drug policy
12 Oct 2009
Even Cops Think It's A Bad Idea
The evidence all stacks up: the war on drugs has obviously and tragically failed. David Hollier asks former US police chief, Norm Stamper, why we're still fighting a losing war
Forty years ago, Richard Nixon declared "all-out war on drugs", and enlisted the support of global allies. Since then the war on drugs has cost the United States US$1 trillion, drugs are cheaper and more available, the profits for trading them greater than ever and the violence of the entire culture of prohibition escalating. By all of its own criteria, the "war" has failed utterly.So why on earth are we still fighting it?
While Australia is still an enthusiastic front-line ally, many countries have beat a hasty retreat. Mexico and most South American nations have recently abandoned the policy. Earlier this year, US Senator Jim Webb introduced a bill seeking to reform the entire criminal justice system, saying the nation is "wasting billions of dollars and diminishing millions of lives" on ineffective strategies such as the war on drugs. The bill has the backing of a growing band of police dissenters. One such group, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), believes the policy is a disaster for law enforcement in the US.
One of LEAP's key advisors is former Police Chief Norm Stamper. After 34 years fighting and losing the war on drugs — three of them as chief of police in Seattle — Stamper left the force. He now blogs on Huffington Post and travels extensively, making LEAP's case for legalisation. He calls the war on drugs "the most devastating, dysfunctional, harmful policy since slavery". Stamper was in Sydney to speak at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas alongside fellow contrarians Germaine Greer and Christopher Hitchens, but I caught up with him in the tiny auditorium at the NSW Users and AIDS Association in Surry Hills.
I asked Stamper why, given its catastrophic failure, the war on drugs still has overwhelming political support.
Almost all US States have become addicted to federal money to fight drugs, Stamper told me. "The toughest nut to crack will be the prison industrial complex — especially the private ones. You get paid per prisoner per day. Why would you want to reduce crime?" And the public prison system is also invested in the status quo. "Powerful unions have strong memberships in the prison system. They tend to present any policy that reduces incarceration as a threat to job security and their own survival."
No wonder the United States, with 5 per cent of the world's population, has 25 per cent of the world's prisoners. Of these, 500,000 are in prison on drugs charges — 1200 per cent more than in 1980.
Before you shake your head and mutter "only in America", the situation in Australia is appalling, too. The Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation conservatively estimates the annual costs of our drug war at $6.7 billion. Official stats are hard to come by, but according to Drugs and Law Enforcement (Spinney Press), in the decade to 2006 at least 50,000 people a year were arrested for drugs, the vast majority of which were for marijuana. In what should be an embarrassment to Australian law enforcement, 84 per cent of marijuana arrests in 2004-5 were for consumption.
It was one such petty bust that made the penny drop for Stamper. Like fellow officers, he'd accepted that possessing a joint was a felony, and that getting promoted meant racking up his arrest sheet. "I'm not proud of it, but the power went to my head," he confessed.
Then he kicked down the door of a 19-year-old kid and, "snatching the weed out of his flushing toilet", busted him. "Taking him down the station for a felony charge, I suddenly saw this kid as a fellow human being, and I'm busting him when I could be out solving real crime."
Stamper came to understand he was playing a role in the deadly narrative established by the prohibition policy of the 1920s and 30s. "Prohibition created the culture of violence. It invented Al Capone and the industry of dealing in illicit products for which there is unstoppable demand. Drive-by shootings, overdose deaths, massive profit and the violent defence of that profit against competitors. The whole framework got started with prohibition."
Stamper sees the horrors of the Mexican drug cartels — who have recently taken to leaving their beheaded victims in public places — as the latest extension of this violence and intimidation. The cartels and their members are now in 230 cities across the US — and everywhere they set up, cops are soon dealing, extorting and kidnapping, just like the cartels.
Some nations are tired of this spiral. After going along with America's war on drugs for decades, Mexico, Argentina, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia have all backed away from a policy of interdiction. All are moving towards decriminalisation in attempts to free up funding and police to deal with the violence and to relieve prison systems bursting at the seams. They've done it quietly, so as not to offend the United States.
Stamper feels it bodes well that the US did not stand in the way of this. But he believes decriminalisation, while a useful first step that stops user arrests jamming the system, must be replaced with legalisation. "Only legalisation gets to the heart of the issue; it stops the trafficking, the violence and the corruption, by regulating and taxing the whole process. Then you can truly begin the process of harm minimisation."
It's hard to fault the man's determined optimism. But what about the pharmaceutical industry, I ask him, which is a fierce supporter of the war on drugs? Stamper concedes their power, but is sure "their opposition will dissolve once they see there's a place for them at the table of a regulated market".
I also put to Stamper the commonly expressed fear that legalisation will just result in more users. "There's a sustained production of misinformation about the real issues, the reason for the violence and corruption," he told me. "We need a massive education strategy to bring the truth to the mums and dads."
In Australia, the Drug Law Reform Foundation and the NSW Users and AIDS Association are recognised leaders on drug policy, education and management. Generally, the approach of drug advocacy groups is to fly under the radar. The Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) in Kings Cross is a perfect example. Opened amid a media storm of scare-mongering and conservative moral panic in 2001, it has quietly become established. Why? Because it works. Staff have dealt with 2557 overdoses without a single death. Rather than encouraging drug use, MSIC has enabled health officials to build an accurate picture of drug use in Sydney. This allows them to devise policy based on facts instead of moral positions based on fantasies. It saves lives and saves money.
Tragically, shock jocks and church leaders still pipe a seductive tune for the unthinking — and political leaders remain too meek to confront them. This moronic tune needs to become the real target for anyone, politicians included, interested in ending our outrageously expensive and utterly failed attempt to prohibit drugs.
In the US, Stamper readily accepts that change will be incremental, but with "75 per cent of all Americans believing the war on drugs has failed, we have the critical mass of public opinion. It's getting the leaders who whisper their support to speak out".
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
First sensible thing I have read on this subject for years.
interesting and depressing to think how little we have learnt regarding the worlds drug problem and how to solve it, if it is solvable. Many experts have been trying to tell governments and the law that we are losing the battle and its time to change the strategy, or is that just too obvious for our policy makers and like many of our major social problems just too hard.
Most distrust of the police is because of drug laws. I’ve a friend who was recently caught by sniffer dogs on his way home minding his own business. It could have cost him his job of over a decade which he lived and breathed (hard to get him on other topics sometimes). He is constantly rated high value by his employers but laws are laws.
The simple fact is that apart from a few sad cases that should be treated as a health problem, you would be unaware who has a smoke or a cookie after work or on the weekends. Not everyone looks like an extra for a Cheech and Chong movie. I’ve know of doctors, nurses, school teachers, tradesmen of all types, baristers, soliciters, clerks and even a couple of police officers who indulged a little in marijuana. They don’t go to work stoned but what they do after hours should be their only concern. I also once knew a grower who made a point of writing to their local member at least once a year complaining about doped up kids as it wasn’t in his economic interest to have it legalised.
I would also like to know who chooses the routes for the sniffer dogs. They are used at concerts, public transport and hotels but you never hear of them staking out the car parks of the big offices in town where there could well be a glove box full of coke. Just joe blow public out to enjoy themselves. It is such a waste of resources.
Marijuana should be legalised and controlled like tobacco but I would recommend the legal age to be 21 years or older due to research on the affects on developing brains. With the current state of affairs the dealers don’t care about how old their customers are. People will abuse substances and there is not much you can do about it, look at chromers and glue sniffers.
A good read in the SMH.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-pot-growers-pose-threat-to-mexican-cartel…
"While the trafficking of cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine is the main focus of US law enforcement, marijuana has long provided most of the revenue for Mexican drug cartels. More than 60 per cent of the cartels’ revenue - $US8.6 billion out of $US13.8 billion in 2006 - came from US marijuana sales, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy says."
The War On Drugs is providing $US8.6 billion to the bad guys in Mexico and when you ad how much the sale of opium is funding the bad guys during The War On Terror you can only come to the realisation that the system is seriously broken.
All the expense of law enforcement officers hunting down hippies with their illegal crops and the like, is only restricting the supply but not the demand. It is keeping the prices up and the criminal elements rich.
I am fully expecting the ‘stepping stone’ argument to rear its lopsided head but please consider, if you demonise all drugs with the same fear factor and by experiment, some kid finds out that it didn’t kill them and was quite fun, what warning can you give them to prove that the next step might not be interesting but a real danger? Like the village people who finally didn’t listen to the boy who cried wolf, young experimenters finally get sick of listening to the fear campaigns and will sometimes cross the line. Proper educations will be more beneficial than sanctions.
A final point. The authorities can not even keep drugs out of the prison system so what chance in open society.
Eddieb,
First sensible thing I have read on this subject in years
Well, I will have to agree
When a country has a Law that makes a third of its population criminal then it is well overdue for a change of policy
By decriminalising drugs we would stop a lot of corruption,improve the health system,free police to fight more serious crimes and break a lot of the organised crime syndicates
If we introduce a licensing system where we pay an annual licensing fee then this revenue could be used to assist funding to our hospitals, clinics etc
I am in no way advocating the use of drugs including alcohol but the war on drugs has failed dismally it is time to change we didn’t have all this garbage going on with drugs before they were illegal so that alone must say something
Anyway thanks for your time
Have a good life
From Dave
Great article David Hollier! Still, the pharmaceutical corps are not the only ones who love the war on drugs. Insurance companies, what would they do when no one needs to insure their houses and cars for break-ins from those desperate junkies?
FACT less than 5% of household burglaries are done by pros. Also, a professional can break in no matter how fancy your security. The rest are mostly junkies smashing a window or trying to break your locks. No war on drugs, insurance premiums slashed, and so are their profits.
Lets see, who else stands to lose? I know, Lawyers! What would our criminal justice system do without all those drug cases?
hmmmn what else? Tobacco and Alcohol industries might not like the competition, UNLESS they could have a stake in the profits selling DRUGS, but that would be disastrous. Could you imagine a VB style add about extacy? "How do ya feel? When comin’ on an ya wanna hug tha yob next to you?"
Also, those industries mentioned wouldn’t happen to be big political donors would they? I’m sure if we really think about it there are dozens of large corporations set to lose out big time when the current war is over. They won’t give up easily.
Another point, from that great film SCARFACE, when Al Pacino lets loose in the restaurant "Take a look at the bad guy! you people need me to make yourselves look good!" It’s not verbatim, but the point is that our current social structure NEEDS the bad guys - the druggies - so the ‘good’ people know they’re doing ok with their alcoholism and pack of fags a day. Lock those druggies up so us decent folk can feel good and SAFE! Capitalism thrives on competition and survival of the fittest, so law abiding citizens need to be rewarded in the battle for survival.
My last point. It seems obvious to me that most of those gunning for the war on drugs have never had a great time wacked on some yummy pure MDMA, never cacked out stoned, never gawked at swirling drug induced patterns, and NEVER been in that other reality that each different drug can take you. This is THE most crucial point. The 60s was so dangerous to the establishment because people, via drugs, could see alternatives to the system. Drugs break down the absurdity of wage slavery and make you question reality on a profound level. Religion, war, violence, etc. Lots of these things endemic in society become far more tenuous when you’re high, unless you’re on crack or ice, but I’ve never tried those (; BUT, if society wasn’t so uncaring in the first place, and if drugs were all legal, who would choose the really nasty drugs over the more pleasant ones? Junkies do other shit when the smack dries up!
The War on Drugs is "the most devastating, dysfunctional, harmful policy since slavery". C’MON people! where are your responses to this great article?
How many of you have taken ILLEGAL DRUGS?
What will it take for sensible people to fight for our right to peacefully get high on something other than alcohol, that won’t lead to a criminal conviction or a fine or both?
Barry O’Farrell want’s to shut down the injecting room and go back to the Howard era zero tolerance and "it only encourages them to take drugs" bullshit.
How much more of your tax dollars do you wanna see spent on sniffer dogs and prosecuting non-violent drug offenders?
WAKE UP dear readers, put down that bong and write a letter now!
Excellent article by David Hollier.
According to a 2003 media release from the National Drug Research Institute: "research into the global burden of disease attributable to alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs found that in 2000, tobacco use was responsible for 4.9 million deaths worldwide, equating to 71 percent of all drug-related deaths. Around 1.8 million deaths were attributable to the use of alcohol (26 percent of all drug-related deaths), and illicit drugs (heroin, cocaine and amphetamines) caused approximately 223,000 deaths (3 percent of all drug-related deaths)" (see "Tobacco, Alcohol And Illicit Drugs Responsible For Seven Million Preventable Deaths Worldwide ": http://db.ndri.curtin.edu.au/media.asp?mediarelid=40 ) .
However the religious right who oppose rational drug polices as advocated in David Hollier’s article are the same mob who support the US Alliance War on Afghanistan that, according to UN Office on Drugs and Crime World Drug Report 2007 (see: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/WDR-2007.html ) restored the Taliban-destroyed Afghan opium industry from 6% of world market share in 2001 to 93% now.
Pro-war Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama has indeed recently formally ordered US Alliance soldiers not to destroy opium crops. Since 2001 the US Alliance is thus responsible for about 0.1 million opiate drug deaths annually, including about 300 in Australia.
Vote for pro-war, pro-US Lib-Labs and you are voting for the US-restored Afghan opium industry and 300 Australian opiate drug-related deaths each year.
For a detailed analysis see "Obama as World’s #1 terrorist, #1 war criminal, #1 child killer, #1 Drug Pusher & #1 Drug Lord ": http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article19234 .
Peace is the only way but Silence kills and Silence is complicity.
YES! Thanks Dr GideonPolya, that’s the fighting spirit we need! Silence IS complicity!
Great article. Yet still our own administrators continue to pursue prohibition, despite the mounting evidence that this just strengthens the black market. For the latest step backward see http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26196387-5010800,00.h….
Mr Barnett’s naive view that it’s OK to trade Australians civil liberties for perceived safety is not acceptable in someone supposedly representing the public. Those same public who are now subject to groundless stop and search powers invested in the WA Police force. All those positive steps in 2003 wasted by a narrow minded and short sighted act.
Very disappointing.
Like they say, "Drug kills". When you have a sizable population messing with dangerous substances, there is always going to be economic impact of some form. It’s just like saying that legalising dangerous driving will result in less casualties on the road - no sensible individual is ever going to buy that.
Of course, I am sure everyone would be quite happy if everything was legalised, but let’s step back a bit and just work with what we have got now, shall we? Illegalisation creates black markets? That’s pretty much Economics 101 if you ask me. But can tax do that too? Unfortunately, the answer is "yes". In some countries, crooks sell untaxed diesel and petrol, even. But illegalisation generates violence? Yeah, I guess, but should we now legalise machine guns then? I think it would be quite interesting to walk past my next-door neighbour and say how nice his fully-operational battle tank was. The bank robbers would be pleased to honour such move as well. Injection centres? Well, whatever you do there is going to slowly kill you anyway (hospitalisation, anyone?) And when you can’t pay legally to get your fix, where do you go? (Hint: It starts with the word "black".)
Having a war is one thing, but how you are supposed to fight it is another. Every lobby wants to paint a nice picture for themselves, although the ugly reality will never fail to knock on your door as soon as you start putting what they say into practice. Cops are just cops. They don’t make the rules - they are only there to follow them. If felony charges are over the top, then turn then into fines - if that’s worth considering. What’s involved here is a matter of a particular strategy, but what you are suggesting is a change the government’s overall stance on the issue, and that, my friend, is the logical equivalent of putting the cart before the horse.
Good article. Drug dealing is business. How do you shut down a business? By undercutting it. How do you undercut it? Just ask big business how they go about shuting down small competition. Cheaper product, more readily available, without the risks. Side effects of this strategy? Those side effects are also referred to as "harm minimisation".
Dear JMonco, "Injection centres? Well, whatever you do there is going to slowly kill you anyway (hospitalisation, anyone?) "
Do you realise that pure heroin is physiologically harmless? Highly addictive for some yes, but without the war on drugs causing huge fluctuations in purity of heroin, users would not overdose and die as much as they do. Hospitals sedate all patients for surgery with opiates or synthetic version of them! and they CONTROL the dose, like you would get with pure heroin the state sold or distributed to addicts.
Also, what is your logic behind equating drugs with tanks and machine guns?
And why would I go and buy drugs from a "black" guy when I can buy it CHEAPLY from the state, as that is the idea behind stopping the drug baron’s profits. You see, marijuana, coca and poppies are easy to grow and VERY CHEAP. It is prohibition has made them expensive!
OK…
1) "Do you realise that pure heroin is physiologically harmless"? Welcome to the world of legalisation lobby junk science, I guess.
2) "Cheaply"? If you mean you are going to subsidise all the supply + infrastructures (did we just mention "injection centres")? And who is going to assure the quality of the stuff anyway (and note we are not talking about about a bunch of people working for free on that, either)? And with all the differentiation and added costs to, say, heroin, do you honestly think black market stuff with die off any time sooner?
3) "Equating drugs with tanks and machine guns"? Sorry to give you that impression but I thought that legalising things would cause violence to cease and all that. Now apparently you have a different idea on the issue, don’t you?
Nothing wrong with a good bong, it settles the nerves, cures a hangover & nobody gets bashed because their too busy laughing. It’s good to see the government are starting to wake up to the fact that you can not declare war on thing, or object. The idiots are on better acid than anyone here could contemplate, just to say such a thing. ‘Those marijuana joint’s are going to come walking down the road, armed with guns & shoot everyone, lids of hash will poison the water supply & acid trips will have some really heavy artillery packed under their jumpers’. Oh fuck, here come the hero politicians.
@jmonco, If you cant see the futility of prohibition you are either very stupid, adhere to some sort of religious delusion or stand to lose money if drugs were legalised.
One particular book that points out the folly of current drug laws is High Society, by Ben Elton, you should have a read.
The unfortunate reality is that the laws do more harm than the drugs.
Also, as wonky says, heroin itself does no physiological dammage, it dosent hurt any internal organs, that is a fact old mate, so open your mind and have a real look at the world.
@JMonco: "And with all the differentiation and added costs to, say, heroin, do you honestly think black market stuff with die off any time sooner?"
Yes. Not all illegal drugs, but the highly addictive ones, that’s right. Market-generating strategies such as the "introductory rates" we see in the credit-card market are also used in the addictive-substances retail market. Supply is often subsidized for new customers because the addiction will pay excellent returns in a matter of only weeks.
Retailers prefer to grow their own market because of the police-informer risk of selling to strangers. Over time these customers’ health and lifestyle deteriorates and affects their earning power, and there’s an increased risk of turning police informer, so there’s a constant need to induct new customers.
These market-generation tactics would become commercially pointless if the established customer, once addicted, could then turn to the state for a cheaper, better, safer supply.
And WF is right, clean dosage-controlled heroin is not harmful to health. Quite a few doctors are addicted to it, but they don’t buy the street rubbish, and it doesn’t affect either their competence or their life expectancy.
Has anyone read the 2002 book by Ben Elton, "High Society"….life imitating fiction!
Be the change you want to see
www.adambutler.com.au
Sigh…
1) "If you cant see the futility of prohibition…" - I take that as a religious rhetoric.
2) "One particular book that points out the folly… you should have a read" - Is it supposed to be the hippie bible, or are you selling books for someone else or what?
3) "Stand to lose money if drugs were legalised"? As I argued, all the resources sustaining a legalised drug policy have to come from somewhere. If you aren’t going to pay for them, someone else will have to. In fact, I doubt anyone is going to come out a winner from that except perhaps pharmaceutical companies (who has already got the economy of scale for manufacturing and sales) and crooks (who provide inferior substitutes for those who cannot afford the proper products).
4) "Heroin itself does no physiological dammage, it dosent hurt any internal organs, that is a fact old mate" - Is that information supposed to be from a credible medical journal, based on broad-scale clinical trial over a reasonably long period, with heroin cleanly isolated from other factors? Mind you, that is by no means an easy thing to do (given that we are looking at the long term effect of the substance, and, obviously, street heroin doesn’t count). And, by the way, we haven’t even discussed the physiological effect of the prolong use of needles or frequent overdose, or anything of the psychological nature.
How are we going to win the war on drugs when the enemy is us?
Dr Polya is correct far more dangerous drugs like alcohol and nicotine are legal,the fact that some drugs are illegal is simply an historical accident.
I’m not sure if Dr Gideon Polya’s figures on drug related deaths are a good argument for regulating hard drugs. I’m inclined to think that the high numbers of alcohol and tobacco related deaths are most likely due to the easy availabiliy of these drugs compared to things like heroin.
On the other hand, regulating heroin would make it safer because the user wouldn’t have to guess the drug’s purity. Of course this isn’t completely foolproof. I know from experience what it’s like to want to get that litle bit higher.
Regulating cannabis production would also be helpful because the use of plant hormones and other nasty chemicals could be controlled.
JMonco, there are some side-effects of heroin that aren’t particularly good for a user’s health, but they are manageable and not life-threatening, as long as the user is taking for maintenance only, not the glorious rush of a full hit which is always dangerous. Some addicts say "if you’re taking it to see God, then that’s what will happen".
What do you say about the potential of state undercutting to undermine market generation tactics as I briefly outlined above?
And who would you prefer get the profits, pharmaceutical companies or psychopaths with private armies?
1) "These market-generation tactics would become commercially pointless" - No one is talking about retailers here. Unless you are assuming that they can get their supplies from a magic hole in a wall, any argument based on retailers is just bunk.
2) "doctors are addicted to it" - So, does that make them scientists?
3) "And who would you prefer get the profits, pharmaceutical companies or psychopaths with private armies" - I think you are arguing as though drugs were the only way for psychopaths to get their firepower.
4) "Regulating cannabis production would also be helpful because the use of plant hormones and other nasty chemicals" - Actually, there is something you can get at an convenient store, completely legal and full of addictives. Let me give you a hint - it starts with a "c" and ends with "igarette".
Well, I think it’s about time to draw some lines here before this comment section gets any more bloated:
1) Any argument based on state subsidies or anything of that nature is pointless unless you honestly believe there are any reasonable grounds for the taxpayers to support a recreational habit.
2) When you try and convince anyone (including me) that the prolonged use of heroin or any drug (which includes any banned, prescribed and over-the-counter medicine) is "harmless" or "entirely harmless" (or, in other words, "zero harm"), be prepared to produce substantial data to support your claim.
3) Heroin is only one of the substances involved in this discussion. It does not represent controlled substances in general, nor does it form a reasonable ground for a legalisation policy on the broad scale.
1) Retailers - it’s got everything to do with retailers, that is those who sell illegal drugs to end users. It is a business, conducted for profit, and unless we start thinking, talking, and attacking in business terms, we’ll never beat the illegal drug trade.
2) Doctors addicted to heroin or other addictive drugs - I’ll leave that one in the hope that someone with direct knowledge can take up where I left off.
3) "I think you are arguing as though drugs were the only way for psychopaths to get their firepower." Sounds a bit like a defeatist argument suggesting that even if we beat the illegal drug business the gangsters will find another way to hurt us, so we may as well just let them do what they want.
4) Also sounds like another addictive drug starting with "a" and ending with "lcohol" the prohibition of which in the US is now acknowledged to have been a disaster.
Your next points I’ll renumber continuing from 4
5) "reasonable grounds for the taxpayers to support a recreational habit" There are reasonable grounds: (a) harm minimisation, including saving lives of people who commit an offence but not a capital one; (b) value for money, as this taxpayer support would be vastly cheaper than the war on drugs, the imprisonment of users, the public health expenditure on ODs and other complications including AIDS, the lost productivity due to health and lifestyle degradation, and the quantity of crime committed to pay for drugs.
6) No it’s not harmless. But on a cost-benefit analysis the harms of the drugs themselves are dwarfed by the secondary harms. Especially if what I said about sabotaging the growth of end-user market for addictive drugs achieves the desired end of long term reduction in usage.
7) My point about state supply and undercutting is relevant only to highly addictive drugs. I agree that doesn’t cover all the harmful illegal drugs. I have nothing to say on marijuana, in fact I couldn’t care less about it one way or another. Or ecstacy for that matter (except to note that in some demographics ecstasy has replaced alcohol as the main party drug, resulting in a marked reduction of violence).
1) "it’s got everything to do with retailers" - No, you are simply assuming that the whole problem is purely due to sales tactics. The discussion here, on the other hand, has long moved on to the competition among suppliers and the viability of inferior products, based on the assumption that the sales of control substances are legal.
2) "I’ll leave that one in the hope that someone with direct knowledge can take up where I left off" - Wise move.
3) "Sounds a bit like a defeatist argument". Selling illegal substances is one thing, having a private army is another. Does it matter if you sell stocks or explosives at the end of the day if all you want is a private army?
4) What is this particular argument supposed to have to do with the prohibition of alcohol in the US?
5) a) Jet-skiing and bungee-jumping are dangerous too. Should the taxpayer be subsidising those for harm minimalisation, too? b) "Value for money"? The last time I checked the most value for money was from what people called "stuff it"? Have you thought about that?
6) Sabotaging the growth of end-user market? How? By legalising substances and sticking labels all over them just like… cigarettes? This is just like saying more bureaucracy results in less corruption.
7) Reality check - As long as there are people wanting to try the substance, there will be people wanting to sell it. And how are you supposed to stop people from trying? Lock them in the attic? And how is legalised drugs supposed to make any difference to any of that?
1) There’s legal like cigarettes, and there’s legal like available on prescription. And I didn’t say "purely due to sales tactics", I said that using business principles in the solution would partially reverse market growth in highly addictive drugs over the long term.
3) The private armies I referred to are for use in drug wars against governments and competitor drug suppliers. Such as those currently terrorising Mexico.
4) Nothing, except for the "prohibition" part and the "of a mind-altering substance" part.
5) (a) The taxpayer funds quite a lot of things for harm minimisation. Like, the whole public health system. (b) I took your reference to taxpayer funding to mean unjustifiable drain on the taxpayer. If that’s not what you meant, please clarify. My answer suggested there would be a net gain for the taxpayer because of other cost reductions in the monetary, health, and social space.
6) I just keep repeating myself on that one.
7) "As long as there are people wanting to try the substance, there will be people wanting to sell it. And how are you supposed to stop people from trying? Lock them in the attic?" The same logic would suggest that enforcement measures are just as useless as the harm minimisation measures I propose. Which brings us back to David Hollier’s argument that the war on drugs is an expensive failure and should not continue. Is that what you’re saying?
To JMonco, yes I know that cigarettes expose the smoker to more than 40 harmful chemicals. It says so on the packet. I can only think of five offhand. They would be the active ingredient nicotine, plus carbon monoxide, plant tars, ammonia which is used to accelerate the delivery of nicotine to the brain, and potassium nitrate which keeps the cigarette burning.
There is no doubt that these are all highly toxic chemicals, but the use of growth hormones takes it to an entirely new level. The mass cultivation of cannabis using hydroponics is a relatively recent developement and I don’t know of any studies into the long term effects on chronic users, but if you know of any, I would be happy to take a look. An educated guess is that it’s not a good idea.
I don’t know how the tobacco industry gets away with including such harmful chemicals in its products, but I suspect it has to do with the might of the Tobacco Lobby and the fact that tobacco has been legally available for centuries. If a new product like cannabis were to become available, one would hope that new guidelines would be put in place.
Finally, cannabis is usually consumed in the privacy of the home and there are devices on the market which can vapourise the tetra-hydra-cannabinol withou burning. They can reduce CO and tar by 95%,
Dear Skeptic, I’m not sure what JMonco argument is, but he/she does not offer a sound counter argument to those opposing the war on drugs. Is it acceptable to perpetuate the status quo? Clearly not, but rather than oppose suggestions for the legalisation or decriminilisation of drugs, what exactly does JMonco propose?
Mr. Pickells, There was a fascinating doco on cannabis called "the evil weed" on SBS last Tuesday night. It showed that aside from THC there’s another active chemical called CBD that actually acts as a counter psychotic on its own, and combined with THC acts to ‘regulate’ your high.
The problems associated with the "evil" weed occur when cannabis is grown to have a higher THC content, making the level of CBD lower, thus the cannabis is stronger and more likely to cause psychosis. Therefore, a regulated market could ensure a balance of theses two key chemicals in cannabis.
Also, EDUCATION about the effects of all drugs is the key. This doco showed that regular use of cannabis from the age of 13 to 16 is FAR more damaging to the brains development that smoking from 16 to 19.
Our brains are fully grown by about 20, so we can get high far more safely then LOL!
JMonco might argue that those "blacks" might wanna sell you hydroponic skunk dripping with THC, but who choose psychosis over more natural weed that will still get you high?
For a look at what a drug legalisation scheme could look like in practice, and one with built in checks and balances, check out my NewMatilda article from 2007- http://newmatilda.com/2007/09/19/legalise-it
Thanks Andrew, your article is excellent! But, the id card for obtaining drugs would take a long time to be accepted, and I’m not sure if I would want to be considered a "registered user".
Of course it’s the current stigma attached to taking ‘illegal’ drugs that needs to be overcome.
Then there’s the debate about how dangerous each drug is. The jury is out on extacy and cannabis, but most studies concur that heavy use causes the most damage, JUST LIKE BOOZE AND CIGARETTES!
Also, cannabis (and maybe LSD) seem to be very risky for those with a predisposition to bi-polar or schizophrenia, but that is a one in 40 and one 100 chance respectively, and not yet proven.
However, as your fine article points out, these are risks the individual should have the choice to make, like playing dangerous sports. The state has no right to tell me what to do with my body so long as I don’t harm others.
What is most astounding is that tobacco and alcohol raise billions in tax revenue for Government, yet kills BY FAR more people than ALL other illegal drugs combined, even with the war on drugs making their use far more precarious!
This makes our governments the most insidious dealer of them all!
An end to political donations anyone?
Rocky, drugs are only as dangerous, as the person that takes them. Someone may be a real fanatic about their health but still be a smoker &/or drinker. A couple of tennis players were quoted in the media about being 1 pack a day smoker, yet still playing tennis without any trouble.
The trouble with drugs are the public’s unqualified opinion, they need to go get their own paradise & leave others alone, when it doesn’t concern them directly.
Hi WF, foregone tax revenue was one of the arguments used politically to end alcohol prohibition in the US. Tax was also the only significant reason for state governments in Australia taking over gambling in the 80s, and a major reason for states legalizing pornography and prostitution more recently. Other drugs are the only harmful vice (traditionally belonging to organised crime) remaining for them to take over, and arguably the only one in which the modest harms of doing so would be far outweighed by the current harms of not doing so.
So true Skeptic! I was facetiously referring to the hypocrisy of criminalising some drugs while taxing the most deadly ones.
I believe the state should tax all drugs and do something positive with the massive revenue, such as education, health, and paying police better to protect us from real criminals and not non-violent drug users.
The donations point refers to NSW state politics, where the tobacco and alcohol industries give large donations to the major parties to keep the status quo, as they have a vested interest in the war on drugs.
Yes Atheist no1, "Drugs aren’t the problem, people are!"
Yes, I left out graft because we commoners don’t even get any Friday night joy out of it.
Cannabis did not become illegal in Australia until after the 1961 vote of the UN when Australia had pressure put on it by the US after Australia voted against illegalisation in 1960
The pressure of the US was organised by you guessed it the US alcohol and tobacco industries WHY?
Cannabis is illegal under the psychotropic substances act which in part says that noone has the right to alter ones psychological make up Cannabis has been documented as far back as 2015 BC in china and has been used for many ailments, pain reduction and relaxation of the mind and body
It was even used for pregnant women at the point of delivery and in the relief of most pain although not very helpful with Kidney stones
It has also been used as an antibiotic and has been found to be exteremely effective in the treament of glycoma one of very few drugs that is
The lesser not worth smoking cannabis produces up to three times the paper making material per acre as a rain forest and gives off little to no dioxins in the process
Further cannabis can be used to make an extremely useful material for clothing etc
It is time to decriminalise drugs as it is hypocritical of anyone or government to have legalised alcohol and tobacco while other drugs are illegal
Thanks all have a good high from Dave
Cannabis should be legal
It’s a bloody good smoke
I don’t mind doing the extra crime, the possibility of getting lung cancer and the reduced motivation but I am going to stop pulling cones on the basis that I may start calling myself something like Wonky Funkfart.
All drugs should be legal in the interest of public safety.
Responsible users are being denied their human rights and are actually being placed in danger by the continued illegality of drugs.
To ensure personal safety, all drugs should be monitored and subject to health and safety regulations, ie clearly marked labels and warnings.
Anything less is irresponsible government.
Dear Dr Dog, my parents Mr. and Mrs. Funkfart were both heavy pot smokers, and I Wonky had quite a bad habit myself for 15 years, but keep pulling those cones mate and never let anyone call you a dog!
Denise
I agree it is time to legalize all drugs
We presently have it where morphine is prescribable in both injectable and tablet form, codiene is prescribable
Why not herion?
With cannabis it could be under a license system say $500 annual fee so a person can grow three plants in thier own yard
This would take much of the funds that organized crime has at its desposal and lessen a lot of the present corruption
Doctors and Chemists would be able to monitor the situation a lot easier
Any house hold that these drugs were being used in could then be a little more open and if these drugs were causing problems within the home ie DV or child abuse then the people would be able to be counselled and shown where they were having effect
To have alcohol and tobacco legal and the rest illegal is just pure hypocrisy
The finances that are used to fight the "drug wars" is absolutely ridiculous because it is not stopping the drugs it is only shifting the supply of them to different suppliers
Thanks for your time
From Dave
I was following another blog yesterday from a well known media outlet and the crux of the discussion was whether the Government should prohibit fast food outlets from using trans fats in their cooking process. Some people argued that people have a right to become obese if they choose, and others were pointing out that the taxpayer will have an obligation to subsidise their healthcare in years to come. Is it just me, or does anybody else see a parallel here?
I just got notified that somebody else had posted a comment here, but I don’t see it up. It was basically about Nixon starting the war on drugs 40 years ago. Informed sources will tell you that Nixon was an uncontrollable drunk. Elvis approached Nixon to be a spokesman in the drug war, but Nixon prudently declined his offer. I’m not sure where I’m going with this. This "phantom" poster also said that the drug war has since cost the US one trillion dollars. I wonder how much the Vietnam war cost in real terms.
Not that I have anything against junkies. Or fat people as long as they don’t sit next to me on a plane.
As I said, I really don’t know where I’m going with this. I have been drinking since 4:30 am.
Dave, it’s not just hypocrisy, it’s a blatent form of unfair discrimination.
You tell me, what is fair or right about the fact that alcoholics can legally obtain their substance of abuse, when responsible ‘alternative’ (to alcohol) drug users are made to feel like criminals for even using their intoxicating substance?
The facts are that alternative drugs to alcohol should also be available for legal consumption without the consumer being labled a criminal.
Especially when it comes to the most natural - less manufactured drugs like opium, cocaine and cannabis.
These are substances that have been a natural part of many (non Western) cultures since time immemorial and for our Western governments to deny these alternative cultural practices is prejudiced and an insidious Western cultural cringe that refuses to accept that not everyone wants to drink tank loads of alcohol to get high.
Because realistically through the enforced blackmarket there are other drugs available, which many people find safer and healthier to consume in comparison to alcohol.
The current drug laws deny basic human rights - like freedom of choice - a simple but true fact for many alternative (to alcohol) drug users.
Denise
You will find no argument fom me on the drugs being legalized or at least decriminalized
I tried to catch 1.2 tonne of steel grid from 3.84 metres in 1985(I know stupid) they pumped pethedine and codiene through me until it near destroyed my liver
Now I am on injectable and capsule Ketoprophen for the pain and diazapam to relax the muscles and scar tissue in the shoulder that took the initial impact
Cannabis does the same thing as those chemicals do without the problem of eating my gut away
Alcohol in a NSW police report of 1987 was acredited to being resposible directly or indirectly for 83.7% of all violent crime but look how much the consumption of alcohol has risen since then and how much violence has increased in that time
AS you state it is not only hypocrisy it is blatant discrimination and denial of human rights by denying the freedom of choice
The old story different stokes for different folks
The "war on drugs" has failed and it is time for sensible people to review the situation
Thanks
From Dave