U.S. Should Follow Other Countries and Decriminalize Drugs
by Tim Lynch and Juan Carlos Hidalgo
The international war against the black market trade in narcotics seems to be at a tipping point, as a new approach is gaining traction globally: decriminalization. More and more policymakers are coming to the view that it is wrong to jail drug users as criminals.
Last November, Massachusetts voters approved a referendum that decriminalized marijuana. In December 2007, voters in Denver approved a law that made adult marijuana possession the city's "lowest law-enforcement priority." In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced it is time to closely study the decriminalization of marijuana, which is already the state's largest cash crop.
American policy makers seem to be cautiously following the shift in public opinion on drug policy. A recent Zogby poll showed that 52 percent of those polled thought marijuana should be legal, taxed and regulated. The shift is probably the result of experience: Many Americans have either used drugs or have relatives or friends who have tried marijuana or other drugs and do not see their friends and loved ones as criminals.
More people are asking why some drug users have to be jailed while other users (such as Olympic champion Michael Phelps) maintain successful, even flourishing careers.
Drug policy reform is moving even faster abroad. In 2001, Portugal decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. Not only has the predicted spike in drug use and a public health crisis failed to materialize, Portugal's drug usage rates compare more favorably than many other European states that have kept up a strict "lock 'em up" approach.
In Latin America, policymakers impressed by the experience of Portugal and other countries have begun to move in that direction. Earlier this year, a commission headed by three former Latin American presidents — Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, César Gaviria of Colombia and Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico — called on the governments of the region to break the taboo of discussing alternative drug policies such as decriminalization.
Just recently, Argentina hosted the first Latin American Conference on Drug Policies, a high-profile event sponsored by, among others, the United Nations, the Pan-American Health Organization and the Anti-Drug Latin American Initiative on Drugs and Democracy. The participants, including high-ranking government officials and experts from the region, labeled the war on drugs a failure and suggested a more pragmatic approach to drug policy based on decriminalizing possession for personal consumption.
During the event, Anibal Fernandez, chief of staff for Argentine President Cristina Fernandez, announced that her administration will be submitting a decriminalization bill to Congress in the upcoming months. An Ecuadorean official said similar legislation will soon be debated in that country's National Assembly. Brazil is considering similar changes.
Mexico recently decriminalized possession of any drug so long as the amounts were small enough to indicate personal use. The Supreme Court of Argentina recently ruled that it is unconstitutional to punish marijuana users if no other person is harmed by such use.
There is no ideological common denominator among those questioning the war on drugs. Both liberal and conservative policymakers are dissatisfied with the gang violence that pervades the black market and the futility of trying to stop adults who wish to use drugs from doing so.
We seem to have finally reached a tipping point where the costs of the drug war clearly exceed any perceived benefit. Drug addiction is a problem. But just as alcohol prohibition was a mistaken approach to the problem of alcoholism, so too is the drug war a mistaken approach to drug abuse.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Yes decriminalize all drugs .Give us back our choice.And stop locking up good people down on there luck!
The eventual legalization of marijuana is a strong and volatile overdue argument,waiting too happen.
All the anti-marijuana people quote statistics and articles by government agencies and studies. Since it is required of ONDCP
too fight legalization or movement of marijuana from being a schedule I drug,by any means necessary,where does the truth end and skewed statistics,lies and false studies begin? They argue with half truths and
myth's furnished by the ONDCP,too maintain a 40 billion dollar a year bureaucratic empire that would lose a large percentage of it's funding if marijuana were legalized.
And why does anyone think marijuana legalization would increase treatment costs when the only people using "treatment" are people ordered too by their jobs or court. I have never heard of anyone voluntarily asking for treatment for marijuana addiction.
Crime escalation predictions are truly upside down, because when marijuana is no longer a crime ,the crime rate will fall,not increase.
No one ever says marijuana addiction leads to crime directly,but since marijuana is in the same classification as some drugs that do drive addicts to commit crimes too support their addiction,they believe marijuana must be strong enough to do a user the same way heroin or crystal meth does.
Every study about marijuana requested by congress since 1972 has stated that marijuana addiction levels and severity do not justify
keeping marijuana as a schedule I drug. Every medical study done by Doctors have stated that marijuana is a medicine ,yet the ONDCP says it is not,so prohibitionist believe the cop,and dismiss the Doctors and researchers and refuse too move marijuana from schedule I regardless of scientific and medical evidence.
The ONDCP,our frontline defense against harmful drugs,depends on marijuana remaining illegal for over 1/2 their 40 billion dollar yearly budget . They are also,through the DEA,control the government grown marijuana and will not furnish any marijuana for any clinical study that proves medical applications for pot.
The FDA(not under ONDCP) will not approve marijuana as a medicine until the clinical studies are completed.
There is not a large company with big pockets trying to do the clinical testing of marijuana in its natural form for approval,but
the big pharmacy companies are trying to isolate some of the chemical compounds in marijuana,so they can make a pill to sell you. Marinol is a perfect example of this. For over thirty years,our drug cops,and their researchers extolled how marijuana was a dangerous drug because it had THC in it,now THC is a pharmaceutical medicine,and now they say mariijuana has other compounds in it that make it dangerous,they just don't know what they are.
The latest attempt by big pharmacy is too extract the chemicals from a marijuana plant,dilute it into a spray form,and sell it too you form a pharmacy. Sativex:
I. Drugs that contain chemicals taken directly from the marijuana plant
Name/Trade Name Manufacturer Approval Status Suggested Medical Use Cannabis-Related Properties
1. Sativex GW Pharmaceuticals U.S. Phase III clinical trials started in late 2006
Approved for use in Canada (2005) and Catalonia, Spain (2005); Licensed to Bayer in the UK and to Almirall in Europe
Ongoing Phase III MS (Multiple Sclerosis) study in the UK due to report results in the first quarter (Q1) of 2009 and regulatory submission scheduled by the end of the second quarter (H1) in 2009.
Treatment of neuropathic pain and spasticity in patients with Multiple Sclerosis (MS); Analgesic treatment in adult patients with advanced cancer who experience moderate to severe pain. Mouth spray whose chemical compound is derived from natural extracts of the cannabis plant.
So,can we extract the chemicals from pot and just use that? NO
When you remove the natural ingredients from marijuana,you have hemp oil ,and we have had that for years. But our government is in the procelss of allowing a pharmaceutical company to do it.
It is all about the money . There is no danger of drug crazed people committing crimes or the increased use of drugs by teens and young people driving this argument,only the shift of wealth caused by marijuana legalization.
And now marijuana has shown cancer blocking abilities.
When 1 in 3 Americans suffer from some form of cancer,how much money would we save in medical costs if marijuana reduced the number of cancer patients by 1/2 or more?
The citizens of India have 1 chance in 10 of getting cancer,and marijuana has always been used there,as food ,medicine and recreation.
How do you explain to the children that it is better too let them spend their lives fighting cancer than too prevent it by allowing anyone too get high?
The pharmaceutical companies don't have any cancer blocking medicines,don't want too block cancer,don't want a cure for cancer
because they make too much money treating cancer. It's just "good"
business too keep marijuana illegal.
I am aware of some of the studies you wrote about, however I am curious to know where you got the stats of 1 in 3, and 1 in 10, for cancer development within US and Indian populations...
I suspect India has less incidence of cancer because: 1 - many Indians eat diets dominated by fruit, vegetables, and legumes (all of which have numerous anit-cancer properties and general health benefits), and consume far less in the way of meat . 2 - cancer is likely to be undiagnosed for many because they are not in a position to seek healthcare . Remember, much of the population in India is still very poor - which also means health benefits in terms of walking/cycling in many instances because using a car is too expensive.
The standard US diet (similar to that in Australia in many ways), is heavy on many things that are not good for us if consumed in large amounts. Moderation is the key, and better food choices generally, with a reasonable level of physical activity. Hmmm, perhaps we could take a leaf out of India's book and do two trials - one control group adopt and Indian diet and physical activity regime WITHOUT marijuana use , and the other could do the same WITH marijuana use... ;-)
I have no problem with marijuana used responsibly or for medical use. I have never used it myself and don't want to start - I remember being part of the surfing culture on the Central Coast of Australia and watching "friends" get rather silly while using it, and then getting into their cars and driving away while still affected. I do drink alocohol, but do so responsibly - with meals, and without getting behind the wheel of my car or trying to operate machinery.
The issue really is about what is responsible use of ANY drug, whether it's recreational or medicinal.
Whatever the effects of taking a drug are, our right to take it is inalienable.
is best friends with dumber! And lowering a high standard because someone else does is like jumping off the bridge because everyone else does. Thinking like that is the very reason our kids are among the dumbest in the world.
It is repugnant that people think we should throw drug users in jail, it does no good at all. You know, if someone has an addiction to drugs then there are only two possible outcomes. Kick the addiction or die. Now, if someone who is addicted and wants help, then so be it, I do not mind my taxes going to aid someone in kicking the habit. But, if the user has no intent on stopping, then that is their call, I will not give any sympathy for them. People are going to do whatever it is they want to do, no matter what others may think. If they die because of it, then so be it, that was their decision. There are some exceptions to this, but as long as their self destruction is only harming themselves then let them continue to self destruct.
Now, drug dealers, that is another story. Hunt them down with a vengence and do what ever is necessary to stop them permanently.
I don't want drugs decriminalized, but if they do, I don't care. However, I DO care if my tax dollars go to helping them. They made the stupid decision to start, so why should I pay to help them stop? Forget that noise. If I cut off my own leg, I am not going to ask you to pay to sew it back on, and if I did, you'd probably tell me where I could go. And it probably wouldn't be somewhere nice.
"People are going to do whatever it is they want to do, no matter what others may think."
Which is exactly why our tax dollars shouldn't go to helping them. Not every bad decision by someone else is my problem.
Rehabilitation can acquire private funding, including donations. There's no need to allocate more tax dollars into paying for another person's bad decision.
On that note it's not always a bad decision. I've known people who work 40+ hours a week while being cocaine users, functioning perfectly fine on the job because they still balance and maintain priorities knowing well that their vice is not the priority. After trying it myself I didn't like the high it gave me and so I quickly ended my association with it. No rehabilitation needed...
Which leads me to wonder how many of the folks who are "addicted" to these hard drugs really have a problem from the drug or if they're just placing the weight and burden of their other problems on their "addiction"? It sounds like a scapegoat; one our current system oftentimes embraces.
Decriminalizing pot, giving it some mild regulation through taxes , would give the government a decent amount of money to play with and takes the burden off of those of us who are already paying way too much in income , property, and sales taxes as it is. Perhaps even a portion of the "pot tax" could go towards rehabilitation services, thus for the first time in a while making the users responsible for taking care of misuse instead of placing the burden on non-users.
Let me clarify my point a little more. When I say I dont mind my taxes being spent on getting people help, that is said with the alternative of my taxes paying to keep them in a cell.
I guess that is a lot cheaper. But I would argue that this is a case of the lesser of two evils.