Tuesday, April 19, 2016

More than 1,000 world leaders say the drug war has been a disaster

Posted by DD republished from WonkBlog

A home-grown marijuana plant is grown inside an apartment in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Astrid Riecken For The Washington Post)

The global war on drugs has proven "disastrous" and "humankind cannot afford a 21st century drug policy as ineffective and counter-productive as the last century’s." So say more than 1,000 world leaders, including 27 members of the House of Representatives and six U.S. senators, in a letter to the United Nations ahead of a major international drug summit happening this week.


The letters signatories also include 24 current and former law enforcement officials, 37 members of the clergy, more than 230 health and medical professionals, and a colorful slate of celebrities, athletes and business leaders, including DJ Khaled, Michael Douglas, Tom Brady and Warren Buffett. The two Democratic presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, have also signed on to the letter.
  
"The drug control regime that emerged during the last century has proven disastrous for global health, security and human rights," the letter states. "Focused overwhelmingly on criminalization and punishment, it created a vast illicit market that has enriched criminal organizations, corrupted governments, triggered explosive violence, distorted economic markets and undermined basic moral values."


The U.N. General Assembly will hold a special session on global drug policy in New York this week. The purpose of the meeting is to set the tone and focus of global drug policy for the coming decades.

The last time the U.N. held such a session was in 1998. Proceeding under the official motto of "a drug-free world -- we can do it," member states vowed to "promote a society free of drug abuse" and to "develop strategies with a view to eliminating or significantly reducing" the production and use of illicit substances by 2008.


Since then, of course, a number of U.S. states have voted to fully legalize marijuana for recreational use. Portugal decriminalized the use of all illicit drugs. And the United States has seen an explosion in the abuse of prescription painkillers and heroin, and deaths caused by overdoses of those two drugs.
 
Reformers had hoped this week's special session would represent a change of course for the international drug control regime. But if the draft declaration that will be discussed at the meeting is any indication, this is unlikely. The language about promoting a society "free of drug abuse" and the need to "eliminate" the production of drugs remains in place.


VICE News reported that several diplomats pointed to Russia, China, Iran and Saudi Arabia as the primary opponents to changing the language.



"Basically, the bad guys had the upper hand" in negotiating the language of these documents, according to Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance, a reform group. "They were able to make sure that nothing bold or stunning happened in these things."
 
The irony of the U.N.'s inaction on drugs is that it makes it more likely member states will continue to chart their own paths forward on drug policy. State-level marijuana legalization in the United States has enraged the Russian director of the U.N.'s anti-drug program, but U.S. officials simply assert that the treaties allow for considerable "flexibility" in addressing drug issues.


While this is a difficult diplomatic needle to thread, there's little to stop officials in the U.S. -- and elsewhere -- from issuing appeals to this flexibility whenever they want to alter drug policy approaches in their own countries.


Indeed, the lesson of drug policy over the past 18 or so years seems to be that like politics, all drug reform is local. In the United States, for instance, individual states have pioneered new directions on drug policy, particularly marijuana policy, in the face of gridlock at the federal level.

The U.N., meanwhile, has proven itself to be an even less-nimble organization than the federal government -- so don't expect it to be a significant player in drug policy discussions going forward.

26 comments:

  1. Hellllooooooo ! thanks DD, right on.
    Ya , and Sean P was right altho he sure screwd up " his conversation about the war on drugs " . What a mess ! Damn, I was in Mexico at the time , EVERYONE went apeshit, Mexicanos , ie. thanks for nothin' Sean.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Strong arm governments prefer to punish.
    --On the US, paragon of liberty, some neo-liberals of the prudish prissy priscillas, they want to prosecute and criminalize and punish in their private prisons, to spend down an ever increasing budget that goes right to their private parts, I mean pockets...at the same time many of them are drug traffickers themselves and they ain't giving up any of it, unless they get a franchise license to keep doing what they do best, drug trafficking, but legally...
    --Liberals wring their hands and pray that they can use and won't get caught, for medical help, for understanding, and decriminalization and acceptance that it is a sickness of the mind that must be accepted and coddled, and catered to, even before it starts as a consequence of "using"...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Addicts should be able to sue the guy that introunced them to drugs for all the money they have spent buying from them and others, plus damages, then we'd see a little improvement...add to that free government supply, instead of prosecuting or persecuting or criminalizing.
    --But what about drug traffickers rights? Que chinguen a su madre...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh great, bring on the lawyers to sue the dealers. It's like suing macdonalds because the coffee is to hot. Call the lawyers and it will
      Never be resolved. Just rich lawyers. What happened to common sense? It's not like we haven't heard drugs are not good for us or don't trim the hedges by picking up the running lawn mower. I would rather spend money on giving these morons drugs they can overdose themselves on than putting them in jail and paying for their dead beat stupid asses.

      Delete
    2. Yea traffickers rights . Here they have the right to remain silent , unless the give up the right to remain silent .

      Delete
    3. Addicts treat other addicts:
      "Traffic"

      Delete
    4. so, like, they sue themselves?

      Delete
    5. @1:53. No they won't sue themselves. But actions like this are not to be taken lightly. Change in policy is a slow process whether it be US or UN policy. While I think this letter is a long step, it is but one of many that will have to be taken down the long road leading to change.

      Delete
    6. Pushers can sue their suppliers too, hey, it is a good democratic idea, the people can sue GM, why not the drug traffickers?
      --Unless it is unpatriotic to bring the forefathers of the country of the latter days to court and brick'em up until they cry uncle...

      Delete
    7. --Suing Mc Donalds for burning your ass with the coffee, good idea, has been done no rememba' the verdict,
      --Starbucks should be sued for selling the most horrible coffe I have ever tasted...
      --pushers, like the rapists they are, have it coming, if just to tell them in court people know who they are, LAWYERS WILL FIND THE ARGUMENTS AND THE MONEY, if they don't get killed first, but they are experts on brick baths at the smell of $$$

      Delete
  4. I, like most Americans, believe the U N has no authority over us . Why don't they work on something they might affect other than American policy . They seem to be still committing mass murder and cannibalism in Africa . That seems like a worthy cause for the UN .
    Legalize Drugs ? I suppose these violent criminals would stop the kidnapping and murder . Keep up the coyote hunt . Predator control is the only way to do away with them .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 3:45 the UN is a tool of US foreign relations, and to only jump when told, as high as told...
      -"w" took great care to emasculate the UN with "Do my bidding or no payment of quotas" politics...
      --The idea of the UN was not exactly to be anybody's tool ever.

      Delete
    2. Off topic but UN is already working on Agenda 21 [under sustainable development and evironmentalists green movement]so all the carbon taxes can go to them to have global governance under the UN banner

      Delete
    3. @3:45
      First of all ya le pagaste al coyote que te paso para aca PAISA?
      Second of all hella yeah legalize all dope ya'll heard?
      Dopeboy

      Delete
  5. this story is so pointless

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 3:52 Get a sharpener, dumbass... and make it pointy☝...

      Delete
  6. N who wins here?? Felipe Calderon! Hahaaha declared WAR n then vanished hahaha n left it all to Penis Nieto ahhaha

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hey what became of the French Army that was suppose to take over Mexico??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No budget for 45 000 element "gendarmeria", it was left at 4 000 and enrique francisco galindo ceballos hired back all the police "officers" that had failed the accreditation examinations, anyway, who needs to pass accreditations when the "officers" are needed to murder, kidnap, extort or show the "muchachas" on the net? And anyway, "el tlacoyo" epn hired galindo ceballos as commander in chief "general" of the polesia nazional mando unico in spite of his having failed his own examinations, accepting he stole and misused public funds as SSP del estado de San Luis Potosi, his fame for murdering his own commanders and his being a zeta from the start...
      --who needs 40 000 more french frog trained poolice? Not ZETAS "genghis chong or "el tlacoyo" epn, thah's for sure.

      Delete
  8. Que paso a la Gendarmerie que y va llegar a Mexico

    ReplyDelete
  9. Who cares what 1000 leaders say about the drug war? Other than people saying "legalize" drugs nobody has come up with a better solution/s to keep people from taking drugs.
    I have a possible solution!
    Lets make movies that portray the idiot decisions people make when they are young and perhaps at parties without and begin consuming drugs for the first time and later reap the concecuenses? Try not to show thw drug dealers at all and show that it is a personal decision to consume drugs in the first place and follow through with the outcome!
    When you blame others (drug dealers and pushers), for your own mistakes people tend to ignore the facts of the situation and this leads to failed policies like this one!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 4:57 Looki here Eedith, pushers know what they are doing, their marks don't, that is the why people are seduced into the addiction, like the sex the first time, most people do not make the wisest decision, specially when you fall on the hands of a pederasta, that is why it is a crime too, and not a personal "decision"...

      Delete
    2. Nobody is putting a gun to anyones head if they take drugs. Everyone has been offered drugs at some point in time. Everyone! Fuck them idiots who are "seduced" into doing that shit! There is always some dumb fucks protecting people for taking the wrong actions instead of condeming them.
      This is why the "drug war" is never going to be WON!

      Delete
    3. Punishing the addicted to money is easier and more rewarding than going after the addicts without money worth the while.
      I'd rather leave the greedy bastards crying to their mamas about their lost money than struggle to feed punishment to poor broke ass addicts, no matter how "old they are".

      Delete
  10. The drug war has been a disaster, legalize and regulate and stop putting money into our own Government's pockets.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To save 99% of the cost of the war on drugs, the government should supply it all for free, and include the experimentals...

      Delete

Comments are moderated, refer to policy for more information.
Envía fotos, vídeos, notas, enlaces o información
Todo 100% Anónimo;

borderlandbeat@gmail.com