I thought those who read post in the Politics forum might be interested in this latest news - this is a quote from the article in the Vancouver Sun:

"Scientists under attack for denouncing the ineffective global war on drugs are fighting back, says a University of B.C. associate professor on the front lines of the battle.

"Despite mountains of scientific evidence proving the prohibition on drugs such as heroin is a failure, governments in Canada, the U.S. and around the world continue to ignore the health and social harms cased by their antiquated policies, Dr. Evan Wood told The Province on Wednesday.

"Wood, director of the urban health research initiative at the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, is co-author of the Vienna Declaration, which calls on the world’s politicians to let scientific evidence guide their policies on illicit drugs.

"More than 11,000 people have signed the declaration, which was first appeared on the Internet two weeks ago at www.viennadeclaration.com, and was published this week in The Lancet, a respected medical journal."

The War on (some) Drugs was like an organized religion.  The original founder(s) are gone and it is over...but the results still linger and there are still followers/practitioners.

(prohibition never works)

I see the War on (some) Drugs as just another aspect of the totalitarian need to force others to act and live as sombunall of the population likes.

And it was faith-based.

So I am heartened when I hear things like this coming from the USA Drug Czar.

Given that the War on Drugs wasn't based on science in the first place, why would science (or lack thereof) be relevant to its continuation?

Of course the War on Drugs is a failure.  That's been known for decades.  The question is, why would anyone in government act on that knowledge if the public isn't applying pressure to stop it?

I think that the scientists really going hard in terms of being outspoken on this issue is to raise public profile about it and to create the political will to change the direction of our official drug policy. Personally, I don't think it's going to work until these folks are no longer in office but perhaps this move can also serve as information during an election campaign, regarding how discredited this approach is = how out of touch this government is...crossing my fingers...

Well, for that to work, the electorate would have to value science (i.e., truth) over the War-on-(some) Drugs religion with which they have been indoctrinated not only by their parents, but also by their schools and government.  It is, as Inanna says, much like an organized religion,  And it's an organized religion that is pushed and sanctioned by the state.  That's hard to root out.

 We all have our part to play in re-creating value in science...and we can definitely refuse to let it get hijacked into serving goals that aren't necessarily beneficially to people and the world in which we live.

1. Prohibition, despite the myth, did not cause a rise in drinking. The rise began some 20 years before prohibition - and it has risen spectacularly since the end of prohibition.And anyone who thinks that, as a society we have learned to handle liquor knows nothing of the subject.

2. Criminals now make lots of money out of drugs. Why will they do if drugs become legal? Go to church every Sunday? Become missionaries?

There were highly organized gangsters and crime long before there was prohibition. If Drugs become legal, they will go to another field. And they will still be gangsters.

The real lesson of prohibition is that liquor sales go way up. So, if you drop the war against prohibition (which I admit I am not crazy about), what do you gain? You will still have gangsters and, with sale legal, you will have even more drugs.

Appealing to anti-drug laws as a way to keep gangsters profitably employed is one that I hadn't heard before, graeme.

Most "wars" are nothing more than a governments method to keep the sheeple engaged and keep attention somewhere else.

Witness Iraq, which has  been just about as successful as the war on drugs and the war on terror at keeping people fearful, and complicet in having their rioghts trodden over for the convenience of the state.

You'll never convince the state that the war on drugs is a waste of time. The state already knows it, and doesn't care.

graeme, I think there are a wide range of options between dropping the War on Drugs and full legalization/regulation.

The War on Drugs punishes poor people with addiction problems, primarily, and criminalizes a health issue. This has been demonstrated time and again by those whose work is focussed in this area. Gabor Mate is an example of someone who has worked with those who have been penalized by ideology rather than science -- his book In the Realm of the Hungry Ghosts is a blend of his observations and demonstrable science in this area.

I beg to differ. I live in the city that was one of the driest cities in Canada, if not Ontario. It went dry in 1905 and only went wet in 1973.

The reasons for prohibition were many. The social price of alcohol was phenomenal. The response was faith-based because it was faithful people, out of their love of God and of others, who were prepatred to stand up for their principles. The stories are written in the church histories and well-remembered among those still alive. We forget those stories at our peril and we are still dealing with the consequences.  It did resolve the immediate social problems, which it intended to do. In the long term? Perhaps.

All of which are very true. If we legalize drugs there will be a huge social cost, which we are not yet prepared to pay.

Of course those countries which have given up the war on drugs and have decriminalised and regulated drugs like marijuana, have subsequently suffered enoumous social costs because of it....

Oh wait..... no they havn't.

Shhh, Witch.  Don't contradict their dogma with facts.

Can you give some examples? Marijuana is not benign, either, for some.

By the way, why isn't alcohol illegal, DKS?

Do you think that it should be illegal, or are you a hypocrite?

The Netherlands

It's not illegal because the government has made its manufacture and sale legal. I'm not sure of your point.

Marijuana is still illegal in The Netherlands. However, they see drug use as a public health issue as opposed to a legal issue. Soft drug use is above avaerage, as compared to other EU countries. There are marajuana coffee shops within 250m of schools.

No social problems?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands

Oh, har har.  Do you have a real answer?

One could just as easily say that owning a bicycle is legal because the government has made is manufacture and sale legal.  Now, why is alcohol legal while other drugs are illegal?

Also, you never answered my 2nd question.  Which is true - do you support the illegalization of alcohol, or are you a hypocrite?  There are no other options I can think of.

From your own link:

Results of the drug policy

In the Netherlands 9.7% of young adults (aged 15–24) consume soft drugs once a month, comparable to the level in Italy (10.9%) and Germany (9.9%) and less than in the UK (15.8%) and Spain (16.4%),^[20] but higher than in, for example, Sweden (3%), Finland or Greece.^[21] The monthly prevalence of drugs other than cannabis among young people (15-24) was 4% in 2004, that was above the average (3%) of 15 compared countries in EU. However, seemingly few transcend to becoming problem drug users (0.3%), well below the average (0.52%) of the same compared countries.^[21]

The reported number of deaths linked to the use of drugs in the Netherlands, as a proportion of the entire population, is lower than the EU average.^[22] The Dutch government is able to support approximately 90% of help-seeking addicts with detoxification programs. Treatment demand is rising.^[23]

Criminal investigations into more serious forms of organized crime mainly involve drugs (72%). Most of these are investigations of hard drug crime (specifically cocaine and synthetic drugs) although the number of soft drug cases is rising and currently accounts for 69% of criminal investigations.^[23]

Granted, that last paragraph isn't great, but it doesn't sound hugely different than things here.  Certainly no worse.

 I lived in The Netherlands for six months. teaching at U of Groeningen. I travelled all parts of it. Don't tell me there's no drug problem. The Dutch certainly know there is; and parents, in paritcular, are very concerned about it.

 I wasn't suggesting making drugs illegal to keep criminals employed. The point is that criminals will be employed whether you make drugs illegal or legal. We could also make drunk driving legal on the grounds that many people who break that law are addicted and/or suffer bad judgement. No fault of their own.

  If someone will suggest an alternative that will, minimally, reduce either the problem of drug use or of criminality, I'd be interested to hear about it.

    If you decrminalize soft drugs, then what will you do to reduce drug damage? If  you just decriminalize soft drugs, then how will that reduce criminal involvement?

     I know the drug war is an eternal one. So is the war against murder - and robbery - and rape. Should we decriminalize all of them? Why not?

   And exactly how will we deal with such cases?

What was done to reduce damage from legal alcohol?  It's a soft drug.  Why not use that as a model?

graeme, again, this isn't an all or nothing proposition. This is about treating addiction as the health issue that it is...and there are any number of aspects to that. Harm reduction, treatment, counselling and proper supports for mental illness - with a reduced target group, the demand would go down...

It's interesting that you see the US war in Afghanistan for what it is and likewise, the behaviour of Israel and yet, when it comes to the war on drugs, created and fostered by those same folks and their ilk, that approach seems to meet with your approval. Or are you perhaps asking questions to seek information?

Not all persons do well with sugar. Evidence suggests the misuse and abuse of sugar as a key indicator of failing health, related to pancreatic functions. Is it not the case that any substance which furthers health outcomes may by misuse or abuse further disease outcomes?

Cannabis offers my generation a remarkable test case. I have been a user since the age of nineteen. That use has served me well by more than a few indications. All while living at risk of discovery and consequence. Shifted my point of view to outside the governance of law. Took personal responsibility for behaviours and outcomes. Progressed along a road less travelled in the company of many who encouraged and challenged. Always Grace at the heart of me stirring Faith to Action. This faithful action offered a veritable seminary of religious education.

Is it not in some way hypocritical to prosecute one vice (drugs) while profitting from another (gambling)? 

Good point re: the sugar, Yoma.  I was going to type the same sort of thing, but with peanuts.  Peanuts are certainly not benign either, for some.  They can even cause death, with a high enough frequency that products and venues often take steps to declare their contents to be "peanut-unsafe" for the benefit of people who are allergic to peanuts.

Should we make peanuts illegal on this basis?

Peanuts ARE banned in schools.

Look. All I'm saying is this.

1. Decriminalizing marijuana will have no effect on gangs. If you decriminalized all druge, you would still have criminal gangs. You have no idea how deeply they are embedded into prosoitution, commercail transport (like ports), legitiimate business - like hotels, wineries... And maintaining their power means using violence, and sometimes wars between gangs, war that kills innocent people. We're watching such a war now in Montreal. I grew up with these guys. The two who were recently shot were iin the declining Rizutto family. An old friend of mine, woth millions. liviing in a mansion with a big, indoor poor (still in the old neighbourhood) is shaking in his boots. He's on the losing side.

Decriminalize marijuana, and they'll switch to wars over other drugs. legalize all drugs, and prostition and kidnapping - and they'll just find another criminal activity. That's how they make their bread. You're not going to stop anything by decriminaliziing anything. Making alcohol legal did not end the gangs who lived on prohibition.

Should we do it in the context of a plan to help addicts, and to prtotect children from addiction. Yes, of course. But we have done nothing over the years to offer government help to either alcholics or gamblers. Indeedk, our governments encourage both. Imagine. We've done almost nothing about alcoholism, except for volunteer groups, in more than 80 years of legalizing it.

For mediciine. Yes. Of course. We already use morphine and other hard drugs. But I would not want to see it done by privatized growers and sellers whose natrual tendency is to encourage a market.

By the way, who is the person resposible for the rise of drug trade gangsters? The person who knowingly buys the stuff for recreation while knowing what is happening to his money.

Peanuts are banned in schools, but so are a lot of otherwise legal things.  That's a ridiculous counterpoint.

Then again, it was DKS who suggested that something's status as "harmful to some" should merit illegalization, not you, so there's no onus on you to defend such a silly standard.

Your point re: gangs implies that we should not bother to do anything to cut off money from those gangs.  That if we deprive them of their income, then they will simply find more dangerous and violent forms of income.

1. Show some evidence that this is the case.

2. This indicates that you were lying when you claimed not to be appealing to the drug war as a way to keep gangsters profitably employed.  The post above is exactly that:  You appealing to the drug war as a way to keep gangsters profitably employed.

no. I said no such thing. I don't know whether you're a troll or dumb enough to believe what you're writing.

Evidence that gangs will go on? Criminal gangs have existed in large numbers throughout all of h uman history. Ever hear of Ribin Hood? Rob Roy? Smugglers? Pirates? They have always existed, and all over the world.

Oh, you've heard of alcohol smugglers? Well, we legalized alcohol in most provinces in the 1920s. So that must mean there have been no gangsters in the past  80 years.

grow up.

I didn't ask for evidence that gangs would "go on".  I asked for evidence that they'd become more destructive, which was your own claim.

As for how I'm getting "support the gangs" out of what you're saying, it's very simple.  You are claiming that one reason why we should keep weed illegal is so that the growth and smuggling of it can continue to fund organized crime, because otherwise they will turn to other avenues of crime that are more dangerous to the public.  I.e., we need to keep weed illegal as a way to keep those gangs funded, to avoid the above from happening.  That's the position you've described.  If that's not the position to which you hold, then you should stop describing it like that.

You're getting a wee bit bent out of shape here, Graeme.  I understand that nobody likes it when his or her religion is challenged, but don't you already have another one?

Is it not a matter of character? There will always be crooks. These will take advantage of every opportunity. Government policy on Cannabis gave crime a wonderful opportunity. Policy seemed tailor made for the introduction and propagation of a drug problem.

This happened in the early years of my life. It had been working its way in the emergent social economy for a good while north and south of the border. Racial anxiety directed against Hispanic and African youth angry in the inner city streets. An early manifestation of the drug problem rhetoric.

Could it be that our drug problem is a symptom in a greater complex of conditions?

Could there be spiritual indicators to be considered? For example, could our drug problem have anything to do with Buddhist teaching on desire, ancient Semitic teaching on covetousness or Socratic concern for pandering?

I take your point. Over the many years till now I have on countless occasion broken the law by aiding and abetting a criminal activity.

In much media the drug problem is given the face of inner-city poverty. Cannabis trade stirs into the economy billions of annual dollars. Its use is widespread at all levels of social and political responsibility. How convenient?

The matter is easily solved. Simply let each care for one small green growing bush. Such a bush will provide for home and sociability. We may call to mind the ritual use of tobacco among many indigenous peoples.

This brings forward the sacred dimension of experience so common to human society of all times and places. Sadly, our times seem governed by a hostile response to the problem of difference.

The complexity of the times is without doubt a factor. As is the permisiveness. As is the lack of direction. These are complexities I can't even pretend to understand.

I have to admit I occasionally, long ago, experimented with marijuana. It was brief because I found it boring.

I see no reason why marijuana should not be medically available by prescription. My wife is now on a powerful and potentially addictive narcotic for pain relief resulting from an operation.

However, I don't understand how a general free use of it would be managed. Gambling and liquor are now legal and largely government owned. That gives the government a reason to encourage the use of both - with predictable social problems. And it does almost nothing to deal with those problems.

As to cutting down on crime and organized crime, I do not know of a single instance in the history of mankind where legalizing anything or decriminalizing anything has had any such effect. Over the past 65 or more years, we have seen a steady growth in organized crime, and its added sophistication from world wide links. That did not begin with marijuana, and will not end with it.

As I understand it, the scientists who advocate decriminalizing do so because they look to medical treatment. I should like to know more about how that would work.

The website below can probably answer some of your questions, graeme. It has a great deal of information regarding the harm reduction model in responding to drug use.:

Insite for Community Safety

I'm certainly sympathetic to their aims. I'm bothered by the structure. It depends on voluntary support; and the hostility of the federal government promises much waste of time and money in court.

Before decriminalizing, you would need to have a far larger structure, and one with far more governmnet commitment.

As well, one has to wonder what percentage of addicted persons would choose to go to such a place. How would one deal with those? Are enforced programmes effective? Or would the courts simply create a bigger problem by sending unwilling users for treatment?

What would be the source of supply? If it is the current source, then the plea that this would reduce crime is doubly incredible.

I agree that the feds have to back an endeavour of this nature. However, bear in mind that Insite itself is only one aspect of harm reduction - there is much more that could be done. I think that there are a number of linked articles at that website that answer some of  your questions and, any infrastructure that would need to be put in place has been shown to be more cost effective than the current criminalization of addiction.

At the present time, yes, the drugs in use are street drugs that users bring with them. That's not great, I agree, however this model surely needs to have a track record of improved lives, etc, before any thought of prescribing these types of drugs would even be considered. It's extremely unlikely that this government will do so anyway so this model is being shown to be an improvement over doing nothing.

There are all kinds of questions, for sure. The steps we are currently employing are being shown to be increasing harm and disproportionately penalizing and incarcerating the poor. This is one facet of exploring alternatives and it appears to be helping.

This is the important question. I will propose that management is not our primary concern. Might we not be better served by cultivating character in the earliest stage of infant development. That character, grown to maturity, offers a secure foundation for healing and health by resort to regime and remedy. This would of course undo status quo as it pertains to the economy. All is now predicated on the increase of demand and consumption; whether Heroin or Coca Cola.

Education for temperance and thrift offer a way forward.

Well, not everyone is raised in the most ideal of circumstances...this is one aspect of improving people's lives but it does not need to be the only one. There is all kinds of potential for improving our collective and individual well-being - to interpret my arguement as stating that the harm reduction model is capable of producing massive societal change across the board is a mistake.

The science is clearly indicating that the punitive hard-line approach that is a result of The War on Drugs does not work and I'm glad to hear those whose expertise lies in this area speaking out. It takes guts on their parts in this political climate.

Let me para-phrase:

However, they see fizzy sugar drink use as a public health issue as opposed to a legal issue. Fizzy sugar drink use is above average, as compared to other EU countries. There are fizzy sugar drink shops within 250m of schools.

What would a research of health indicators specific to refined sugar and cannabis indicate? Intuition suggests dedicated inquiry will indicate a boundary defining right use in either case as the primary concern.

Please see my comment in the Marijuana thread about legalizing and regulating all drugs.

 Motheroffive, I have just come across this discussion and have paid attention to the links relating to science and the use of war as a way to resolve things.

I suggest that as a mother of five you probably have learned about the effectiveness of war as a way of resolving issues.

I think that the use of war is outdated but still very much in our genes along with flock behavior and that the two together are a bad mixture, but still tend to be our first reaction.It also seems to me that our present Prime Minister is Prime Minister because he knows how to capitalize on outmoded human behavior.

How many car accidents are caused by fuzzy drink use?

graeme

 I do not take drugs, but my  use of sugar is a big problem to me and a big threat to my  health.

Scientists are experts on science. They are not experts on the uses of law or of social behaviour. I will certainly accept their opinion that drug abuse is a physcal condition, and should be treated as one. I would not pay the slightest attention to their opinions on the use of law or geovernment to do that.

That is something of a false dichotomy, Graeme.  Scientists are perfectly capable of analyzing the effectiveness of various political approaches to a problem.  Would you argue that scientists should have no input into how society addresses the problems of climate change?

I was talking in generic terms, but this is the dude at the centre of the article:

"Wood, director of the urban health research initiative at the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, is co-author of the Vienna Declaration, which calls on the world’s politicians to let scientific evidence guide their policies on illicit drugs."

Sounds like a scientific expert in a relevant field, who is asking governments to please consult with relevant science. So what is your point?

(and lots of different kinds of scientist can contribute to the discussion on climate change, not simply metereologists.)

Politicians need to call on a whole range of people to guide their decisions. Otherwise, for example, the answer might be to decriminalize all drugs. You might need to call on someone other than a scientist for advice on that. Perhaps we shoud decriminalize drunk driving. There's scientific evidence to support that. Or we could, on he advice of pyschiatrist, decriminalize murder.

It's not only a scientific question. I spent my most of my life in academia. We were all experts in our own field but, despite our cocksureness, were often complete asses outside it.

Graeme, this topic seems to be a touchy one for you.  Do you know of any evidence that our existing drug laws have achieved anything worthwhile?

Sociologists and perhaps anthropologists are experts in social behavior.

kenny, I don't know. And I have never claimed I do. I have tried to make two points.

1. legalizing drugs may lead to  heavier drug use, and more serious social problems. That is what happened after prohibition. Consumption rose, and far more people were killed in car accidents than had ever been killed in mobster wars.

2; Legalizing them will have no effect  whatever on people who live by crime. Legalizing alcohol did nothing whatever to reduce he numbers of people living by crime and violence.

I don't understand why disagreeing with you is being touchy. Is everyone who disagrees with you touchy? If so, you might have a problem.