A Ceasefire In The War On Drugs?

420

Founder
Like those generals who used to discover that nuclear weapons were not a good thing about 20 minutes after they took off their uniforms and started collecting their pensions, we have had a parade of former presidents who knew that the war on drugs was a bad thing -- but only mentioned it after they became ex-presidents. Now, at last, we have one who is saying it out loud while he is still in office.

President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia, the country that has suffered even more than Mexico from the drug wars, is an honest and serious man. He is also very brave, because any political leader who advocates the legalization of narcotic drugs will become a prime target of the prohibition industry. He has chosen to do it anyway.

"We are basically still thinking within the same framework as we have done for the past 40 years," he told the Observer in a recent interview in Bogota. "A new approach should try and take away the violent profit that comes with drug trafficking. . . . If that means legalizing ( drugs ) . . . then I will welcome it."

Santos has no intention of becoming a kamikaze politician. "What I won't do is become the vanguard of that movement ( to legalize drugs ) because then I will be crucified. But I would gladly participate in those discussions, because we are the country that's still suffering most . . . from the high consumption in the U.S., the UK and Europe in general."

There are no such discussions, of course. Santos is being disingenuous about this. He is really trying to start a serious international debate on drug legalization, not to join one.

But the time may be ripe for such a debate because it is now almost universally acknowledged ( outside of political circles ) that the "war on drugs" has been an extremely bloody failure.

Twenty years ago Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize winner, the most influential economist of the 20th century and an icon of the right, said, "If you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel." It is only because the government makes the drugs illegal that the criminal cartel has a highly profitable monopoly on meeting the demand.

The political leaders who are starting to say that it's time to end the war and legalize the drugs are almost all in the producer nations, where the damage has been far graver than in the drug-importing countries. In practice, therefore, they are almost all Latin American leaders -- but even there they have waited until they left office to make their views known.

Former Mexican president Vicente Fox supported the U.S.-led war on drugs when he was in office in 2000-06, but more recently he has condemned it as an unmitigated disaster. "We should consider legalizing the production, sale and distribution of drugs," he wrote on his blog. "Radical prohibition strategies have never worked."

"Legalization does not mean that drugs are good," Fox added, "but we have to see it as a strategy to weaken and break the economic system that allows cartels to make huge profits, which in turn increases their power and capacity to corrupt."

Naturally, Fox only said all that when he was no longer president, because otherwise the United States would have punished Mexico severely for stepping out of line. In the same spirit, former presidents Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, Cesar Gaviria of Colombia and Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico made a joint public statement that drug prohibition had failed -- in 2009 after they had all left office.

But gradually Latin American leaders are losing their fear of Washington. Last year Mexican President Felipe Calderon called for a debate on the legalization of the drug trade, although he carefully stressed that he himself was against the idea. ( Then why did you bring it up, Felipe? ) And now Santos has come out, still cautiously, to say that he would consider legalizing not only marijuana but cocaine.

The international discussion on legalization that Santos wants will not start tomorrow, or even next year, but common sense on drugs is finally getting the upper hand over ignorance, fear and dogmatism. And cash-strapped governments will eventually realize how much the balance sheet could be improved by taxing legalized drug consumption rather than wasting hundreds of billions in a futile attempt to reduce consumption.

diego.jpg


Source: London Free Press (CN ON)
Copyright: 2011 The London Free Press
Contact: Write | Letters | Comment | London Free Press
Website: London Free Press
 
Reschedule Cannabis
Medical Cannabis
HOW DANGEROUS IS CANNABIS?
One of the problems associated with the medical cannabis industry is the dichotomy between state and federal laws.
Federal law places cannabis into the schedule one classification along with heroin and other opiates and cocaine. Schedule one narcotics must meet the following criteria.
(1) Schedule I.—
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
(2) Schedule II.—
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.
(3) Schedule III.—
(A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.
(4) Schedule IV.—
(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
(5) Schedule V.—
(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.

A few facts are in order here.
First the potential for abuse of cannabis fits more exactly into schedule III (A) the drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
Opiates, cocaine and amphetamines are highly addictive as also are many prescription pain medications.
Secondly it also fits better into Schedule III (B) the drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
There are hundreds if not thousands of medical professionals, who endorse cannabis as having medical benefits including the American Medical Association, The American College of Physicians and Dr. Jocelyn Elders who served as U.S. Surgeon General from 1993 to 1994.
Ten pages of scientific documentation and references support the ACP. They cite data showing relief of the nausea, vomiting and wasting that can worsen the misery of cancer, AIDS and other diseases; of the pain and tremors associated with multiple sclerosis; and for relief of pain caused by a variety of other conditions. They note that marijuana in combination with some pharmaceuticals may produce more benefit than either drug alone.
Thirdly it is also a very good fit for Schedule III (C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.
The only argument that could be raised in favor of its placement in Schedule I is part (C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision. This is easily argued as historically cannabis is safer than many over the counter drugs.
Aspirin causes hundreds of deaths each year in the U.S. from over use where internal bleeding results causing death. Prescription pain killers cause hundreds if not thousands of death each year in the U.S. from misuse or in combination with the use of alcohol.
In all of recorded history I have been unable to find even one death certificate listing the cause of death from an overdose of cannabis.
If you honestly examine the history of cannabis it should be rescheduled to a Schedule III substance. There is no longer any justification for it to remain in the Schedule I category. Some argue that it would even meet the criteria for being included in the definition of Schedule IV or V. (see above)
As a schedule III substance it would fall under state control and eliminate federal interference with state medical marijuana laws.
The solution is not to battle marijuana laws at the local level. The solution is to promote an all-out effort to get marijuana reclassified to at least level III.
If you are serious about reforming marijuana laws; copy this blog and send it to everyone of your elected officials at every level of government.
 
President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia;

"We are basically still thinking within the same framework as we have done for the past 40 years...."

the way i read this: " We are basically MAKING PEOPLE BELIEVE we are still thinking within the same framework as we have done for the past 40 years...."

evidently colombia isnt the only country that operates this way.....
 
Back
Top Bottom