Sensible John Stossel on the failed drug war...

[Ben]

Sensible John Stossel on the failed drug war:

YouTube- Stossel Supports Sting and DPA Over Fox News and Calls Drug War a Failure (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSfXxSL9D-4)

[Ben]

Glenn Greenwald on Drug Decriminalization in Portugal:

YouTube- Glenn Greenwald on Drug Decriminalization in Portugal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjuvXdqKM0M&feature=PlayList&p=F8F4B7E2FC4E2439&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=33)

[serial138]

I personally gave up drugs over 8 years ago, but if someone wants to do them i see no reason. Just legalized everything and tax it to pay for treatment and god only knows what else. It could be much healthier, and a huge money maker.

[Ben]

YouTube- Milton Friedman - Why Drugs Should Be Legalized (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLsCC0LZxkY)

[Cuchulain]

First thing that idiot Stossel ever said that I agree with - but he's still an asshole.

[Ben]

First thing that idiot Stossel ever said that I agree with - but he's still an asshole.

ha!ha!ha! You're right about that. For once, well, he's sensible.
More of Stossel being sensible:

YouTube- John Stossel: Legalize All Drugs! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGNiQhQmTYs)

[Ben]

RON PAUL ON DRUGS WITH JOHN STOSSEL:

YouTube- RON PAUL ON DRUGS WITH JOHN STOSSEL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpgWAAmVwDM)

[Ben]

And lastly the great/moral Noam Chomsky:

YouTube- Noam Chomsky - US 'War on Drugs' in Latin America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3Xa8Irev2E)

[Ben]

YouTube- Oakland Approves Marijuana Farms! 2010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h91KQ3ry5ZI)

[Ben]

YouTube- FireDogLake.com's Jane Hamsher Discusses Legalizing Marijuana (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B0kwzKI9j0&feature=player_embedded)

[Ben]

YouTube- Legalize Cannabis... Legalize Freedom (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kqnvfKASRo)

[south ov da border]

legalize it. But since the 30's oil and textile companies bought the legislation...

[Ben]

Just say Now: Legalize marijuana...
http://firedoglake.com/justsaynow/

[russtafa]

the west should follow the example of singapore and stuff democracy the end justifies the means

[Ben]

What Britain could learn from Portugal's drugs policy

A decade ago Portugal took a radical new approach to illegal drugs by treating users as people with social problems rather than as criminals. Could it work in the UK?



http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2007/10/17/peter_beaumont_140x140.jpg (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/peterbeaumont)


Peter Beaumont (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/peterbeaumont)



Susannah is being treated in the physiotherapy unit of the Centro das Taipas, a vast, pink former mental institutution close to Lisbon's airport, where she is having hot towels pressed on to her lower back. Built during the second world war, the wards of wing 21B are these days committed to the treatment of drug addiction.
Susannah is a long-term drug user and is intelligent but troubled. She first smoked cannabis at 13. At 17, she began taking heroin with the father of her children. Now 37, she has been dependent on drugs (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/drugs) – mostly heroin – for almost two decades.
"I lived in Spain for a while," she tells me. "And London for a year, working in the restaurants with a friend. I went there to try to get off drugs but ended up on crack." These days, however, Susannah, who also suffers from a bipolar disorder, is one of the beneficiaries of Europe's most tolerant drug regime. For in Portugal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/portugal), where Susannah lives, drugs have not only been decriminalised for almost a decade, but users are treated as though they have a health and social problem. Addicts such as Susannah are helped by the law, not penalised and stigmatised by it.
In the midst of the recently resurgent debate in Britain about whether our drug laws are working – or require a major overhaul – the experience of Portugal has become a crucial piece of evidence in favour of a radical approach that has confounded the expectations of even its conservative critics, so much so that in the last month British officials have asked their Portuguese counterparts for advice, with the only caveat being that they avoid mentioning the word "decriminalise".
It is, perhaps, an unnecessary sensitivity. For the reality is that, despite liberalising how it regards drug possession – now largely an administrative problem rather than a criminal offence – Portugal has not become a magnet for drug tourists like Amsterdam, as some had predicted.
British officials are not the only ones who have made the pilgrimage to Portugal in recent years – health specialists, officials and journalists from around the world have all made the journey to see what Portugal is doing right, even as their own countries are still struggling.
Nor has it seen its addict population markedly increase. Rather it has stabilised in a nation that, along with the UK and Luxembourg, once had the worst heroin problem in Europe.
For Susannah – as for the many long-term addicts now on methadone replacement and other programmes, and for the country's health professionals – the country's recent social history is divided into what the world of addiction and drug use was like before Law 30 was approved in November 2000, and what it is like now.
Before the law, which decriminalised (or depenalised) possession of drugs but still prohibited their use, the story of drug addiction in Portugal was a familiar one. More than 50% of those infected with HIV in Portugal were drug addicts, with new diagnoses of HIV among addicts running at about 3,000 a year. These days, addicts account for only 20% of those who are HIV infected, while the number of new HIV diagnoses of addicts has fallen to fewer than 2,000 a year.
Other measures have been equally encouraging. Deaths of street users from accidental overdoses also appear to have declined, as – anecdotal evidence strongly suggests – has petty crime associated with addicts who were stealing to maintain their habits. Recent surveys in schools also suggest an overall decrease in drug experimentation.
At the same time, the number of those in treatment for their addiction problems has risen by about a third from 23,500 in 1998 to 35,000 today – helped by a substantial increase in available beds, facilities and medical support – with many going on to methadone replacement programmes. The consequence is that perhaps as much as €400m (£334m) has been taken out of the illegal drugs market.
But decriminalisation, as Portuguese officials and others who have observed the country's experience are at pains to point out, was only the most obvious part of what happened 10 years ago in the midst of a similar debate on drugs to the one now going on in the UK.
Then, in a moment of grand vision powered by an inquiry which recommended a wholesale overhaul of Portugal's anti-drugs policy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/drugspolicy) in 1998, the government opted to make wholesale changes to the way Portugal dealt with the issue, giving a huge boost in resources to everything from prevention to harm reduction, treatment and reintegration – creating an entirely joined-up approach to drug abuse under the auspices of a single unit in the ministry of health.
It marked an acceptance that for many, living drug-free was neither realistic nor possible and that what society needed to do was mitigate the risk individuals posed to themselves and a wider population at large by helping them manage their problems.
Susannah's doctor, the head of treatment at the Centro das Taipas, is Dr Miguel Vasconcelos. He frames Portuguese drug laws in a way that I hear repeated several times. Within certain clearly defined limits – an amount equivalent to 10 days' normal use of any particular drug, ranging from amphetamines and cannabis to heroin – possession, he explains, is now considered similar to a traffic offence. It is a notion I find later described in the Portuguese drug strategy document as a "humanistic" approach.
Vasconcelos, 51, is old enough to remember what it was like before, in a country which, two decades ago, barely had a methadone replacement programme at all. In his office, decorated with artworks by his clients, Vasconcelos says: "Critics from the conservative parties were concerned that the new law would make Portugal a place like Amsterdam, but that did not happen.
"You have to remember," he says, "that the substances are still illegal; it is the consequences that are different." And for those arrested in possession of drugs for personal use, that means not a court appearance but an invitation to attend a "dissuasion board" that can request – but not insist upon – attendance at facilities such as the Centro das Taipas for assessment and treatment. "They evaluate if someone is ill or a recreational user, if a person uses sporadically," says Vasconselos. "Even then people have a choice. People can refuse to attend the dissuasion board."
For many, he believes, the experience can be cathartic and he admits being surprised by how open many of the clients who have come to his facility via that system have been .
If there has been a problem with the Portuguese experiment, he believes that it has been one largely of perception – outside Portugal – where decriminalisation has been misunderstood by some as legalisation or a step on the road to it.
Rather, Vasconcelos believes that decriminalisation is a natural consequence of a gradual shift from regarding addicts as social delinquents to regarding them as people in need of help, a view reiterated by Dr Manuel Cardoso, a board member at the Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência at Portugal's health ministry, which now co-ordinates the country's approach to drug abuse.
At the centre of Portugal's deeply pragmatic approach are the dissuasion boards. Lisbon's board – which deals with 2,000 cases a year – sits in a modest office on the second floor of a block above a pretty park. There are no lawyers (although they can attend) and no clerks in robes. No uniforms at all.

[Ben]

PART II...

Last Friday, on one side of the table were Nadia Simoes and Nuno Portugal Capaz, both members of the commission. On the other was a 19-year-old barman in a white T-shirt who allowed the Observer to observe the confidential process but asked not to be named.
Stopped by police with 5.2 grams of cannabis, he is marginally over the limit of what can be dealt with by the dissuasion board alone and has had to appear in court as well. It is the young man's first offence. He looks nervous. But it quickly becomes clear that this is a non-confrontational process, as Simoes explains that while possession of drugs for personal use is not a criminal offence, it is still forbidden.
The man nods his understanding. Simoes explains the risks of smoking cannabis, including schizophrenia, and the sanctions the board can impose for second offences, including a fine or community service. Licences crucial to employment can also be revoked. As the process concludes, the barman looks relieved and promises to stop smoking. As he leaves, Capaz stands up and shakes his hand. The whole thing has lasted less than 10 minutes.
A sociologist by training, Capaz is a vice-president on the board. He believes that far from Portugal becoming more lenient, the reality is that the state intervenes far more than it did before Law 30 and the other associated legislation was introduced. Before, he explains, police would often not pursue drug users they had arrested, interested only in the dealers. "People outside Portugal believe we had a tougher approach under the old law, but in reality it is far tougher now."
Now everyone who is caught with drugs must go before one of the 20 boards in the country to be categorised as either a recreational user, someone with a developing problem, or an addict. And while some 30% choose to refuse to appear at the first summons, most – when threatened with a fine for disobedience – eventually attend.
Capaz has been involved since the very beginning and is struck by two things. The first is how Portuguese society has come to accept that addicts and drug users should be treated as a social rather than a criminal problem. The second, he explains, is that under the old criminal system all of those caught were supposed to be equal before the law. "With this system," he explains, "We do it the other way. We can apply the law in a way that fits the individual."
Indeed, the law recognises that for addicts certain sanctions are not appropriate. While recreational users can be fined, the law prevents addicts from having a financial penalty imposed for fear that in trying to raise the fine they might be driven to commit a crime.
But not everyone is totally convinced. Not even among the people who have dedicated their lives to assisting addicts. Francisco Chaves runs a modern shelter for street addicts close to Casal Vendoso, a place once notorious for its drug problems. "I want to explain first that this is not my profession but a vocation," he explains by way of introduction. He wants, however, to pose a "rhetorical question" which turns out to be more passionate intervention than a debating point.
He is concerned that under the "humanistic approach" enshrined in Portugal's decade-old laws – in its concern for the human rights of the addict – perhaps too much pressure to change may have been taken off addicts. "I worry that it has become too easy being an addict now," he says. "They can say: 'I've got clean clothes. I've got food. Support. So why should I change?'"
He says this sadly, because he agrees that addicts should be treated properly but cannot avoid "the paradox of the situation". "I say it is a rhetorical question because places like this are required. It is a personal, philosophical question." But it is one without any obvious answer.
Outside his office in the large, bright space where addicts are lolling on the sofa, eating or watching television, I encounter Fernando Almeida, 31, who has been a heroin addict since he was 19. A thief – who stole to support his habit – he was recently released from prison and found a place at this centre.
When he arrived six months ago, he weighed 55 kilos. These days he weighs 73kg and appears both lucid and motivated. "In the old days I used to get hassled by the police. Now the police don't interfere with me," he says. "I used to steal. Now I'm not going to steal anymore. For me the solution is to stop. I've discovered food and small things like taking a walk and having a coffee. I'm learning how to work."

[PomonaCA]

Have you ever noticed that almost everyone in the legalize pot movement is someone who is addicted to pot?

[hippifried]

Not true. Aside from there being no such thing as "addicted to pot"... I worked for NORML back in '72, trying to put a decriminalization measure on the ballot in Arizona, & the one group that couldn't be pushed into any kind of political stand was the heads themselves. During the organizing efforts, the stock response was: "But I'm already high, dude..." The political group that got the biggest boost out of our efforts was the Libertarian Party. The position was rejected pretty much across the board by both the Republicans & Democrats. The smokers themselves were a non-factor. Anecdotal? Of course, but from talking to other people around the country, that trend was nationwide. Probably still is.

[PomonaCA]

Not true. Aside from there being no such thing as "addicted to pot"... I worked for NORML back in '72, trying to put a decriminalization measure on the ballot in Arizona, & the one group that couldn't be pushed into any kind of political stand was the heads themselves. During the organizing efforts, the stock response was: "But I'm already high, dude..." The political group that got the biggest boost out of our efforts was the Libertarian Party. The position was rejected pretty much across the board by both the Republicans & Democrats. The smokers themselves were a non-factor. Anecdotal? Of course, but from talking to other people around the country, that trend was nationwide. Probably still is.


No such thing as addicted to pot? You should talk to a guy I know who lost all motivation in life in favor of toking.

[hippifried]

Nah. He just wasn't/isn't motivated. That's a personal problem. Pot's just an excuse.

[PomonaCA]

Nah. He just wasn't/isn't motivated. That's a personal problem. Pot's just an excuse.


That's what he says. He says that pot didn't make him lose motivation. He CHOOSES to be that way.

[Ben]

Have you ever noticed that almost everyone in the legalize pot movement is someone who is addicted to pot?

I guess "almost everyone" could be true. I don't know. I've tried it twice. Don't like it. At all.
I'm against practically all drugs. (Remember SUGAR is a drug. Caffeine, too.) But I think you need to control them. I mean, during prohibition Al Capone was shootin' up the streets of Chicago to corner the market. So, these gangs love the fact that drugs are illegal.
Joaquin Guzman, a drug lord in Mexico, is a BILLIONAIRE. So, he's grateful that cocaine is illegal. Legalization or decriminalization takes the illegal markets outta the picture. The government controls it. And treats it as a health issue, as even Ron Paul has talked about. And ya focus on: education, prevention and treatment. Pretty simple stuff. (And in California they'll make a ton of dough from the taxes.) It makes sense. That's why politicians are against it.

[Ben]

This is an excerpt from one of Glenn Greenwald's blogs:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/
'In November, California voters will vote on Proposition 19, which would legalize marijuana in that state (I'm on the Board of Advisers of Just Say Now (http://firedoglake.com/justsaynow/about/), an organization working for its passage). It was announced today (http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/election-2010-1/sen-diane-feintstein-to-chair/) that Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein -- Iraq War supporter, champion of Bush appointees Michael Hayden and Michael Mukasey, Surveillance State cheerleader, and beneficiary of her husband's vast, defense contracting wealth (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2007/09/23/feinstein) -- will take the lead in working to defeat Prop 19 and thus keep marijuana criminalized, in turn keeping Mexican cartels empowered and adult American citizens prosecuted for using this substance which is far less harmful and dangerous than alcohol, if it is even "harmful" or "dangerous" at all.'

[Solitary Brother]

John Stossel is a snake he is a right winger and he is a Bell Curve Jew I hate him.

[PomonaCA]

John Stossel is a snake he is a right winger and he is a Bell Curve Jew I hate him.


The negro community frowns on your antisemitism. So do the negresses.

[hippifried]

Back in the day, '71 or '72, the Pentagon did a study on the effects of marijuana. Their conclusion was that a skinny joint will get you as high as a fat joint & is therefore more efficient. That cost nearly a million pre-inflation taxpayer dollars.

& the "war on drugs" just keeps going downhill...

YouTube- Broadcast Yourself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZfLGMtsKTc)

[PomonaCA]

Back in the day, '71 or '72, the Pentagon did a study on the effects of marijuana. Their conclusion was that a skinny joint will get you as high as a fat joint & is therefore more efficient. That cost nearly a million pre-inflation taxpayer dollars.

I can't find the point here. Can you tell me what the point is?

[hippifried]

There is no point. There's never been a point to prohibiting specific forms of recreation either. The drug war's a joke & always has been. Gotta have a sense of humor though. You might want to work on that.

[Ben]

Thursday, Oct 14, 2010 10:15 ET The Wars on Drugs and Terror: mirror images (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/10/14/wars/index.html)

By Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/author/glenn_greenwald/index.html)


On November 2, Californians will vote on Proposition 19, a referendum which (roughly speaking) would legalize marijuana. I have an Op-Ed in Politico today (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43544.html) (a phrase I never expected to write) on the resounding success of drug decriminalization in Portugal and how that empirical data should affect the California debate. That Op-Ed is based on the comprehensive report I wrote (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080) for the Cato Institute after conducting research in Portugal in late 2008, documenting how decriminalization has single-handedly enabled that country to manage, control and even reduce the problems associated with drug usage far more effectively than other nations (i.e., other EU states and the U.S.) which continue to criminalize drugs.
I’m convinced that drug prohibition, and especially the "War on Drugs" which enables it, is going to be one of those policies which, decades from now, future generations will be completely unable to understand how we could have tolerated. So irrational and empirically false are the justifications for drug prohibition, and so costly is the War waged in its name, that it is difficult to imagine a more counter-productive policy than this (that's why public opinion is inexorably realizing this (http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/37790/most_americans_support_legalizing_marijuana/) despite decades of Drug War propaganda and the absence of any real advocacy for decriminalization on the part of national political leaders). In that regard, and in virtually every other, the War on Drugs is a mirror image of the War on Terror: sustained with the same deceitful propaganda, driven by many of the same motives, prosecuted with similar templates, and destructive in many of the same ways.


The similarities are obvious. Both wars rely upon cartoon depictions of Scary Villains (The Drug Kingpin, Mexican Cartels, the Terrorist Mastermind) to keep the population in a state of heightened fear and thus blind them to rational discourse. But both wars are not only complete failures in eradicating those villains, but they both do more to empower those very villains than any other single cause -- the War on Drugs by ensuring that cartels’ profits from the illegal drug trade remain sky-high (http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2010/10/12/rand-study-marijuana-legalization-would-markedly-cut-mexican-drug-cartel-profits/), and the War on Terror by ensuring more and more support and recruits for anti-American extremists (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/10/12/terrorism/index.html). And both, separately and together, endlessly erode basic American liberties by convincing a frightened public that they can Stay Safe only if they cede more and more power to the state. Many of the civil liberties erosions from the War on Terror have their genesis in the War on Drugs.
The most important commonality between these two wars is that they continue -- and will continue -- for reasons having nothing to do with their stated justifications. Both wars ensure an unlimited stream of massive amounts of money into the private war-making industries which fuel them. By itself, the increasingly privatized American prison industry -- fed a constant stream of human beings put in cages as a result of drug prohibition laws (http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/aaprisonpop.htm) -- is obscenely profitable (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8289). Add to these powerful profit centers the political fear that officials have of being perceived as abandoning any war before it is "won," and these two intrinsically unwinnable wars -- unwinnable by design -- seem destined to endure forever, or at least until some sort of major financial collapse simply permits them no longer.
It's the perfect deceit. These wars, in an endless loop, sustain and strengthen the very menaces which, in turn, justify their continuous escalation. These wars manufacture the very dangers they are ostensibly designed to combat. Meanwhile, the industries which fight them become richer and richer. The political officials those industries own become more and more powerful. Brutal drug cartels monopolize an unimaginably profitable, no-competition industry, while Terrorists are continuously supplied the perfect rationale for persauding huge numbers of otherwise unsympathetic people to join them or support them. Everyone wins -- except for ordinary citizens, who become poorer and poorer, more and more imprisoned, meeker and meeker, and less and less free.

[south ov da border]

I agree with this thead...

[russtafa]

If you have a drug war America should follow the lead of Singapore they dont have a drug problem .Australia,America have a drug problem but lack the resolve to stop it

[circ]

They don't have a drug problem on the surface. We are talking about a police state with state censorship, so any junkie stories would just get buried. Also, do you know just how tiny Singapore actually is? Obviously comparable to places like Australia and the US.

[russtafa]

No junkies exist or they exist on the end of a rope where they should be.WHAT A GREAT COUNTRY

[hippifried]

Russtafa Goebels is willing to spread any kind of bullshit if it'll get him a new pair of hobnails.

[russtafa]

Russtafa Goebels is willing to spread any kind of bullshit if it'll get him a new pair of hobnails.
Any time Mr bear I will dance with you with my steel caps. I used dance with hippies all the time but they never came back for more=truth :party:lol

[Ben]

Time to end the war on drugs



Dec 19, 2011
BY: RICHARD BRANSON...



http://cdn0.virgin.com/uploads/images/story/time-to-end-the-war-on-drugs-12784-cropped.jpg



Visited Portugal, as one of the Global Drug Commissioners, to congratulate them on the success of their drug policies over the last 10 years.

Ten years ago the Portuguese Government responded to widespread public concern over drugs by rejecting a “war on drugs” approach and instead decriminalized drug possession and use. It further rebuffed convention by placing the responsibility for decreasing drug demand as well as managing dependency under the Ministry of Health rather than the Ministry of Justice. With this, the official response towards drug-dependent persons shifted from viewing them as criminals to treating them as patients.

Now with a decade of experience Portugal provides a valuable case study of how decriminalization coupled with evidence-based strategies can reduce drug consumption, dependence, recidivism and HIV infection and create safer communities for all.

I will set out clearly what I learned from my visit to Portugal and would urge other countries to study this:

In 2001 Portugal became the first European country to officially abolish all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines.

Jail time was replaced with offer of therapy. (The argument was that the fear of prison drives addicts underground and that incarceration is much more expensive than treatment).

Under Portugal’s new regime, people found guilty of possessing small amounts of drugs are sent to a panel consisting of a psychologist, social worker, and legal adviser for appropriate treatment (which may be refused without criminal punishment), instead of jail.

Critics in the poor, socially conservative and largely Catholic nation said decriminalizing drug possession would open the country to “drug tourists” and exacerbate Portugal’s drug problem; the country has some of the highest levels of hard-drug use in Europe. The recently realised results of a report commissioned by the Cato Institute, suggest otherwise.

The paper, published by Cato in April 2011, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the problem far better than virtually every other Western country does.

Compared to the European Union and the US, Portugal drug use numbers are impressive.

Following decriminalization, Portugal has the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the EU: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%, Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.

The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%. Drug use in older teens also declined. Life time heroin use among 16-18 year olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8%.

New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003.

Death related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half.

The number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and the considerable money saved on enforcement allowed for increase funding of drug – free treatment as well.

Property theft has dropped dramatically (50% - 80% of all property theft worldwide is caused by drug users).

America has the highest rates of cocaine and marijuana use in the world, and while most of the EU (including Holland) has more liberal drug laws than the US, it also has less drug use.

Current policy debate is that it’s based on “speculation and fear mongering”, rather than empirical evidence on the effect of more lenient drug policies. In Portugal, the effect was to neutralize what had become the country’s number one public health problem.

Decriminalization does not result in increased drug use.

Portugal’s 10 year experiment shows clearly that enough is enough. It is time to end the war on drugs worldwide. We must stop criminalising drug users. Health and treatment should be offered to drug users – not prison. Bad drugs policies affect literally hundreds of thousands of individuals and communities across the world. We need to provide medical help to those that have problematic use – not criminal retribution.

[Ben]

U.S. Drug War In Afghanistan Not Going Well:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/21/surprise-u-s-drug-war-afghanistan-going-well/