Finally!
Then hopefully the f... UN can do that too.
I'm totally shocked that the UN has such a hard and shitty drug policy.
Then hopefully the f... UN can do that too.
I'm totally shocked that the UN has such a hard and shitty drug policy.
Leaving a treaty means you change your relation to the other signatories and possibly a regulatory body that took part in developing the treaty. Sometimes it's cheap, sometimes it's been a justification for horrible atrocities over decades and decades.
In this case the latter is true. Ditching the UN convention is almost like saying you owe a lot of people restitution for the nasty things you did.
Which is why the UN needs to take the blame for the convention on drugs to go away, the signatories most likely won't.
Reagan had his War on Drugs, which resulted in the imprisonment of an order of magnitude more nonviolent drug offenders: https://www.britannica.com/topic/war-on-drugs
That doesn't seem to clear cut with the recent failed (and now backpedaling) experiments regarding decriminalization and legalization of most drugs.
There's very few if any fans of what played out in Portland, for instance. Overt drug usage exploded and became a much worse problem. The exact opposite of what proponents had hoped.
Some will say "but they didn't do it right" or similar - tired arguments we hear every time pet policies fail.
It was not successful, but it was also never effectively funded, not implemented well, and rolled out in a rush.
So... like almost every government program? What makes you convinced it can actually be achieved in reality? With real people, real politicians, real budgets that get robbed for other pet projects down the line...
Even if it was achieved in reality - let's pretend to wave a magic wand - what is the expected outcome? Fewer people doing hard drugs than before? That seems difficult to accept given all consequences will effectively be removed... how many celebrities (with effectively unlimited resources) struggle their entire lives with drug abuse - in and out of rehab, etc. It seems it's better to prevent people from becoming addicts in the first place, vs. attempt to treat/mitigate addiction after it has formed.
It may never be achieved, regardless of my or your personal views on the subject at hand I think reasonable people can agree if you try and do something but do it poorly, and it doesn't work, that's not necessarily a failure of the thing but more a failure of the execution.
ex: I'm bad at welding so therefore welding is not a good way to hold two pieces of metal together, is an invalid/incorrect conclusion.
Ideas don’t execute themselves and when someone doesn’t deliver the goods, it is human nature to question their decision making ability in the first place.
Being defensive or arguing nuance is fine in theory, but in practice bad outcomes tend to reinforce biases.
I would prefer fully baked ideas that are rigorous and practical rather than purely utopian and just hoping for the best. One does not roll out underfunded programs that play with safety and health.
Policies are implemented by politicians and government drones, are beholden to budgets and meandering political sentiment of the population, etc. ie - they will never be implemented "correctly" - so we should pick the policies that are the hardest to get wrong and/or have the least negative side effects.
The novel thing in world of illicit drugs is that fentanyl is very hard to dose correctly, so death rates are higher than before. That new fact on the scene makes long term comparisons difficult. But, I would say given the dropping crime rates of the last 40 years, we're doing better than the previous waves of "tough on crime" policy including drug wars from the 1980s and 1990s, despite incarcerating a lot fewer people. So I think these "experiments" absolutely are working. That effectiveness may however be overshadowed by the specific dangerousness of fentanyl in the illicit market.
We're trying the other way and failing right now. Perhaps we should figure out why...
This is often said - but what do you actually mean by disaster? Hard drug usage is objectively lower in strict enforcement areas vs. non-enforcement areas like Portland was briefly.
Our prisons do a horrible job at rehabilitation. Our prisons themselves contain lots of drugs. Our prisons are, in my opinion, immorally run. As a nation we believe in retribution and are fine with prison rapes and other abuses that occur there.
The drug war has been a disaster in terms of cost/benefit regarding how much we've spent on it. It's been a disaster in terms of civil liberties. We Americans like to think we are free but walking around with $10,000 in cash will, if found out by police, result in it being seized. Civil asset forfeiture has caused many innocent people to be punished. It has been a disaster in terms of our national incarceration rate. Incarceration for drugs targets poor and minorities. Rich people rarely go to jail for drug use. For example, Rush Limbaugh got a fine and drug treatment.
In contrast to the "war on drugs" which has been extremely well funded, and implemented to the cost of our own liberties, tried for years and has not been successful either.
What's the measurement for success?
It seems, from a casual observer's perspective, we have fewer people trying hard drugs when the consequences are strict and known. We have more people trying hard drugs when the consequences are removed.
Neither system will achieve 0% drug usage - so which policy results in fewer people trying hard drugs?
It's not "the number of people who try hard drugs", which isn't a particularly interesting or meaningful number (lots of people, including myself, try hard drugs but never end up hooked on them and are productive members of society).
Try "the amount of harm caused to society". The drug war destroys more lives than hard drugs. It's a policy failure.
Again, this does not seem as clear as you attempt to present it.
In areas with decriminalized hard drugs, drug usage dramatically increased. It has a direct impact on the lives of the users, and also secondary impacts on the lives of everyone around them and/or has to deal with them.
Drug usage is not the so-called "victimless" crime some position it as. It has a lot of effects on society as a whole.
Absolutely. I'm no stranger to the impact of drug abuse, as I've had family and close friends become addicts.
Even so, the drug war is way worse. It adds violence and danger to drug use, making it more dangerous for users and those in their proximity. It increases policing and police militarization and violence. Punishments for possession destroy families and career prospects.
Every ounce of prevention bought by the drug war costs a pound of pain.
> Drug usage is not the so-called "victimless" crime some position it as. It has a lot of effects on society as a whole.
Responsible drug use is pretty victimless. Drug abuse has victims. But that's no different than alcohol, and banning that also caused way more harm than it prevented.
It wasn’t successful and massively contributed to the proliferation of organized crime.
Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, it may be illegal, but it is everywhere, along with everything else.
Singapore is restrictive, but that's across the board anyway.
Let's not forget that betel nut is everywhere... another plant based drug.