The Global War on Drugs has failed

Post Reply New Topic

So states the Global Commission on Drug Policy report, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The Obama administration dismissed it immediately. They had to know this was coming, and prepared their answer in advance. I feel so disappointed.

Last edited by jrjones9933 on 01 Jun 2011, 11:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Why it succeeded greatly. Columbia is occupied military by US and they are basically a free roaming area for us and Mexico is next.

I'm so voting for a 3rd party candidate this time.

Hopefully not over this... This should have come as no surprise. We know the drug war doesn't work, and we also know there's no political will in this country to change our stance.

Prohibition never works. It never has and it never will. People will do what they damned well please.

ruveyn

I think a more effective strategy would be to fight the reasons people are taking those drugs in the first place.

Hypothetically when you end the war on drugs you still got your addicts and thus a market, but atleast the demand could shrink exponentially.

The reason why people do drugs is because it is pleasant for them to do so. Are you going to abolish pleasure? Good luck!

ruveyn

If we exterminated all sources of drugs and somehow managed to wipe all information possible to make them.

People would just choke themselves for the same effect and self-destructive goodness that drugs offer.

Be it to escape their current seemingly unpleasant situation or for recreational purposes makes a big difference.

Ah, so now we must moralize as to proper uses of/for drugs?

That has not worked for abortion ...

Not to the users. Only to the busybodies who want to control things they do not like.

ruveyn

I'll still vote for Obama in the general election, but I'll donate my money to LEAP instead, and vote against him in the primary if possible. I also sent his campaign a note politiely expressing my displeasure.

Nope, not moralizing but offering an (healthy/healthier) alternative to what they are seeking with drug usage.


~~~



It does to the user actually, the motivation is different and the outcome is different.

This is on habitual addiction, i'm not talking about the substance addiction part.
When you use drugs because you feel significantly unhappy without, bets are that you want more of it because of the difference in the experience of happiness. When you have a life you like and the contribution of the drugs' effect is an extra instead of a necessaty then chances are you can do without.

Drugs can ofcourse be used to control people or atleast keep them docile, things like tabacco and alcohol are popular means to keep the people satisfied plus to put money in the coffers.

I understand and agree, but that can only really be done effectively at a true point of self-aware need. Hence:

"We are careful never to show intolerance or hatred of drinking as an institution. Experience shows that such an attitude is not helpful to anyone. Every new alcoholic looks for this spirit among us and is immensely relieved when he finds we are not witch-burners. A spirit of intolerance might repel alcoholics whose lives could have been saved, had it not been for such stupidity. We would not even do the cause of temperate drinking any good, for not one drinker in a thousand likes to be told anything about alcohol by one who hates it." (page 103)

One day a police officer tried to do a presentation to my high school class on the dangers of drugs. I kept putting my hand up (politely) and challenging most of the things he said. He became displeased with me and disallowed me asking any more questions. But it was too late: I had ruined the effect of his presentation and I had turned my entire class skeptical.

you can turn pretty much anything into a "superficial addiction" in that way,
people that drive a car instead of public transport for an example.
people that eat more than they require,

i dont think any state has the right to exert power over an individuals personal choices, as long as it only affects themselves,
these subjects are usually so subjective that any argument falls apart.