Is Portugal's Liberal Drug Policy a Model for US?(aolnews.com)
aolnews.com
Is Portugal's Liberal Drug Policy a Model for US?
http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/is-portugals-liberal-drug-policy-a-model-for-us/19591395
4 comments
In Mexico, marijuana, cocaine, and heroin are already legal in personal use amounts much like Portugal. The problems Mexico is having are the side effects of drug shipment cartels that move substances from South and Central America to the USA.
Mexico could further legalize transshipment of drugs so that cartels could just hire Mexican shipping companies to deliver the drugs to the USA border. And that might help a little in the interior of the country, but the interior of Mexico already sees low levels of drug crime.
The real problem will be crossing the USA border with the drugs. As long as that is a critical concern of the cartels, they will need decoys, armies of labor, help from police, forged bills of lading, bribed officials, and the whole infrastructure of corruption and violence.
Since the USA isn't going to be legalizing anything as far as I can see, there will always be violence in Mexico paid for by USA users. I don't see anything the Mexican government can do about it.
Mexico could further legalize transshipment of drugs so that cartels could just hire Mexican shipping companies to deliver the drugs to the USA border. And that might help a little in the interior of the country, but the interior of Mexico already sees low levels of drug crime.
The real problem will be crossing the USA border with the drugs. As long as that is a critical concern of the cartels, they will need decoys, armies of labor, help from police, forged bills of lading, bribed officials, and the whole infrastructure of corruption and violence.
Since the USA isn't going to be legalizing anything as far as I can see, there will always be violence in Mexico paid for by USA users. I don't see anything the Mexican government can do about it.
Quite so. Quite aside of the various problems inside the USA (sentencing disparities, resources taken away from other crimes, families and careers wrecked, and worse), our current policies create terribly perverse economic incentives - and not just in Mexico. Check this out: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-07/wachovia-s-drug-hab...
The sad fact is that every time we or the Mexican government removes a top-level dealer, there's a gruesome competition to take his place because the market is worth billions of dollars. Even a vanishingly thin slice of such a huge pie is worth the risk of death to many people. The more of a high-risk occupation we make it with aggressive enforcement, the more marginal and unscrupulous the individuals who will be attracted to it. The sort of people who are willing to decapitate their competitors or massacre civilians are not rational actors who are influenced by the calculus of deterrence; as we've seen in Central and South America, the net effect of escalating the conflict into paramilitary activity is to just bring drug suppliers and illegal arms dealers into closer proximity.
If you have the hour to spare, I felt Judge Gray had a very pragmatic and persuasive approach to overcoming the political and legislative inertia, but it's going to be an uphill struggle. While the Obama administration has finally altered national policy a little (eg by supporting legislation to eliminate crack/cocaine sentencing disparities and taking a hands-off approach to state policies on medical marijuana), more fundamental changes will require the voters to demonstrate where the safe electoral ground is.
The sad fact is that every time we or the Mexican government removes a top-level dealer, there's a gruesome competition to take his place because the market is worth billions of dollars. Even a vanishingly thin slice of such a huge pie is worth the risk of death to many people. The more of a high-risk occupation we make it with aggressive enforcement, the more marginal and unscrupulous the individuals who will be attracted to it. The sort of people who are willing to decapitate their competitors or massacre civilians are not rational actors who are influenced by the calculus of deterrence; as we've seen in Central and South America, the net effect of escalating the conflict into paramilitary activity is to just bring drug suppliers and illegal arms dealers into closer proximity.
If you have the hour to spare, I felt Judge Gray had a very pragmatic and persuasive approach to overcoming the political and legislative inertia, but it's going to be an uphill struggle. While the Obama administration has finally altered national policy a little (eg by supporting legislation to eliminate crack/cocaine sentencing disparities and taking a hands-off approach to state policies on medical marijuana), more fundamental changes will require the voters to demonstrate where the safe electoral ground is.
Although I'm pro-legalization/pro-decriminalization I don't think it's a good idea for Mexico.
"Instead, they're referred to a panel comprised of a drug-treatment specialist, a lawyer and a civil servant, who usually recommend treatment -- and pay for it, too." is something that won't happen here. And I think that's a fundamental part for legalization to work.
"Instead, they're referred to a panel comprised of a drug-treatment specialist, a lawyer and a civil servant, who usually recommend treatment -- and pay for it, too." is something that won't happen here. And I think that's a fundamental part for legalization to work.
My take on this is quite simple: I want drug dealers, drug suppliers, pimps and prostitutes to pay taxes. And I don't want my tax money to be wasted policing these areas. Legalize it and let IRS worry about them, this is the worst thing for such business: with the high profit margins gone and taxmen watching over the shoulder organized crime will have no reason to be involved in these areas.
Forget the IRS -- just legalize it, period. People have the natural right to produce, trade, and ingest any substances they choose -- even to the point of injuring or killing themselves. I don't support legalization for your pragmatic reason of enabling certain people to dip into other people's business. I support it because it's the right thing to do.
I've always thought that the problem with the drug war is that governments simply try to regulate the usage instead of regulating the desire. People use drugs because their lives suck. People drink because their day sucked. People use drugs to change their state of reality because they do not enjoy the state they are in. I think the funny part of it all, in some shape or fashion, government is the reason why people do not enjoy the state they are in. Taxes, rules, and regulations are created for every aspect of your life. The government controls every part of life and when you are high, there is no control. You get to be free for as long as the high lasts.
To the decriminalization, if I can grow it in my back yard, the government should have no right to say what I can do with it. If I have to create it in a lab setting and plan on selling it to someone else, then there should be some control. I've never heard of weed killing anyone, but I've heard of all the rest killing people. So when it's possible to kill someone, there should be roads to justice available.
2¢
To the decriminalization, if I can grow it in my back yard, the government should have no right to say what I can do with it. If I have to create it in a lab setting and plan on selling it to someone else, then there should be some control. I've never heard of weed killing anyone, but I've heard of all the rest killing people. So when it's possible to kill someone, there should be roads to justice available.
2¢
Some people use drugs for life-enhancement. You probably don't read HN because your life sucks, or play video games because your life sucks, or watching sporting events because your life sucks.
For some people, drugs are just another enjoyable part of life, not an escape from life.
For some people, drugs are just another enjoyable part of life, not an escape from life.
I'm surprised how few people realize this. I guess drug use is one of those topics that tend to shut off people's rational faculties and make them react with emotion and a holier-than-thou attitude
Near constant anti-drug propaganda from infancy through adult hood has that effect.
That and I think a lot of people outgrow drug use or advocacy. They did it when they were young, stopped and now don't care about the rights of other people. Or maybe they just developed a cynical view of youth or see the negative drug culture.
Basically, an "I don't care anymore so just keep them banned" attitude or an inability to do analytical thinking to see that the negatives of our drug culture aren't inherent to drug use.
Basically, an "I don't care anymore so just keep them banned" attitude or an inability to do analytical thinking to see that the negatives of our drug culture aren't inherent to drug use.
You speak some depressing truth.
Sure, I would agree with you on that.
But for the other people, the ones not included in your 'some' I believe that drugs are used as an escape. I've known plenty of people that had their nirvana moment and then continued to use for years after because it's better than coming home and watching tv while waiting to go to sleep and start the 8-5 all over again. Walk into a gas station at 5 pm and see how many people buy a six pack on their way home. Or ponder the large amount of the population taking the legal drugs to alleviate depression.
But for the other people, the ones not included in your 'some' I believe that drugs are used as an escape. I've known plenty of people that had their nirvana moment and then continued to use for years after because it's better than coming home and watching tv while waiting to go to sleep and start the 8-5 all over again. Walk into a gas station at 5 pm and see how many people buy a six pack on their way home. Or ponder the large amount of the population taking the legal drugs to alleviate depression.
And, for some, drugs can be a transformative experience, yielding spiritual and philosophical insight into the universe. So, beyond just being pleasurable (and that, in it's own right, is probably sufficient justification for their use), drugs may actually be a fundamental component of self awareness for many.
This is a common wishful thinking but actually no one of the famous "drug-philosophers", starting from Huxley, managed to create any path or even small practice or routine which could be used by other people than themselves to improve their lives.
You know, any way of living which can't be passed to other people is kinda useless.
You know, any way of living which can't be passed to other people is kinda useless.
[deleted]
In answer to the title: Yes, it is. Every country on the planet that has legalized one or other drug has seen only positive results from it (Portugal, Switzerland, The Netherlands, to name a few). The "war on drugs" has never, ever sported any success or any result in combatting this supposed "problem"; a problem that a ban itself creates - the very second a government bans a specific substance it loses all control over it, and non-governmental bodies (cartels) will instantly gain control over all accessibility of the substance in question - completely beyond any government's reach - and drug-related crime arises from this very point in a twofold manner: the cartels' fight over dominance, and the actual legal tag attached to anyone handling said substance. The only way to get rid of the problem is to LEGALIZE the substance, REGULATE IT, and thus regain control. The last time the USA were taught this lesson was during the prohibition, when it took them 14 years to realize how stupid their mistake was. The current lesson has been going on for over 80 years, costed thousands of thousands of lives, and billion after billion of tax payers' money. How much longer will it take?
"only positive results" is simply not true, and a dangerous assertion if you want legalization in the US to not just happen, but to stick.
In the Netherlands, we're still struggling with tons of unforeseen side-effects of partial legalization (like a excessive alcohol abuse amongst teenagers, since drugs are no longer particularly "cool", and alcohol is much cheaper and more available). The net result has been positive, but it's not without its problems.
As a results, there is still a lot of pressure from conservatives to take more repressive measures, and the road to full legalization is blocked by the relations with other countries (not just immediate neighbors, but the entire EU with its wide-open borders and the US that meddles in everyone's business) that take a much less liberal view.
Bottom line is: legalization will create new problems, some of them may be hard to predict. It does not magically solve the problem. It just allows you to focus efforts and resources on the real problems, instead of the side-effects of prohibition.
In the Netherlands, we're still struggling with tons of unforeseen side-effects of partial legalization (like a excessive alcohol abuse amongst teenagers, since drugs are no longer particularly "cool", and alcohol is much cheaper and more available). The net result has been positive, but it's not without its problems.
As a results, there is still a lot of pressure from conservatives to take more repressive measures, and the road to full legalization is blocked by the relations with other countries (not just immediate neighbors, but the entire EU with its wide-open borders and the US that meddles in everyone's business) that take a much less liberal view.
Bottom line is: legalization will create new problems, some of them may be hard to predict. It does not magically solve the problem. It just allows you to focus efforts and resources on the real problems, instead of the side-effects of prohibition.
Surprisingly, this news made barely a ripple in the US media...then again, coverage of Mexican affairs here is not that good, and even discussing legalization is political suicide in most of the US. One articulate and credible advocate for the idea is a judge and self-described former 'drug warrior' from Orange County named Jim Gray, who left the GOP to run as a libertarian candidate in 2004 (for the senate, of all things). I caught him speaking recently on CSpan and was highly impressed by his pragmatic approach.
http://www.judgejimgray.com/grayarticles.php or http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/295043-1 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_P._Gray, for text, video, and background respectively.