The War on Drugs approach is over

[malaise]

It's fucked up way too many lives and countries.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/18/western-leaders-game-changing-drugs-report
<snip>
The report represents the first time any significant multilateral agency has outlined serious alternatives to prohibition, including legal market regulation or reform of the UN drug conventions.

"While leaders have talked about moving from criminalisation to public health in drug policy, punitive, abstinence-only approaches have still predominated, even in the health sphere," said Daniel Wolfe, director of the Open Society Foundation's International Harm Reduction Program. "These scenarios offer a chance for leaders to replace indiscriminate detention and rights' abuses with approaches that distinguish between users and traffickers, and offer the community-based health services that work best for those in need."

In a statement, the Global Commission on Drug Policy, which campaigns for changes in drug laws and is supported by the former presidents of several South American states, said that publication of the review would break "the taboo that blocked for so long the debate on more humane and efficient drug policy". The Commission said that it was "time that governments around the world are allowed to responsibly experiment with regulation models that are tailored to their realities and local need".

[ruffburr]

1. I would-

Refer folks to the canadian 1972 La dain commission report (not sure of spelling maybe le-dane?) Anyway check it out, i'll see if i can find it its been 20 yrs since i read it.
http://www.drugtext.org/Le-Dain-Cannabis-Report/6-conclusions-and-recommendations.html
Another cost of the laws against cannabis is the extent to which there must be a departure from the ordinary rules respecting the burden of proof. This arises in the case of the offence of possession for the purpose of trafficking (see Chapter 5). This offence, which was introduced into Canadian law in 1954, has played an important role in law enforcement against trafficking. It accounted for over 40% of the convictions for trafficking offences in 1970 and over 50% of them in 1971. It is considered to be necessary because of the difficulty of apprehending persons in the act of trafficking or otherwise making the necessary proof of this offence. Similar provisions have been adopted in the United States and Great Britain. The disturbing aspect of the offence is the burden of proof which is cast upon the accused once the Crown has proved the fact of possession. As indicated in Chapter 5, since the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Appleby case it would appear that it is no longer sufficient for the accused to raise a reasonable doubt concerning his intention to traffic; he must rebut the presumption by a preponderance of evidence or proof which carries on a balance of probabili-ties. This places a heavy burden on the accused. We shall have a recommenda-tion to make on this point.

Encouraging the development of an illicit market. There is no doubt that the criminal law prohibition of distribution encourages the development of an illicit market, where, as in the case of cannabis, there is a significant demand for the product. This is an inherent cost of the prohibition of distribution. It means that a certain number of people will be encouraged to engage in the crime of trafficking and to make a profit from it. There is little evidence of organized crime being involved in the traffic in marijuana, although there is some evidence of it in connection with hashish. It is a reasonable assumption that a profitable illicit market will eventually attract organized criminal elements.

Obliging people to engage in crime or at least to deal with criminal types to supply themselves with the drug. This also is an inherent or unavoidable cost of a criminal law prohibition of distribution. It must be recognized that even if the prohibition against simple possession were repealed many users of can-nabis would continue to have their conduct criminalized since, as part of the process of supplying their own requirements, they would be dealing with traffickers in amounts that would involve them in some redistribution. This is the operating and economic reality of cannabis distribution.

Just a snip

[malaise]

2. Haven't seen that one

but there have been several reports which proved that this madness was not working

[hobbit709]

7. Trafficking with no proof of actual trafficking is the norm.

I remember when I got busted back in 2000 what my lawyer said "A quarter pound-that's personal stash in South Austin"

[fredamae]

3. DEA's Own ALJ Said It All 1988

"VIII.

ACCEPTED SAFETY FOR USE UNDER MEDICAL SUPERVISION

With respect to whether or not there is "a lack of accepted safety
for use of [marijuana] under medical supervision", the record shows the
following facts to be uncontroverted.


Findings of Fact

1. Richard J. Gralla, M.D., an oncologist and Professor of
Medicine who was an Agency witness, accepts that in treating cancer
patients oncologists can use the cannabinoids with safety despite their
side effects.

2. Andrew T. Weil, M.D., who now practices medicine in Tucson,
Arizona and is on the faculty of the College of Medicine, University of
Arizona, was a member of the first team of researchers to perform a
Federal Government authorized study into the effects of marijuana on
human subjects. This team made its study in 1968. These researchers
determined that marijuana could be safely used under medical supervision.
In the 20 years since then Dr. Weil has seen no information that would
cause him to reconsider that conclusion. There is no question in his
mind but that marijuana is safe for use under appropriate medical
supervision.

3. The most obvious concern when dealing with drug safety is
the possibility of lethal effects. Can the drug cause death?

4. Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal
effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in
the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented
cannabis-induced fatality. - 56 -


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. This is a remarkable statement. First, the record on
marijuana encompasses 5,000 years of human experience. Second, marijuana
is now used daily by enormous numbers of people throughout the world.
Estimates suggest that from twenty million to fifty million Americans
routinely, albeit illegally, smoke marijuana without the benefit of
direct medical supervision. Yet, despite this long history of use and
the extraordinarily high numbers of social smokers, there are simply no
credible medical reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a
single death.

6. By contrast aspirin, a commonly used, over-the-counter
medicine, causes hundreds of deaths each year.

7. Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called
an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage fifty percent of
test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced
toxicity. A number of researchers have attempted to determine
marijuana's LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply
stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to
induce death.

8. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around
1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce
death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as
much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied
marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would
theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within
about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.

9. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal
response as a result of drug-related toxicity."
https://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_law1.shtml

[malaise]

4. But it made lots of folks very rich

you know

[fredamae]

5. Indeed! n/t

[annabanana]

6. This, along with the OAS report means it "is over"

everywhere but here.

[zerosumgame0005]

8. "drug warriors"

see this as a threat to all the money and power they have accumulated so they will fight it as they always have with lies, violence and stupidity

[malaise]

9. The sad truth is that US drug policy has messed up more than a few

countries in our hemisphere. The drugs were used to finance RW goons and hit squads.