International - UN reviews past 10 years drug war on March 10th.

[Alfa]

Originally Posted by ENCOD

In June 1998, the United Nations announced a 10-year strategy to achieve “measurable results” in the fight against drugs, including a “significant reduction” of the cultivation of cannabis, coca and opium poppy by the year 2008.

On March 10th, 2008, the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs will meet in Vienna to review the results of this strategy.

In the past ten years, the war on drugs has failed – again. Consumption of drugs can cause problems, but prohibition of drugs causes disasters. Millions of people are criminalized, billions of euros are spent in a war that is ineffective and counterproductive. Efforts to reduce harmful and improve responsible use of drugs are actively thwarted by governments. Meanwhile, the drug market remains in the hands of organised crime, whose huge profits distort global economy and generate widespread corruption.

Drug policies should be a matter of public health, not of law enforcement. We ask the UN to establish the right of every adult citizen of the world to grow and possess natural plants for personal use and non-commercial purposes, using all technical equipment that is available for this. At the same time, individual countries should be allowed to experiment with drug policies that are not based on prohibition.

Vienna 2008 is the opportunity to send this urgent message to the United Nations. Please join us in Vienna.

Program: http://encod.org/info/VIENNA-2008-TEN-YEARS-AFTER.html

[Hyperspaceblastoff]

it seems like such a futile fight

[Alfa]

I am sure they will pound on their chests about how successful they are and then at the same time warn how extremely serious and dangerous the current drug situation is.

[Mr. Giraffe]

The DEA has recently redefined success to mean that purity is down and prices are up. This means that they are 'winning'. The only losers are the drug users who end up with dirty products at high prices, because the criminals make their money either way.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Funny and true

[CrakkBakk]

Originally Posted by Alfa

Drug policies should be a matter of public health, not of law enforcement. We ask the UN to establish the right of every adult citizen of the world to grow and possess natural plants for personal use and non-commercial purposes, using all technical equipment that is available for this. At the same time, individual countries should be allowed to experiment with drug policies that are not based on prohibition.

No offence, but who are you to decide which drugs can and can not be legal? To say that "natural plants for personal use" to be legalized is also a seriously mishaped arguement.

If drugs were put in the hands of corporations (Try not to think anti-capitalistic for a second and try to read this unbiased) like alcohol is, the economy would be boosted TREMENDOUSLY. Just legalizing "natural plants" (who can define natural, anyways? Even synthetic drugs come from "natural" sources, so why can't they be legal, too?) for individuals will do NOTHING for the economy. We need to help the loss that the government has caused us, not further it.

On to you being high and mighty:

You seem to think that you should decide which drugs are "morally correct" and should be legal. That is fucked up. That is no better then the government leaving alcohol/tobacco legal and illegalizing "natural drugs." None at all.

You should be more open minded to the possibility that all drugs, including (oh no!) methamphetamine and PCP can be used responsibly with the help of legalization/harm reduction.

At the same time, I recognize that I can not decide which drugs can and can not be legal. I know that I am not going to push my values and morals onto others. This is why the best option is for them to all be legal and for everyone to make the decision themselves.

You are arrogant.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	I may disagree but I respect you for begging the question
	Nice job calling the Admin arrogant. You could've made your point without resorting to flaming.
	intolerance
	You have good points but must articulate them in a more relaxed non confrontational maner.

[Alfa]

Maybe you should read it again, as you are totally misunderstanding the text.

Aside from that it is a quote, from the ENCOD organisation, it doesn't say anywhere that substances other than plants should not be legal. Nowhere do they state that they want to decide what is illegal. Though it is their mission to make all substances legal.

The difference between natural sources and chemical is that there is a discrepancy between outlawing plants that grow in nature and things that do not occur in nature. It is strange enough that any government forbids the use or possession of a substance. It is even more strange to forbid plants that just grow in nature. Have you ever thought about the fact that if you have poppies coming up in your garden, that you have a class A drug in possession? This what makes bans on plants so strange.

Please read the rules of this site very carefully:

This will get you banned instantly:
• Personal Attacks. Criticize ideas, not people. Flaming will not be tolerated.

This is not the place to call people arrogant. If you would have flamed anyone else, you would have received an infraction.

[CrakkBakk]

Originally Posted by Alfa

Maybe you should read it again, as you are totally misunderstanding the text.

Aside from that it is a quote, from the ENCOD organisation, it doesn't say anywhere that substances other than plants should not be legal. Nowhere do they state that they want to decide what is illegal. Though it is their mission to make all substances legal.

The difference between natural sources and chemical is that there is a discrepancy between outlawing plants that grow in nature and things that do not occur in nature. It is strange enough that any government forbids the use or possession of a substance. It is even more strange to forbid plants that just grow in nature. Have you ever thought about the fact that if you have poppies coming up in your garden, that you have a class A drug in possession? This what makes bans on plants so strange.

Please read the rules of this site very carefully:


This is not the place to call people arrogant. If you would have flamed anyone else, you would have received an infraction.

That was not in a quote before you edited it. I can not tell if it was your writing or someone elses writing if you do not quote it.

I thought you were arrogant enough to say that yourself. What is the big deal on calling you out? Constructive critisism is used to help people grow into better people. If someone says "I feel like injecting .5g of pure cocaine" we should be able to critize them and give them feedback.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	unnecessary flaming
	flamming a administrator? lucky you are not banned.

[Alfa]

Flaming is simply not allowed here. Can you understand that? What you can and can not do here is not up to you. The rules are as they are. If you don't like them, find a place where you like the rules better.

[gilligan_911]

ok sounds a bit off-topic now.. :P

the DEA is fighting a war they cannot possibly hope to win. its like fighting a war on Terror. a war on terror? how can you fight a human emotion? drugs will always be a part of society and its up to the people to decide how to respond to them.

the best thing the DEA could do would be to give certain drugs lower scheduling and to remove some entirely. now im not saying crack should be legal but it should be controlled. people naturally respond to things that they are told are "no-nos" by trying to go after them. place a cookie jar on the top shelf and the children will try and get it. however, if you give your child a cookie and teach them how to eat healthily then they can live productive/healthy lives. same with drugs, if the gov't teaches and instructs people about pro/cons for drugs then wouldnt we live in a much safer place?

another thing the gov't is being stupid about is... TAXES! tax drugs and you'll make billions if not trillions in the first year alone. say goodbye national debt.

[CrakkBakk]

Originally Posted by Alfa

Flaming is simply not allowed here. Can you understand that? What you can and can not do here is not up to you. The rules are as they are. If you don't like them, find a place where you like the rules better.

There is an obvious difference between flaming and criticism. "Can you understand that?"

Reputation Comments on this post:

calling someone arrogant is flaming. read the rules.

[cosmicruler]

For not opening your mind to ideas other than your own swicr could also call you arrogant and possibly a little ignorant as well crakkbakk.....but as this is in clear breach of the rules swicr will refrain from making that statement!!!

Quote"Can you understand that?"

[Bajeda]

Originally Posted by CrakkBakk

There is an obvious difference between flaming and criticism. "Can you understand that?"

Yes, and your post obviously falls into the former category with its aggressive tone and ad hominem attacks.

Take out the disparaging and impolite remarks and you won't need the "no offense" at the beginning, not that the phrase really excuses anything. Regardless of whether or not you knew that Alfa didn't write that text himself, the suggestions (understatement) of arrogance on his part were really unnecessary.



Regarding the actual constructive content of your original post in this thread, there are some things I'd like to point out.

You rail against the benefits of legalizing natural substances without much reason. How would this do more harm than good? Also, where does the article imply that non-natural substances shouldn't be legalised? The text stipulates that countries should be free to experiment with alternatives to prohibition, which obviously includes full legalization (you may want to read up on ENCOD to get an idea). Legalization of natural substances would be a universal condition that doesn't necessarily preclude legalization of synthetic drugs. And if you think the unpatentability of many natural substances is a problem, I'd counter that the huge profit incentive for corporations is dangerous in the context of medical and recreational drugs, and if corporations are the primary vendors of the recreational substances of the future then we are probably in for a great heap of trouble even if we get to abandoning prohibition. As you said, look at the wonderful things capitalism has done with alcohol so far. Do you really think its a good idea to legalize everything in one fell swoop without making sure that harm reduction measures and regulatory controls are in place?


Anyways, this is getting off-topic. Back to the subject at hand.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	boo yah!
	efficient clarification

[CrakkBakk]

Originally Posted by Bajeda

You rail against the benefits of legalizing natural substances without much reason. How would this do more harm than good?

Legalizing only "natural drugs" for only personal use wouldn't HELP the economy in any way. A big pro-drug arguement is that it will help the economy. Sure it won't HARM the economy, but it wouldn't HELP it. People who float through life that do not harm, yet do not help, are harmful, IMO.

Also, where does the article imply that non-natural substances shouldn't be legalised?

Uhhh, maybe right here?:

Originally Posted by article

We ask the UN to establish the right of every adult citizen of the world to grow and possess natural plants for personal use and non-commercial purposes,

This implies that the UN doesn't want "unnatural" chemicals to be legalized, according to this person. Again, Alpha didn't quote it at the time and I thought this was Alpha's thought processes.

I'd counter that the huge profit incentive for corporations is dangerous in the context of medical and recreational drugs, and if corporations are the primary vendors of the recreational substances of the future then we are probably in for a great heap of trouble even if we get to abandoning prohibition. As you said, look at the wonderful things capitalism has done with alcohol so far.

Whether you would like to believe it or not, capitalism is the only practical political/economic basis of living. Capitalism does work, sure it has its faults, but it is much better then any other measure. Capitalizing drugs would allow the free trade of them. Are you not for the free trade of drugs? How could you possibly be against that? You act as if "little guys" or small companies could not profit off this, and only corporations. That is why capitalism is so beautiful, SMALL COMPANIES CAN PROFIT off of everything!

Do you really think its a good idea to legalize everything in one fell swoop without making sure that harm reduction measures and regulatory controls are in place?

That is not what I said, at all. Of course harm reduction services, measures and regulatory controls must be in place. This is again how capitalism works. Do you even know how many regulations must be put in place for the food and alcohol industries? You seem to think that the same wouldn't apply to drugs. Of course it would, and to a much higher degree, obviously.




Alpha, you said I wasn't going to get an infraction for "flaming" you. I just got one today or last night. A bit late, but w/e floats your boat.

[Lunar Loops]

It is possible to make a point and disagree with another person without recourse to insults. It is also strongly advisable to be in full control of the facts before launching into some tirade (like visiting the ENCOD website).

Anyway, back on track, anyone wishing to take part in the march which ENDOD are organising in Vienna, the details can be found here:

http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/sho...ug+peace+march

[Nucking Futs]

Lunar loops - I so wish I could go to that march !!!! So so so badly.

Crakkbakk - I think you have some very sensible and valid points but cant understand the way your putting them accross.

I have some concerns regarding legalisation of all plants. Some cats you see are smater than others. I would have a deep fear of people that are less well of in the head (IQ wise) say trying to get H from opium. This is from what swim says is a not to difficult process however swim is a smart cat.

This WOULD happen-- > 10 year olds walking (crawling) around the hood of there nuts on opiates or worse still ODing. This would happen as with any drug (alcohol) it has the potential to be abused.

I'm not against legalisation and as I have said I wanna go march but i'm glad I dont have to chose what to make legal and what not to. That's a MASSIVE responsability which could lead to some major social issues.

As for the DEA they do carry out some GREAT work in taking drug trafickers and dealers who are also involved in various other HARMFULL activitys. But they are in a way counterproductive because altho they may be removing these badys they are also promoting harm by miseducation and propaganda. And as to how they are "winning the war" surley even they can't believe that bs.

[Nucking Futs]

As an after thought, Alfa do you think that a df petition might be of any use? I understand the need to remain anon but for this maybe people could chose there choice? Anything that can be done to help??? I cant go but a look at the web site makes me wanna go more any thing us ppl who stay at home can do any thing? a united front for example. I just want to help us all in some way.

PS of subject but alfa you are head honcho of df, no ?

[Alfa]

I do not think that a petition would be of much use. Especially since there is just a few weeks until the march.

Yup on the Head honcho part.

[Nucking Futs]

Originally Posted by Alfa

I do not think that a petition would be of much use. Especially since there is just a few weeks until the march.

Yup on the Head honcho part.

ERRRR so it is ! I been up for over 24 hrs sorry. Heads starting to lose % of functionability is starting to be impaired but still got a good 24 hours of use before it says no more )

Is there any thing you think a lil dude like me could do to make even the smallest bit of difference alfa? are you going ? (dont answer if ya dint want to)

Regards,

Me.

[Bikelbees]

Why do nation states consider themselves bound by the UN anyway, is a mistake to believe that the UN conventions are binding on UK law as far as I understand.

[El Calico Loco]

No one wants to be labeled a rogue state. Even if the US doesn't give you the Iraqi special, there are other ways to twist arms - economic sanctions, denial of foreign aid, etc.

I do think that the first nation to legalize drugs outright will make kajillions of dollars from tourism before they're bombed back to the stone age. And anyone travelling from that nation to the US will have an intimate moment with a caveman in rubber gloves.


ECL
(Feeling a bit cynical this evening...)