UN Global Commission: Drug War a Failure

I just have one thing to point out, which everyone on the pro-marijuana side seems to spout out (including me, previously).

Yes, cigarettes and alcohol are more harmful than marijuana. But that doesn't matter at all in a legalization debate. You can throw out statistics for drunk driving, cancer caused by tobacco, and the like, but that only works if your argument is banning tobacco/alcohol. Statistics on people dying from drunk driving doesn't have any bearing on why marijuana should be made legal, just on which is more harmful. And hell, "X kills less than cigarettes/alcohol" applies to nearly EVERYTHING. I could pass a law requiring all children to carry assault rifles to school or mandate that all prisoners be confined in Detroit with no police supervision within the city and that would still kill less people than drunk driving.
 
The (legitimate) reason is deterrence. Same as the speeding laws - they don't ticket 1% of speeders, but few people are suggesting doing away with speeding laws. Hell, certain forms of theft (burglary, IIRC) rarely result in arrests, but we wouldn't do away with burglary as a crime.

Deterring speeding saves the lives of innocent non-speeders.

Deterring burglary protects innocent people's property.

Deterring drug use... um... :confused:
 
I just have one thing to point out, which everyone on the pro-marijuana side seems to spout out (including me, previously).

Yes, cigarettes and alcohol are more harmful than marijuana. But that doesn't matter at all in a legalization debate. You can throw out statistics for drunk driving, cancer caused by tobacco, and the like, but that only works if your argument is banning tobacco/alcohol. Statistics on people dying from drunk driving doesn't have any bearing on why marijuana should be made legal, just on which is more harmful. And hell, "X kills less than cigarettes/alcohol" applies to nearly EVERYTHING. I could pass a law requiring all children to carry assault rifles to school or mandate that all prisoners be confined in Detroit with no police supervision within the city and that would still kill less people than drunk driving.

actually it matters a great deal, its called hypocrisy and it kills respect for the law...because the law deserves contempt.
 
I could pass a law requiring all children to carry assault rifles to school or mandate that all prisoners be confined in Detroit with no police supervision within the city

I approve of both of these ideas. I mean, what else could we do with Detroit?
 
I think Berzerker is just saying that we should be consistent about the standards by which we decide what should be legal or illegal.
 
Well then, maybe we should fix that.
 
So you're saying that the legalization of one unhealthy activity obligates us to legalize everything less lethal than said activity?

of course... its disgusting for smoking, boozing politicians to ban pot or any other "drug". Those two alone have killed millions and the scumbag politicians not only subsidize that stuff by taking $$$ from people, they throw the pot smokers in cages, even sick people using pot for its medicinal properties. Morally bankrupt laws deserve contempt, not respect... Thats why Prohibition failed and its why the drug war has failed.

I've asked supporters of the drug war about their successes, and I never get a response. Do we have proof drug addiction and consumption rates have significantly declined? Has caging millions of people for drugs done anything other than create more government jobs, taxes and immorality? On 9/11 we had a few thousand govt people chasing pot smokers instead of terrorists, miss-spent resources kills people too.

Homicide rates for the 20th century show what happens during drug wars - thousands of people die as violence and crime explodes while criminal organizations form to meet the demand. In the mid 80's Reagan and Congress and most of the states dramatically increased penalties for adults dealing or trafficking in drugs. What do you think happened? Gang recruitment of minors skyrocketed and juvenile crime rates ballooned. I suspect the drug war kills more people than drugs...
 
of course... its disgusting for smoking, boozing politicians to ban pot or any other "drug". Those two alone have killed millions and the scumbag politicians not only subsidize that stuff by taking $$$ from people, they throw the pot smokers in cages, even sick people using pot for its medicinal properties. Morally bankrupt laws deserve contempt, not respect... Thats why Prohibition failed and its why the drug war has failed.

I've asked supporters of the drug war about their successes, and I never get a response. Do we have proof drug addiction and consumption rates have significantly declined? Has caging millions of people for drugs done anything other than create more government jobs, taxes and immorality? On 9/11 we had a few thousand govt people chasing pot smokers instead of terrorists, miss-spent resources kills people too.

Homicide rates for the 20th century show what happens during drug wars - thousands of people die as violence and crime explodes while criminal organizations form to meet the demand. In the mid 80's Reagan and Congress and most of the states dramatically increased penalties for adults dealing or trafficking in drugs. What do you think happened? Gang recruitment of minors skyrocketed and juvenile crime rates ballooned. I suspect the drug war kills more people than drugs...

1. Wait, how exactly are politicians "subsidizing" alcohol and tobacco consumption?

2. I also agree the war on drugs has done more harm than good, but the original point was that legalizing one unhealthy activity does not obligate us to legalize everything less harmful than that activity. You can of course argue that alcohol and tobacco are worse than marijuana, but that has no bearing as to why marijuana should be legalized. How does cancer rate among tobacco smokers have anything to do with legalizing a different substance? And like I said before, almost anything is less dangerous than drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco. Should we legalize, say, lead in gasoline because it's less dangerous to inhale that than tobacco?

And though marijuana may be a safer choice, is someone really obligating you to smoke either pot or tobacco? By comparing the two, you seem to make it as if there's no other choice. Isn't there a third choice of not partaking in either of them?
 
I've asked supporters of the drug war about their successes, and I never get a response. Do we have proof drug addiction and consumption rates have significantly declined?

Well, cocaine use among high school students is down since the end of the cocaine epidemic of the '80s. SUCCESS!

Homicide rates for the 20th century show what happens during drug wars - thousands of people die as violence and crime explodes while criminal organizations form to meet the demand. In the mid 80's Reagan and Congress and most of the states dramatically increased penalties for adults dealing or trafficking in drugs. What do you think happened? Gang recruitment of minors skyrocketed and juvenile crime rates ballooned. I suspect the drug war kills more people than drugs...

Correlation does not imply causation. You could just as easily blame the increase in violent crime on ever-stricter gun laws.

Should we legalize, say, lead in gasoline because it's less dangerous to inhale that than tobacco?

It already is legal... it's just not very popular because it screws up catalytic converters.
 
Well, cocaine use among high school students is down since the end of the cocaine epidemic of the '80s. SUCCESS!

Correlation does not imply causation.

How do you know the drug just didn't fall out of favor? Why do we always assume the gov't wields some magic wand it can use to control society?

Drugs just seem to wax and wane in terms of popularity from my experience, regardless of legality. We haven't taken a stand against tobacco, and yet the usage is decreasing from all I've seen.
 
I just have one thing to point out, which everyone on the pro-marijuana side seems to spout out (including me, previously).

Yes, cigarettes and alcohol are more harmful than marijuana. But that doesn't matter at all in a legalization debate. You can throw out statistics for drunk driving, cancer caused by tobacco, and the like, but that only works if your argument is banning tobacco/alcohol. Statistics on people dying from drunk driving doesn't have any bearing on why marijuana should be made legal, just on which is more harmful. And hell, "X kills less than cigarettes/alcohol" applies to nearly EVERYTHING. I could pass a law requiring all children to carry assault rifles to school or mandate that all prisoners be confined in Detroit with no police supervision within the city and that would still kill less people than drunk driving.

Pointing out the relative harmfulness is simply showing the inherent hypocrisy in the prohibition.

But you're asking the wrong question. The question is not "Why should we legalize marijuana?", the real question is "Why was marijuana made illegal in the first place?" Given that the answer rests on a deliberate campaign of misinformation that not only directly contradicted what the AMA and studies said at the time, but was also carried out by individuals in the paper and fabric industries who happened to stand to make a fortune by banning hemp (Or lose a fortune to emerging hemp technologies); doesn't it warrant a fresh look? One not from the point of view of re-legalization, but to justify the prohibition?
 
Pointing out the relative harmfulness is simply showing the inherent hypocrisy in the prohibition.

But you're asking the wrong question. The question is not "Why should we legalize marijuana?", the real question is "Why was marijuana made illegal in the first place?" Given that the answer rests on a deliberate campaign of misinformation that not only directly contradicted what the AMA and studies said at the time, but was also carried out by individuals in the paper and fabric industries who happened to stand to make a fortune by banning hemp (Or lose a fortune to emerging hemp technologies); doesn't it warrant a fresh look? One not from the point of view of re-legalization, but to justify the prohibition?

Despite my comments, I am all for decriminalizing marijuana. I just feel that others on my side of the issue don't always see the flaws in arguments. I still maintain that pointing out "relative harmlessness" is still an inherently flawed argument, because almost anything could be legalized on that grounds when compared to alcohol and tobacco.
 
I wasn't even aware that the UN prosecuted a "Global War on Drugs".
 
How do you know the drug just didn't fall out of favor? Why do we always assume the gov't wields some magic wand it can use to control society?

Drugs just seem to wax and wane in terms of popularity from my experience, regardless of legality. We haven't taken a stand against tobacco, and yet the usage is decreasing from all I've seen.

That's kind of what I was saying, bro. I guess you didn't pick up on the sarcasm.

I wasn't even aware that the UN prosecuted a "Global War on Drugs".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs
 
1. Wait, how exactly are politicians "subsidizing" alcohol and tobacco consumption?
Tobacco companies receive ridiculous amounts of subsidies. Of course at the same time the actual smokers are hit with these BS cigarette taxes that only punishes addicts. Not like you can expect the policies to be fair when it comes to this stuff.

Same thing with alcohol. Those corporations are even allowed to advertise.

Criminilizing drugs is basically saying people don't even own their own bodies.
 
Well, cocaine use among high school students is down since the end of the cocaine epidemic of the '80s. SUCCESS!

You just compared drug use rates during a drug war to claim success? What was the rate of use before Nixon declared war on drugs? It was non-existent... Thats not a success.

Correlation does not imply causation. You could just as easily blame the increase in violent crime on ever-stricter gun laws.

Go ahead and try, I'll start - the homicide rates peaked twice during the 20th century, both times at the height of drug wars. When the first drug war ended (repeal of Prohibition) the homicide rate dropped 13 years in a row to half the level under Prohibition. Did the gun laws disappear? No, the drug war disappeared. That homicide rate remained stable until the 60s, Nixon and Reagan had their drug wars and the homicide rate doubled again hitting the same peak under alcohol prohibition.

Your turn, how did stricter gun laws during the 1920s double the homicide rate...?
 
Tobacco companies receive ridiculous amounts of subsidies. Of course at the same time the actual smokers are hit with these BS cigarette taxes that only punishes addicts. Not like you can expect the policies to be fair when it comes to this stuff.

Same thing with alcohol. Those corporations are even allowed to advertise.

Criminilizing drugs is basically saying people don't even own their own bodies.

The only "subsidies" for tobacco I can find is the Tobacco Transition Payment System, which basically removes Great Depression-era quotas, and the Tobacco Loss Assistance Program, which mainly benefits small farmers. I couldn't even find anything on alcohol subsidies.

Plus, cigarette taxes help us pay for medical care that smokers require. I would say that's fair to everyone, especially since it would be cheaper for the government to just axe all tobacco taxes and have smokers die earlier so they couldn't collect Social Security and pensions. At least this way, smokers live longer.
 
You just compared drug use rates during a drug war to claim success? What was the rate of use before Nixon declared war on drugs? It was non-existent... Thats not a success.

Do you have statistics to support that assertion? And just so you know, I Google'd it and found NONE WHATSOEVER. The only thing I found was this incredibly vague statement from the Teen Help's website, in a section on Teen Drug Abuse Statistics.

"In the area of hard drugs, teen drug use has been declining. Use of the strong drugs is much less than it was in the 1960s and 1970s."
 
Top Bottom