesn't benefit the poor class (because they're totally
fucked either way), it doesn't harm them, and is the right thing to do. So it
does seem simple to state: yes, legalize everything.

~~~
rodolphoarruda
> how does it not reduce revenues?

It may reduce revenue of smaller groups, but not of large organizations. As I
said, they have a wide portfolio in crime. If one thing has reduced revenues,
they would intensify on another thing, thus violence is kept at the same
level.

> In the slums, is Pepsi, alcohol and ibuprofen priced at obscene rates? Why
> or why not?

Pepsi is VERY expensive for them, so they opt for a myriad of alternative
brands that cost a 1/3 of the price. Alcohol, same thing, they consume strong
drinks at around R$1/bottle. Medicine drugs, they rely on those given for free
by the government. If they are not free, they go for the black market, which
is too bad because they often but fake medicine... another huge issue.

> Either way, even if it doesn't benefit the poor class (because they're
> totally fucked either way), it doesn't harm them, and is the right thing to
> do. So it does seem simple to state: yes, legalize everything.

Well, that's a way to see things. Government would invest loads of tax-payer's
money in the process, the poor would say exactly where they are and the middle
class/elite would benefit greatly. Thank goodness I'm part of the latter.

------
tiagobraw
The article is co-written by Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former president of
Brazil.

I didn't like him when he was the president, but I do like very much his
approach to legalize/decriminalize drugs... Kudos for them!

------
tlongren
Easy to say, but it'll never happen, especially in the US (at least not in my
lifetime, hopefully my daughters). Too many jobs would be unnecessary if the
"war on drugs" was over.

~~~
rayiner
We had far more invested in prohibition, with far more outright corruption
(politicians on the take from bootleggers), but managed to end that somehow.
The difference was that alcohol consumption was mainstream so ordinary voters
cared about the impact of prohibition. Drug consumption is not mainstream and
enforcement largely affects minorities, so ordinary voters don't care.

~~~
pessimizer
>We had far more invested in prohibition

Is this actually true? We've invested an enormous amount in the war on drugs.

~~~
rayiner
This is a must-see documentary, not just for its coverage of prohibition, but
for the historical insights you can glean about American politics:
[http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition](http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition).

In a nutshell, prohibition was far more invasive and far more corrupt than
today's drug war. Al Capone was a billionaire in today's money, and the drug
lords of yore were willing to exert political influence in a way that maybe
happens today in Mexico, but certainly does not in the U.S. Al Capone once
walked into City Hall and pushed the Mayor of Cicero (which was a former
independent city in the Chicago area) down the stairs and nobody touched him.
Politicians and police were openly on the take from bootleggers in a way that
is totally foreign to our modern sensibilities (unless you have any
familiarity with the developing world).

------
willvarfar
Slight tangent but I've been reflecting recently on how many people seek out
things they know are dangerous to them for the _thrill_ of it. Its an
interesting trait.

------
grault
My idea would be: make them legal, tax them high (or make them accessible only
after certain educational exams), from that money educate people, help them
recovering. Teach them basic game theory and the term what trap is, what is it
like to be the frog in the boiling water, etc.

I'm confident I missed many aspects here, although really interested in: What
are the problems with this model?

~~~
MichaelGG
Taxing them _really high_ will increase the likelihood of black market
product, which goes against the public health aspect. You don't want a poor
person buying junk and getting sick because they couldn't go to the store and
buy proper medicine. Just like you wouldn't heavily tax aspirin or ibuprofen.

Basic medical education should be provided as part of national education.
Except, properly done, not the factually incorrect, dramatic anti-drug
programs they have these days.

There also seem to be a bias against drugs here, which I don't believe is
founded in research. After all, we encourage people to get treatment for
mental illnesses, the treatments which usually involve becoming addicted to
very strong medications like SSRIs. Yet there's no education against being
"trapped" onto such things.

~~~
grault
Makes sense. It could be difficult to raise money for prevention and
rehabilitation purposes from the tax approach. Although maybe wealthy
recreational users would happily "fund" the education / rehabilitation of the
poor. Or maybe I'm just completely wrong here :D

I agree with the other points you've discussed.

~~~
dragonwriter
> It could be difficult to raise money for prevention and rehabilitation
> purposes from the tax approach.

Maybe, but it'd be easy diverting money being spent to arrest, prosecute, and
imprison people into prevention and treatment (and we're already spending
money on prevention and treatment from general state and federal tax money
_without_ legalization, so with legalization and no special taxes -- just
general income, sales, etc., taxes -- there'd be more money from that, even
before you consider repurposing the money currently being spent on the
enforcement end of the drug war that would no longer be required.)

OTOH, while there are black markets for alcohol and tobacco -- largely as an
effort to evade the special taxes on those products -- the special taxes on
them _still_ bring in considerable revenue, and the black market for, e.g.,
alcohol is far less significant and socially problematic than when alcohol was
prohibited. So, its far from clear that special "sin taxes" on legalized drugs
would not be useful as a significant additional revenue source for prevention
and treatment activities.

------
hcarvalhoalves
This legalization talk is flawed.

Alcohol is legal, and that doesn't stop people, specially teenagers, from
abusing it. It's also proven tobacco addiction starts during adolescence. In
this case, legalization is just removing responsibility from the people who
profit from it, since in practice the law isn't protecting who it's supposed
to protect. Just because something is legal doesn't make it ethical.

Then, we know legalizing certain drugs will only move traffic to worse drugs.
Legalize marijuana and dealers will move more crack, just like the mafia moved
from alcohol to cocaine after they lifted the prohibition in the US. Now what,
the government will legalize crack too? Make even more unethical businesses
operate under the law, knowing these products will be abused by teenagers just
like alcohol and tobacco today?

There's no easy solution, and no one is addressing the real issue: that
substance abuse is cultural and heavily promoted. You talk to young people,
and their concept of having a good time is "getting wasted". Dysfunctional
families and poverty only worsen the issue.

~~~
girvo
I respect that you have that opinion, even though I disagree with it
personally.

The big question to me, is what causes more harm: drug use, or the criminals
that it funds? I'd wager the latter; drug use can be dealt with as a medical
problem (I'm living proof) to some extent, murderous cartels, warlords, and
corruption around the world can't be.

Something to think about anyway!

~~~
hcarvalhoalves
You know what's one of the most trafficked products in Brazil?

Tobacco.

Tons of counterfeit cigarettes cross the border between Paraguay and Brazil,
and that funds crime syndicates. A _legal_ and _regulated_ product. Now
imagine if marijuana or anything else is legalized... they will do the same
thing to avoid taxation, which would go to fund health assistance, and buyers
won't care about where it comes from - they'll just care that their fix is
available for cheap.

That drugs should be dealt with as a health issue, I don't disagree with, but
legalizing substances isn't a silver bullet to stop crime, crime is rooted on
other issues (education, poverty, lack of assistance).

~~~
marcosdumay
> Tons of counterfeit cigarettes cross the border between Paraguay and Brazil,
> and that funds crime syndicates. A legal and regulated product.

Yep, that's true (or maybe it's some illegal drug, but statistics on those
aren't very reliable). Now just imagine what would happen if the entire
brazilian tobaco market consisted of trafficked products. How big a mafia
could you sustain with 10000 times more money?

Anyway, that question nowadays is completely academical, as Brazil currently
hosts a single big mafia, that takes it's toll whatever economical activity
happens here.

~~~
hcarvalhoalves
The point is, policy makers don't think like criminals.

I'm all for discussing legalization if we are talking about individual
liberties (in which case, drugs _can 't_ be heavily taxed, to avoid a black
market), but Kofi Annan and Fernando Henrique are presenting it as a solution
to crime when there's no data back it up (the countries that legalized drugs
so far don't face crime and poverty to begin with). So far it's just wishful
thinking.

------
aianus
I've always wondered: what would drug dealers do if drugs were legalized?
Would they throw their hands up and go get jobs at McDonald's? Or would they
turn to robbery, kidnapping, etc?

Maybe black markets are useful for providing an income for people that have
criminal records and no skills.

------
duncan_bayne
I'm reminded of a scene from The Assignment, where two characters are arguing
at an official function:

\- How about "fuck you, pal"?

\- I'd believe it, if it was louder.

In other news, I'm a bit sick of public figures coming out against the War on
Drugs _after_ their careers are functionally over.

------
volune
I'm tired of these cowards coming out against the war on drugs after they no
longer hold a position of power to do anything about it.

------
jdimov
Unfortunately, the "mighty" USA is utterly incapable of functioning
economically without wars, so this will never happen.

------
Eleutheria
While we're at it, end the war on terror, war on poverty, war on sex, war on
religion.

But above all, end the war on liberty.

~~~
josefresco
How about we end assigning meaningless catchy phrases to boring but important
US policies. There is no "war on sex" or "war on religion" in the US only news
organizations framing policies in that manor to get ratings.

------
dreamdu5t
Kofi Annan does not have any prerogative to tell me or others what to do with
their own bodies. Fuck the UN and Kofi Annan.

~~~
bambax
The article isn't about "your body" (about which I'd rather know as little as
possible); it's about the so-called "war on drugs" (which is actually a war on
the poor).

Did you read the article before commenting?

~~~
dreamdu5t
Yes I read the article. The UN asserts the authority to interfere with what
other people do to their own bodies and with their own property (drug use,
manufacture, and consumption). This comes from "The Single Convention on
Narcotic Drugs" and later "The United Nations Convention Against Illicit
Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances." The UN, including Kofi
Annon, is used as an instrument by the US to further US drug policy.

The Global Commission on Drug Policy and its recommendations are nothing more
than a ruse.

