Here’s a six-page paper called Drug Legalisation: An Evaluation of the Impacts on Global Society. Position Statement
It’s been put together by:
- Drug Prevention Network of the Americas (DPNA)
- Institute on Global Drug Policy
- International Scientific and Medical Forum on Drug Abuse
- International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy
- People Against Drug Dependence & Ignorance (PADDI), Nigeria
- Europe Against Drugs (EURAD)
- World Federation Against Drugs (WFAD)
- Peoples Recovery, Empowerment and Development Assistance (PREDA)
- Drug Free Scotland
Transform describes it best
Is this seriously the best the defence of prohibition that can be mustered? Its embarrassingly bad.
What do you expect with Calvina Fay on their side….
Ms. Fay’s name is all you need to see to know that this is coming from the old Straight, Inc. crowd. Those folks abused thousands of teenagers back in the ’80s and early ’90s. And they bloviate about “the rights of the child”. Amazing.
As bad as the whole thing was, they left the worst for last. This is the last paragraph:
” Any government policy must be motivated by the consideration that it must first do
no harm. There is an obligation to protect citizens and the compassionate and sensible
method must be to do everything possible to reduce drug dependency and misuse, not
to encourage or facilitate it. Any failures in a common approach to a problem would
result in a complete breakdown in effectiveness. Differing and fragmented responses
to a common predicament are unacceptable for the wellbeing of the international
community. It is incumbent on national governments to cooperate in securing the
greatest good for the greatest number.”
First do no harm? Are they even aware of what they are saying? And they make this argument not just for America, but for worldwide drug policy. Considering things like the fact that governments around the world give Iran and many other governments money to KILL people, by the hundreds if no thousands, for selling drugs, how can they claim that they are doing no harm. And forget that, giving someone a criminal record is harm. In fact, the definition of criminalisation is punishment for a certain conduct, and the definition of punishment invariably incudes doing some kind of harm. If the person doesn’t suffer harm it’s not punishment. Then, also, if there is an obligation to protect citizens, where do things like witholding information about the signs on ecstasy pills that are contaminated and have been causing FATALITIES fall into?
I think you’re missing the juiciest part of paragraph you quoted.
basically. Everyone must do exactly as we do or else.
Someone please fisk this. Transform is correct; this is weak–very weak.
“Superficially crafted, yet pseudo-persuasive arguments are put forward that can be accepted by many concerned, well intentioned people who have neither the time nor the knowledge to research the matter thoroughly, but accept them in good faith.”
*dramatic slow clap*
Well, I think I’ve found my nominee for the Most Unintentionally-Ironic Statement By A Drug Warrior.
Seriously, that whole thing (all six pages) was just embarrassing. Are you honestly telling me that was put together by a god-damn alphabet soup of nine different anti-drug organizations (including heavy-hitters like Drug Free Scotland)? Honest to God, it reads more like a 5th grade D.A.R.E. student’s final report.
(Side note: did anyone else notice how the first use of “prohibition” got scare-quotes … and then they used the term completely unselfconsciously throughout the remainder? Nice work, dipshits.)
.
.
Why is it that they don’t all have way cool acronyms?
Say, couldn’t we have a POTY award for best prohibitionist propaganda masquerading as real research? Also, we need another T for our way cool acronym to make it a really way cool acronym..
Best I could come up with is
Prince/Princess/both
Of
Targeted
Science
Targeted science being research that has a goal,such as proving harm in marijuana.
Thanks Pete!
The second paragraph says it all.
“It is important to note that international law makes a distinction between “hard law†and “soft law.†Hard law is legally binding upon the States. Soft law is not binding. UN Conventions, such as the Conventions on Drugs, are considered hard law and must be upheld by the countries that have ratified the UN Drug Conventions.”
Hard law, and soft law.
States and countries.
The state is no more.
The UN Convention is god.
So which country’s policies are they going to make the norm? Will it be those which execute drug users, like Afghanistan? Or the ones that have decriminalized, like Portugal? or one in the middle, like the uSofA?
It looks like the paper takes the position that Portugal doesn’t exist. What a surprise. Speaking of Portugal, I have a suggestion for the drug warriors: after you get through with the paper linked above (if you’re not too mentally fatigued), why don’t give this one a try? Then tell me which one you find more convincing.
Luckily all any country has to do is give written notice that they are dropping out of the treaty six months before they do,,pool on how long before countries start dropping out?
And in order for uniformity of all countries,,who is going to pay for the swat team equipment and more prisons for the poorer countries?
clay, I’ll take a week less than 7 months ago.
I am speaking of the ones that will drop when they are told that they have to spend more of their budgets to become consistent with the rest of the world drug enforcement,,,we have federal grants to help police buy all the latest greatest drug war gear,,where is Honduras,Haiti and Greece going to get theirs? More ONDCP money may not be available if they are spending it on Blackwater operations.
Why bother having just one citation? If you’re going fact free, there is no need to cite any sources at all!
Never let the facts get in the way of…
40 plus years of epic failure and the prohibitionists still just don’t get it.
I haven’t read it yet (saving it for morning coffee) but my first thought is ooh, is somebody getting nervous?
My second thought is… is anybody surprised it reads like a poorly done student paper (I’m safely assuming comments from couch potatoes are mostly accurate) that would get a C, at best?
Have I ever mentioned the time I had to bowl in a league w/ a bunch of old farts while I was on mescaline? Interesting experience… recommended only for those w/ a Hunter S Thompson appetite for strange, incongruous, intoxicated realities. I bowled the best game of my life too… 🙂 one of those experiences that started to clue me in as to the multiverse’s weird sense of humor. Meeting Malcolm (virtually speaking) was another clue…
Speaking of making people nervous… during the Kerry campaign JK had a site that was a topics bulletin board. We creamed it… a lot of the people here, naturally… and kept drug policy front and center, I think we drove ’em nuts actually… but it sure would be nice if one of this year’s candidates repeats Kerry’s blunder.
I’m disappointed Mr Paul is being so quiet. He has a chance to really turn the compost pile and it seems like he’s standing around with a straw o’ grass in his mouth thinking about maybe doing something… he has a platform from which to speak, well Ron, speak! Dang it… c’mon. This is serious shit, people are still getting killed (last week in Arkansas, suspect shot and killed by LE).
Why don’t you ask his campaign? There is a contact page where you can email various people connected with his campaign. I have the url for that page but the browser where I bookmarked it is not functioning right now (damn AOL is always locking up, I wouldn’t keep it except for I’ve had my email account there for so long I really don’t want to change it now, maybe I should just give it up and save myself $15 a month). Anyway, it’s easy to find, just do a search for “Ron Paul’s official campaign page” without the quotes.
Wow. Cancel aol already, you can keep your email address. I had this conversation with my mom in 2005.
The question I always wanted to ask during the 2004 campaign was, “Senator Kerry, why the long face?”
I think Paul is feeling his age,,the pace and travel could be wearing on him,,I hope he is OK but at 63,,I understand it.
The inevitable is finally happening. This is the prohib’s rearguard speaking; “We must all hang together, or we may hang separately.” And hang they should, for what they’ve done.
The foundations of the prohib sand castle are getting washed away by the rising economic and social tides. And the various prohib organizations leeching off the taxpayer’s money to support themselves are beginning to worry about feeling something cold, hard and sharp against their necks.
When stripped of the final misinformation and lies regarding the (pseudo)science of prohibition, the prohibs are left with little more than force and bluster. They never could defend their operations with anything more than what amounts to an (armed and dangerous and none-too-bright) five-year-old’s rejoinder of “Well, it’s because!”
Adult: ” ‘Because‘…what?” Prohib (stamping feet, fists balled, face snarling in frustration at having to explain) : “You know, just…just…because! Because I say so!”
Enough of that behavior in the public’s eyes, in these fiscally tight times, and the pols won’t have too much reluctance in taking the budgetary knife to those once-sacred bovine’s hides.
They built their fortress on sand,,they spent trillions of dollars making it impregnable but alas,,it was built on sand.
In a future age when the once great representative republic is belly up, historians and scholars will conclude the grifter cash-in known as the drug war will have played a large part in the demise. Czars, property and asset seizure, mandatory minimum sentences, erosion of civil liberties all came out of or were accelerated by the drug war.
Oh, my. That is prety much one of the most self cotradictory, tortured pieces of reasoning I have seen. At least since that last one. I’ll ask aloud one more time: When do they bring ut their A team?
What in the world are you talking about? They only pick the best and brightest from the cohort that supports their point of view.
Obviously the paper is nothing but badly written propaganda, but I had to point this out. Among their ‘reasons for prohibition’;
“The pharmacology and pharmacokinetics of psychotropic substances suggest that more, not less, control of their access is warranted.”
Pharmacokinetics is the study of what happens to the drugs in the human body. So they’re worried about what happens to the poor drugs when you take them? We know they don’t care about our health, but I had no idea they were worried about the fate of the drugs themselves.
I suspect that they were just using big words to make themselves sound super smart.
Ha, yeah, that sentence jumped out at me too. And I had the same thought as you: this is how a not-so-bright person writes when he’s trying to sound intelligent. It reminded me of the Friends episode when Joey uses a thesaurus on every single word of a letter in an attempt to seem smarter.
Monica: All right, what was this sentence originally?
Joey: Oh. “They’re warm, nice people with big hearts.”
Chandler: And that became, “They’re humid, prepossessing Homo Sapiens with full-sized aortic pumps?”
The only difference is that Joey was a LOVABLE dunce.
If I had a hammer,,I’d hammer in the morning,I’d hammer in the evening,,hell,I’d hammer all day long.
Waiting for allan’s THUD post,,because the whole paper was to rally the prohibition supporters to try and keep it going,,that’s my take on it Vern.
The problem is that most prohibitionist budgets are being cut,,they are losing numbers.
Well now that was an experience full of guffaws! I think I scared the dogs I laughed so loud a few times…
And clay… I don’t know how to give this a thud. I mean it’s fluffier than a marshmallow and by god I have to believe these folks are keeping the wodwall standing thru levitation or something… are they theosophists (with a sado-moralism bent)?
Which of course only extends the discussion… is this really the best they have? Do their best and brightest rank among the truly dim? I’d love to dissect that “document” line by line, but why? I think they mock themselves, playing a parody on the Black Knight. I mean really? What’s this conglomerate of OWFMs (Organizations With Few Members) gonna do, chew our ankles? Their power diminishes, their voices not nearly as noticeable as they once were above our ever-rising chorus.
They have much to be concerned about. Here’s something Neill Franklin (LEAP) said that just hit me as so sweet to hear:
[emphasis mine]
That part of what Neill says about change in his mind didn’t happen overnight, it took time and a factual introduction fo a different perspective. That’s us… that’s what tens of thousands of LTEs sent to every paper in the country helped do, what constant patrolling the wwweb and standing toe to toe w/ the prohibs in public forums did. That’s what websites like Pete’s have done… we have provided the public platform for information and discussion. We stand up and say “let’s talk.”
But they don’t. We know we can’t comment on their sites. None of ’em. Not a one w/ an un/semi-moderated public forum…
And that’s a strategic mistake for them. Of course if they did have public comments… heh… it sure wouldn’t help them!
So, no thud. Maybe a soft thump… or even closer, maybe a near silent poof…
I’m torn between two responses to this diatribe; Doctor, disconnect the life support, the patient is obviously brain dead; and, I want some of what they’ve been smoking, no drug I’ve ever taken has left me as divorced from reality as these people are.
oh no Curmudgeon, not that drug… that’s their version of brown acid man. That’s why they’re so weird (and as you say, divorced from reality).
I’d only do a line by line rebuttal if I got paid. And paid well… it’s that baaad… * p o o f *
Of course I’d provide some data and citations if I did a 6 page report and planned to release it to the world. Duh…
On their bullet point @ the top of page 6 in parentheses they single out cannabis among all drugs to say there is overwhelming evidence that it’s legalization would certainly be irresponsible. They cite no such evidence. Why do they think it would be any more responsible to legalise crystal meth or heroin? Currently, these
prohibitionists ARE responsible for all the harms of prohibition. Wouldn’t they prefer to be irresponsible?
The argument that it needs to be legalized federally for medicinal purposes is so far past the turning point in public support that it is embarrassing and unquestionably corrupt. This document in favor of legalizing cannabis is littered with citations to actual evidence:
http://www.governor.wa.gov/priorities/healthcare/petition/combined_document.pdf
Pages 44-97 are just the references.
From the “what about the children” category…no, make that from the “it doesn’t matter if we succeed, it’s the Principal of the thing” category:
Antigo? Is that a high falutin’ way to say stop? What the heck is a “county city” anyway?
dont know if anyone spotted this but their position paper has “draft , not for dissemination” written at the top. may explain why its so incompetant.
that would be when opened on an iphone…it doesn’t show when i open it on the desk top
oh really? Yeah, I don’t see that either. But it makes sense then! They stole a freshman HS student’s paper…
forget it , duncan, its wisconsintown
http://media.smh.com.au/news/national-news/does-branson-have-the-right-idea-about-drugs-2912086.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=iMb0MFKQdLU
.
.
Fourth Circuit Says Government Needs More Proof of Link Between Drug Use and Gun Violence
Brian Doherty
January 24, 2012
The Federal Criminal Appeals blog reports on a decision from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding when the government can use drug possession as an excuse to deny weapons-possession rights. In short, it can’t just assert that there is a good reason to bar drug users from guns: it has to try to prove it. But the Court also seems to think such proof won’t be too hard.
/snip/
/snip/
Although we conclude, applying the intermediate scrutiny standard, that Congress had an important objective for enacting § 922(g)(3) to reduce gun violence and might have reasonably served that objective by disarming drug users and addicts, we nonetheless find that the government failed to make the record to substantiate the fit between its objective and the means of serving that objective. Therefore, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings…..
Our “alleged” civil liberties?! What the Fuck. When im harassed or have my house broken into and my dog shot by swat it isn’t my alleged civil liberties but my actual ones that are violated. When you put me in a cage with a bunch of dangerous sodomites for possessing a plant it isn’t my alleged civil liberties that are being violated; you’re doing me more harm than I’ve ever done to myself. These authors are cocksuckers.
.
.
Malcolm, congrats!
Thanks Duncan!
It’s almost as if we think we’re people.
amen to that…
Felony charge for possession of 1/10 of a gram of cannabis:
Correction, make that 1/10 of an ounce.
There’s only one sensible comment on that article.