High-level Commission Calls Drug War A Failure

[Psychonaut]

NEW YORK — The global war on drugs has failed and governments should explore legalizing marijuana and other controlled substances, according to a commission that includes former heads of state, a former U.N. secretary-general and a business mogul.

 

A new report by the Global Commission on Drug Policy argues that the decades-old “global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world.†The 24-page paper will be released Thursday.

 

“Political leaders and public figures should have the courage to articulate publicly what many of them acknowledge privately: that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that repressive strategies will not solve the drug problem, and that the war on drugs has not, and cannot, be won,†the report said.

 

 

Full article here,

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/high-level-commission-calls-drug-war-a-failure-recommends-legal-regulation-of-marijuana/2011/06/01/AGncWiGH_story.html

 

We are slowly getting there

Edited June 2, 2011 by Psychonaut

[The Hash Nibbler]

.......Or are they just lining it up so Big Pharma companies can step in and start producing whatever they want?..............what has a buisness Mogul got to do with the war on drugs and what is his motivation?........... Me smells a rat.......................

Thanks mate will get a copy of this paper as soon as it's released. peace. Gh72

[dani]

Hmm who is the business mogul??

 

Anyway to be honest i don't want legalisation... i want full decriminalisation..

 

If Cannabis is legalised, it will be under license to big pharma companies and business moguls to control, with the government still dictating the terms of use and taxing it and that's fine for them.. But... Legalisation does not mean the governments will all of a sudden say it's ok for us to grow our own or even smoke it.. They won't...

Just for starters they'd be getting no tax revenue and they wouldn't have any control over it.. There is no incentive for the government to legislate to allow people to grow and smoke their own...No government anywhere has done this.. They keep it in the hands of a chosen few, so they get their cut...So the only one's who will benefit through legalisation will be big business/pharmaceutical companies and some Medical Cannabis patients.. Which of course i think is important but this practise will makes it elitist.. A Medical user obtaining Cannabis under prescription will be a sufferer getiing their meds and legal.. Those that won't qualify under this umbrella will be still be considered drug dealers, addicts, pushers, growers and just plain nasty criminals and will still be liable to be charged and prosecuted..

Decriminalisation is a whole different ball game.. This would mean you would be able to grow a certain number of plants without fear of prosecution.. It would mean that the government could still license their cronies to run the medical side of things for patients, get their taxes and leave the rest of us alone to grow and supply ourselves if we choose without fear of having our families lives destroyed and filling up our gaols with decent people for growing a plant..

 

Anyway just my 2c worth today..

 

Edited June 2, 2011 by dani

[El Gato]

media mogal is richard ransom and he is a pot head

[El Gato]

branson

[daemon]

.......Or are they just lining it up so Big Pharma companies can step in and start producing whatever they want?..............what has a buisness Mogul got to do with the war on drugs and what is his motivation?........... Me smells a rat.......................

 

Yep. GW Pharmaceuticals is starting to ramp up production and now needs buyers.

[daemon]

Anyway to be honest i don't want legalisation... i want full decriminalisation..

 

Personally, I'd prefer full legalisation, just the same as beer. This way I can grow it, just as I can distill my own beer, or buy it from a shop with zero risk of any police interference.

 

With decriminalisation they can still bust you for possession twice and force you to either pay a fine or go to some drug education class and then the third time they send your sorry ass to court.

[dani]

Personally, I'd prefer full legalisation, just the same as beer. This way I can grow it, just as I can distill my own beer, or buy it from a shop with zero risk of any police interference.

 

With decriminalisation they can still bust you for possession twice and force you to either pay a fine or go to some drug education class and then the third time they send your sorry ass to court.

[/quote

 

daemon,

I think a lot of people would agree with you.. I don't, but that's what makes the world and interesting place ...

I see too many restrictions being placed on individuals it if it were legalised.. And there is no way the government and their mates would make it legal for me to grow my own...Buy theirs maybe, but not grow my own,,

Decriminalisation means that it's not legal, but it's not a law enforcement priority. Decriminalisation would mean removing the laws that make what we do as smokers and growers criminal in the eyes of the law.. Decriminalisation means you would be allowed to grow and use without fear of prosecution or losing your job for failing a drug test.. There would be nothing criminal in what you do... You could not sell it or grow commercial quantites unless you can show it is for the non-profit benefit of many..ie: a group or communal grow.. Just like we have in the city suburbs, where people live in apartments and have no room to grow their own vegies.

 

Why should a law be required to make one of Nature's gifts legal??

 

[daemon]

I think a lot of people would agree with you.. I don't, but that's what makes the world and interesting place ...

Totaly agree.

 

I see too many restrictions being placed on individuals it if it were legalised.. And there is no way the government and their mates would make it legal for me to grow my own...Buy theirs maybe, but not grow my own,,

Decriminalisation means that it's not legal, but it's not a law enforcement priority. Decriminalisation would mean removing the laws that make what we do as smokers and growers criminal in the eyes of the law.. Decriminalisation means you would be allowed to grow and use without fear of prosecution or losing your job for failing a drug test.. There would be nothing criminal in what you do... You could not sell it or grow commercial quantites unless you can show it is for the non-profit benefit of many..ie: a group or communal grow.. Just like we have in the city suburbs, where people live in apartments and have no room to grow their own vegies.

 

Why should a law be required to make one of Nature's gifts legal??

 

There are less restrictions when it's legalised and the beer laws are a great example. You can buy it from a shop or distill your own either for personal use or for others. Police cannot stop you.

 

Decriminalisation is still a law and still runs the risk of police interference. Take, for example, California. Cannabis is decriminalised and the police don't see it as a priority however you'll still get an infraction if you get caught with more than 1oz (I think it's 1oz, can't remember) and get a fine equivalent to a parking ticket. This means that police still have power over your actions. There are no shops to buy it from (unless it's for medical purposes) and you can't grow your own (again, unless for medical purposes).

 

Therefore, my vote is for legalisation because decriminalisation still adds restrictive laws that may result in fines.

[The Hash Nibbler]

media mogal is richard ransom and he is a pot head

Heya JJ , Branson maybe a pothead but he is also a shrewd buisness man, who has a knack of jumping in at just the right time and undercutting the competition so they cant compete. No-one gets mega rich by being nice, he will be working some angle on it. I am on my phone, so cant do it, but I would be checking to see if Mr Branson has shares in GW pharma or some other area/ buisness. Buisness never gets involved in politics unless its in their best interest and there is money to be made or something to gain. I am sceptical that it is purely out of his concern for the welfare of stoners. Peace. Gh72