International Panel of Experts Call for Worldwide Drug Decriminalization

[Neonanocyborgasm]

An international panel of scientists and experts have called upon the decriminalization of drug use for reasons of its failure and because it has only caused an increase in crime and public health threats. They cite statistics, among other things, showing that intravenous drug use contributes overwhelmingly, in developed nations, to rampant HIV spread, and that severe criminal penalties have either done nothing or have made the problem worse by preventing those with drug problems from seeking help. It's called the Vienna Declaration.

I think this is a great idea whose time is long coming. The "War on Drugs" has done nothing to reduce drug use and has only lead to international drug trafficking syndicates becoming outrageously wealthy and outrageously violent in their efforts at maintaining their business.

Discuss.

 

[Cheetah]

A debate about legalisation of (some) drugs and narcotics is always interesting.

I think this picture needs to be included in any such debate:

Personally, I would consider supporting a legalisation and regulation (akin to the state monopoly stores for liquor we have in Norway perhaps) for some of the stuff in the yellow and orange groups, as alcohol and tobacco is already legalised. As the red group seems worse than alcohol and tobacco, I'm very concerned about legalising those drugs.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Why should the results of one controversial "scientific" study, which tries to claim that heroin is somehow almost 3 times more "dangerous" than tobacco, trump everything else known about the subject?

In the words of a highly biased website which is ciearly against using heroin as a recreational drug:

Injecting has two main safety problems: the transmission of HIV and other diseases (especially Hepatitis B & C) through sharing needles, and the dangers of injecting crap under your skin.

Compare and contrast those "problems", which can be almost completely eliminated through decriminalization, to the much greater likelihood of contracting terminal lung cancer, which has a massive effect on our healthcare costs and directly kills millions of people every year.

 

[GhostWriter16]

A debate about legalisation of (some) drugs and narcotics is always interesting.

I think this picture needs to be included in any such debate:

Personally, I would consider supporting a legalisation and regulation (akin to the state monopoly stores for liquor we have in Norway perhaps) for some of the stuff in the yellow and orange groups, as alcohol and tobacco is already legalised. As the red group seems worse than alcohol and tobacco, I'm very concerned about legalising those drugs.

Well, I already support marijuanna legislation, and obviously do not support banning alcohol or tobacco.

As for Cocaine and Heroin, I'm a bit worried that legalizing them would cause other problems, such as child neglect, shooting, exc. however, I'm able to be convinced.

I do agree however, that putting someone IN A CELL just for taking a drug is nonsense. If you are going to punish it, use a fine, that way it doesn't cost money and it saves trial time usually.

However, its not important enough for the World to decide together, let the nations decide, in fact, in the US let the states decide!

Why should the results of one controversial "scientific" study, which tries to claim that heroin is somehow almost 3 times more "dangerous" than tobacco, trump everything else known about the subject?

Just curious, what is "Known" about the subject.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Much about the actual dangers of heroin, or the lack thereof, are quite well known.

Should we start with the myth of the danger of heroin overdose?

 

[Ayn Rand]

A debate about legalisation of (some) drugs and narcotics is always interesting.

I think this picture needs to be included in any such debate:

Uhm... what are the units on those axes representing?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Much about the actual dangers of heroin, or the lack thereof, are quite well known.

Should we start with the myth of the danger of heroin overdose?

My issue with Heroin being legalized has nothing to do with them killing themselves, which should just be legal. I agree with Ronald Reagan, "Government exists to protect us from each other, when government oversteps its bounds is when it protects people from themselves."

My problem with legalizing heroin is the potential harm it can cause OTHER PEOPLE, such as child neglect, getting children addicted, getting addicted yourself causing you to steal/kill. Of course, in general I go by "Liberty cannot be taken away unless you give a good reason to take it away" so I'm not necessarily against it either. I'm willing to be convinced either way.

EDIT: @Ayn Rand- While I don't know the actual numbers, supposedly the ones in Red cause the most damage, then the ones in Orange, and the ones in Yellow cause the least. Personally, I think its nonsense that Alcohol is worse for you than Marijuana, in fact, Alcohol in moderation does no harm and can even help you (Wine is actually healthy in moderation.)

Alcohol used to get drunk will harm you, and perhaps it CAN hurt you more than Marijuana, which is why they did it. However, I think its nonsense.

Disclaimer- I do think Marijuana should be legal.

 

[Frank Drebin]

but all that stuff is already happening, domination3000. heroin is very much part of society, whether it's illegal or not.

 

[nonconformist]

Pfft, what do scientists know. Imma base my drug policy on ill founded anecdotes.

 

[Munch]

Pfft, what do scientists know. Imma base my drug policy on ill founded anecdotes.

I would vote for you if those anecdotes came from foreign taxi drivers.

 

[GhostWriter16]

but all that stuff is already happening, domination3000. heroin is very much part of society, whether it's illegal or not.

ATM Heroin is looked down upon though.

Again, I don't yet have an opinion, but legalizing it would make it more acceptable. And of course its ultra-addicting.

 

[bhsup]

I cannot believe how they blow the most basic thing in that study. The criminalization of drugs has not increased crime. It is the PEOPLE WHO INSIST ON USING SAID DRUGS that are causing the increase in crime. If they would obey the frakking law instead of being loser druggie scum, this wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Munch]

I cannot believe how they blow the most basic thing in that study. The criminalization of drugs has not increased crime. It is the PEOPLE WHO INSIST ON USING SAID DRUGS that are causing the increase in crime. If they would obey the frakking law instead of being loser druggie scum, this wouldn't be a problem.

The criminalisation of drugs increases crime because it redefines "users" as "criminals".

Sure they could - and maybe they should - 'just obey the law', but 1) some drugs you don't 'just stop' using them, and 2) there is at least a reasonable case to be made that the frakking law is unjust. I'm sure there's a 3) 4) and 5) as well...

 

[GhostWriter16]

I cannot believe how they blow the most basic thing in that study. The criminalization of drugs has not increased crime. It is the PEOPLE WHO INSIST ON USING SAID DRUGS that are causing the increase in crime. If they would obey the frakking law instead of being loser druggie scum, this wouldn't be a problem.

This is correct.

A better point would be "The court system are clogged up with people who's only crime is buying some marijuanna. Regardless of whether it should be illegal, a jail sentence is grossly disproportionate.

Personally I think it should be legal, but if you don't want to make it illegal, just fine them, its not fair to the taxpayer.

 

[Cheetah]

Uhm... what are the units on those axes representing?

I'm afraid I don't know. I don't even remember where I found that graph, but I believe it was some Wikipedia article.

I posted it so as to make sure the following debate could be somewhat more sensible, instead of having people shouting "legalise!" or "criminalise!", without any concern as to which drugs one was talking about.

Whether the graph is completely correct or not, is quite another issue.

As such, I'll try to look at Formas links when I have time, as I am under the impression that heroin - in itself - is quite dangerous.

 

[Frank Drebin]

look, if there's a market for something, someone's gonna sell it, legal or not.

all illegalisation does, is leaving the market to organized crime, increasing violence and the risk for everybody involved.

 

[bhsup]

I agree that if a law is unjust, there is reason to disobey it. But there is no way anybody is ever going to convince me that our drug laws are unjust in any way. Some of them may be ill-advised or wrongheaded, but they are not immoral or ethically unsupportable or unjust in any way and I expect my fellow citizens to obey the laws, or at least stfu and take the punishment like a man if they get caught breaking said laws.

 

[Winner]

A debate about legalisation of (some) drugs and narcotics is always interesting.

I think this picture needs to be included in any such debate:

Khat is less harmful and less addictive than cannabis? Wut?

 

[Frank Drebin]

I agree that if a law is unjust, there is reason to disobey it. But there is no way anybody is ever going to convince me that our drug laws are unjust in any way. Some of them may be ill-advised or wrongheaded, but they are not immoral or ethically unsupportable or unjust in any way and I expect my fellow citizens to obey the laws, or at least stfu and take the punishment like a man if they get caught breaking said laws.

it's not about people whining for getting caught.

it's about the societal ills that prohibitionism brings about.

people wouldnt get shot over drug deals in new york, farc wouldnt have become an out of control crime organisation destroying colombian society from the bottom up and heroin addicts in texas would be able to seek help instead of being driven into illegality by the law if drugs were not prohibited but controlled in the usa.

 

[Cheetah]

but all that stuff is already happening, domination3000. heroin is very much part of society, whether it's illegal or not.

A case could be made though that legalising the less harmful substances would make it less likely that people go on to try more harmful, illegal substances.

I cannot believe how they blow the most basic thing in that study. The criminalization of drugs has not increased crime. It is the PEOPLE WHO INSIST ON USING SAID DRUGS that are causing the increase in crime. If they would obey the frakking law instead of being loser druggie scum, this wouldn't be a problem.

I cannot believe how they blow the most basic thing in that study. The criminalization of alcohol has not increased crime. It is the PEOPLE WHO INSIST ON DRINKING ALCOHOL that are causing the increase in crime. If they would obey the frakking law instead of being loser drunken scum, this wouldn't be a problem.

While your complaint is completely correct - from a certain point of view - I think it is a gross simplification to say that the problem is simply that criminals are committing crimes.

A law that is not supported by the masses, and which the state is unable to uphold effectively, is three things:
- Doomed to fail.
- Producing lots of unnecessary criminals, clogging up the justice system and costing the state, and thus tax payers, too much.
- Effectively lessening people's respect for the law in general.

Clearly, we can all see that large segments of the population does not support a ban on (all) drugs. As such, any law that would do so would have to be easy to uphold effectively. We have no such laws currently, and I haven't heard of any suggested laws to do so, unless we want to transform into some kind of police state (Though note that both China nor Iran have met limited success in their anti-drug actions).