|
| :: Previous topic :: Next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fintan
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 6105
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:00 am Post subject: Google+ Debate: End the War On Drugs? [Video] |
  |
|
| Quote: | Google+ Versus Debate: Is It Time To End The War On Drugs?
Mar 14, 2012
The high-powered international panel debate is opened by the president of
Colombia Juan Manuel Santos - with the British journalist Misha Glenny
speaking in favor of reform. Further speakers include the former US drug
czar Barry McCaffrey; Richard Branson; Elliot Spitzer; and
the ex-president of Mexico, etc..
In Google+ polls taken before the debate began, over 90% of online votes
were in favor of ending the war, as were 60% of those in the debate hall. |
_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Last edited by Fintan on Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:27 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fintan
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 6105
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
The UK Guardian also has
a mini-debate on the topic:
| Quote: | 
Richard Branson and Ian Blair debate drug decriminalisation
Is decriminalisation the best way to deal with drugs?
Richard Branson argues in favour of helping rather than punishing
addicts, but Ian Blair thinks enforcement must go on.
Interview by Emine Saner
guardian.co.uk, Friday 16 March 2012 21.00 GMT
It is more than 40 years since the war on drugs was declared. Ian Blair, former commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, and Richard Branson, entrepreneur and member of the Global Commission on Drugs Policy meet – over a glass of wine – to discuss whether it's time to decriminalise. Emine Saner listens in.
Ian Blair: This is a very nuanced argument. I am in favour of experimentation to see if we can get treatment higher up the agenda of governments in dealing with drugs. Many drug addiction problems could be solved by treatment. But I fear the idea of a fully legalised world around drugs because it is an absolutely untested proposition, and the only evidence we have is small experiments in small countries. The idea that somewhere like the UK or the US goes into an experiment with unforeseeable consequences strikes me as horrific.
Richard Branson: I went into the Drugs Commission with a fairly open mind. We examined the war on drugs over the last 40 years and came to the conclusion it has failed. We then looked at countries that are taking a different approach on the war on drugs. In Portugal they said we're not going to legalise, but we're going to decriminalise all drugs – no one is going to go to prison for possession of drugs. We will move drugs from the home office to the health department. The government will use the money that would otherwise have been spent on putting people in prison to help them – which is about three-quarters cheaper. Portugal has seen a big reduction in heroin use, and in drug-related break-ins, and you can understand logically why.
IB: The Portugal statistics are disputed. It is not yet a proven case. [Overall drug use has increased, and the homicide rate went up – a fact, said a UN Office on Drugs and Crime report, that "might" be due to trafficking activity.]
RB: Proportionally more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese people have used marijuana. Heroin use among 16- to 18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8%. New HIV infections fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003. Deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by half. Property thefts dropped dramatically. I could carry on.
IB: That is a relatively isolated country. It is not very big, it is reasonably well off. In the shanty towns of South America, this kind of approach is not going to be available, and so the rules are different – it's about stopping the gangs, and that is where enforcement arises. If we let go into a world of legalised drugs, we have no idea what that is going to do to future generations. I'm happy that really good experimental work is pursued, but don't let that be the decision that opens the gates to decriminalisation across the world, because we're sentencing future generations to something unforeseeable. [In the UK] if it's accompanied by the spending switch that Portugal has achieved around drug treatment, then there may be something in it. Everything we've seen about decriminalisation just frees up the drug barons, because they are in a position to continue a substantial market without law-enforcement.
RB: Unless the government is supplying free methadone and free needles, which pulls the rug out under the suppliers.
IB: There would still remain a significant black market. You are not going to be able to regulate supply in a way that would completely control it, like alcohol is 99% controlled. With something like cannabis, if we had government control of the percentage of THC [the psychoactive ingredient], I can tell you what's going to happen – they will grow the stronger one and sell it cheaper. There needs to be emphasis on treatment, but an understanding that you are not going to reach the desired outcome without a considerable amount of enforcement to go with it, to stop people bringing new drugs on to the market all the time.
RB: There is an argument that marijuana is less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol, and obviously people who take excessive alcohol, cigarettes or skunk – all of them are in danger. Because marijuana is the drug of choice of young people, is it right that it should be treated any differently from alcohol?
IB: It's not about treating it differently, it's recognising that skunk, in particular, has definitely had links to psychiatric illness because of its strength.
Emine Saner: The focus is often on addicts, but the majority of drug users have stable lives, have jobs. Is it right to crimininalise them?
RB: There are 225 million people who take drugs without problems, mostly marijuana. They prefer it to alcohol, and it's possibly less damaging. A very high proportion who take it are not addicts. People should be warned against skunk, but with marijuana, it would be good to see experiments with [legalisation].
ES: What has been your experience of talking to politicians about this?
RB: I think politicians wrongly think this is a vote-loser for them. When you talk to them individually they will say, we've smoked, we don't think people should be sent to prison for this. But when they get into power, as a collective body, they change their mind. We've just done two surveys and overwhelmingly the British public said they felt nobody should be sent to prison for taking drugs, they should be decriminalised.
IB: I was involved in the experiment around the reclassification of cannabis, and I watched politicians go down that route, and they would just be wiped out by the Daily Mail. The politician who goes forward into the election with this is going to be very brave. I've stood in more crack dens than I wished to. At the top end of drug use – the depravation, dehumanisation and real horror – we need to do more than say this is just about treatment. We have to stop people being taken down a route …
RB: OK, education as well …
IB: It's not just education, it's about protection of people from the really bad guys. Enforcement has to be part of that.
RB: These are the drug pushers? So pull the rug from under them. If the government went one step further and legalised, let's say, marijuana, and taxed it, there would be an enormous amount of revenue that could be spent on helping people with bigger problems. It could be used on education, that $350bn [£220bn] a year that goes to the underworld – let's put it to use.
IB: The question of legalising the milder kind of drugs becomes more questionable as you move up to heroin or cocaine.
RB: One of the reasons people move up to heroin or cocaine is that the people who are selling you marijuana are also the people who will sell you cocaine.
IB: In some cases. You're making a specific argument around marijuana and its lower-end strengths, but there is also the fact that a drug being illegal is the reason a lot of people don't take them.
RB: The war on drugs has failed. We would like to see states and countries experimenting with new approaches.
IB: It is absolutely true that the war on drugs has not been won, and it's likely it is not winnable, but it is loseable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/16/conversation-drugs-decriminalisation-richard-branson |
_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James D
Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 685
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow! Quite awesome collection of Mafia Bosses!
The Presidents (&Ex) of Columbia, Mexico, Brasil ...
Elliot Spitzer, Sir Bent-Cop Blair ...
Investment Bankers !!...
And Richard (I don't toke now) Branson ...
Oh yeah .... and Julian ...
And utter dickheads like "that prick" from the "Mail on Sunday" - making the Moral Arguemnent !!!!!!!!???????? No, seriously!
I sense a stitch up ...
I haven't seen the like since "Bugsy", "Al Capone" and "El Padrino" got together to carve up the "Southside"!
Funny how those against (Stopping the "War")( and who have most to lose) keep changing and twisting the debate!
Typical politicians - never answer the question you are asked! Classic!
Is this the new democracy? To actually talk about stupid policies!?
Or is TV now just too boring? And this is the alternative - Actual debate to then be ignored?
I guess I miss "Question Time" - And they're so polite! Here in Spain they just scream and shout at each other!
Very curious - Thoroughly entertaining! It's better than ....?
Good debate though and very revealing!
However ...
I expect the War on Drugs to continue with New Increased Effort (what was that called in Iraq - it was so unsuccessful, I've forgotten - The Surge or something!')
Is that the point?
Until the whole show crashes into the sun ...
Long, but worth it. Thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
leon
Joined: 22 Aug 2008
Posts: 1046
Location: 3d-rate nation
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I used to be for drug decriminalization, now I am not so sure. After all, Afghanistan war proved beyond any doubts that “powers” do push drugs. The flood of heroin to Russia after Afghanistan takeover by British American boyz is unbelievable.
I have also studied cases of British Opium wars against China.
Now I am more inclined to believe that there is a need to regulate (or outright prohibit) certain drugs, definitely heroin and cocaine by Nation State to protect its vulnerable (and stupid) population, especially the young ones.
One of the reasons the so-called “War on Drugs” is failing is not because it can’t succeed in principle, but for the same reason the war in Vietnam failed: it was driven to fail on purpose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IronClad
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 435
Location: Kent
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps they would define "failing".
On this basis they want to opening the flood gates. Some guy even suggested the drug barons can pay tax on their earnings just like any other trader dealing with a commodity.
Notice they cut the guy off who said stop the banks from money laundering.
Satelite images, drones and napalm would put stop to the drugs trade.
This is some weird idea that illegal drugs being the staple diet of the young and not so young should be spread around like tobacco and society should reap tax benefits. And those engaged in law enforcement should not risk their lives in fighting it. It hasn't failed at all. If it had failed then we would feel the full force of it.
They have no damn clue what the consequencies of the legalisation of illegal drugs.
I hope the intelligence services have taken note of those who promote the legalisation of illegal drugs because they have an agenda to destroy our youth and our society.
There are unemployed youth in this country who would be attracted to the cash for becoming "pushers" and probably more amatuer drug dealers would end up dead.
Here is another grouping of VIP's discussing an issue that is a no brainer. Our youth do not have the money to afford this luxury and would go out of their way to get the cash to try this "in thing". Everyone is doing it so why can't I.
If only VIP's could go public on what is really important instead of wasting their time.
This is yet another attempt at widening the gap between the have yachts and the have nots.
Our people are suffering with staying afloat let along affording the extra luxuries of illegal drug taking.
They all seem to agree that addicts should not be criminilised but helped under the NHS or private medical care but then the privatised prison services would not get the "clients" to fill their prisons.
The idle rich and a few officials who know what they are talking about. No prizes for guessing who we should listen too.
Satelite images, drones, napalm and the political will to eradicate the evil of illegal drug taking is all that is required but since it apparently keeps some economies and countries afloat then this will never happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fintan
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 6105
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | James D:
The Presidents (&Ex) of Columbia, Mexico, Brasil ...
Elliot Spitzer, Sir Bent-Cop Blair ... Investment Bankers !!...
And Richard (I don't toke now) Branson ... Oh yeah .... and Julian ...
I sense a stitch up ... |
Yeah, the panel stinks of a set-up.
After a few minutes of banter, a well-thought out slick 'anti-reform'
crew kicked into gear. With two clever lines of argument prepared:
1) Drug Reform is a corporate plot. Don't let big business win.
2) We already use 'human' policies and we only jail big drug dealers.
....So really there is no need for any change.
As to the first point, I don't think the public is going to legalize packs of
20 joints lining the shelves in the corporate supermarkets. Or approve
of cocaine from ATM-style street dispensers.
Just decriminalize and medicalize low-level use and use/distribution, and
concentrate on large scale drug gangs - which would still be illegal.
Not only are the claimed 'human' policies are highly racist against minorities,
but their effect is to jail record numbers of people for little benefit and
much collateral damage to society. As well as alienating millions of
otherwise lawful citizens for mere possession for personal private use.
Reform this sucker now!
The only basis for continuing the War on Drugs would be to re-target it
against Big Pharma - where the largest number of deaths take place.
Let's see DEA SWAT Teams kicking down the doors of large Pharma
Corporate boardrooms to determine their culpability in drug deaths.
Duuuuh!
_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bri
Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 2887
Location: Capacious Creek
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
