i was looking around thestar.com and came across this and thought it was an interesting read. i look forward to seeing some of your comments...


---start---
Legalize and regulate drug use

Jun 03, 2009 04:30 AM

DAVID BRATZER
I am a police officer who supports incremental change toward the legalization and regulation of all drugs. This includes marijuana, heroin, cocaine and other substances. I do not condone drug abuse, nor breaking the law. But some laws are counterproductive and in this respect it is time for an honest discussion about Canada's drug laws.

Drug prohibition is an important domestic and foreign policy issue because its effects are so varied and far-reaching. For example, international forces are spending enormous sums of money to destroy the poppy fields of Afghani farmers. Yet destroying some fields only serves to increase the black market value of the remaining crops. This increases the domestic price of heroin, resulting in addicts who break into our cars and homes in order to pay for the exorbitant costs of their daily fix.

Insite, Vancouver's supervised injection site, and various needle exchange programs reduce the harm caused by injection drug use. These programs generate controversy but critics fail to realize they are half measures. Handing out free needles does not address the larger problems caused by drug prohibition. Clients of these facilities still purchase illegal drugs of unknown purity from violent drug dealers at inflated prices. In addition, many addicts pay for their drugs through a combination of petty crime and social assistance money. For those who believe that "funding" drug addiction would send the wrong message, rest assured: you're already paying for it.

Legalization does not mean that a person who commits a violent offence while high on drugs will escape punishment. Offenders who steal or cause harm to others should always face consequences, regardless of whether they are high, drunk or sober. The point is that the unintended consequences of drug prohibition cause far more serious harm than drugs themselves. These consequences include public disorder, backlogged courts, high property crime rates, organized crime and gang violence over control of the drug trade. These costs are not worth an absolute prohibition on drug use in our society.

A better approach would be to treat drug abuse as a public health problem rather than as a criminal justice problem. It is time for medical facilities that cover the full spectrum of harm reduction, including regulated access to heroin and cocaine. Enforcement would not be part of this health-care solution. Officers would be left free to focus on areas that have long been underfunded (youth crime, domestic violence, child pornography and white collar crime come to mind). And keeping non-violent drug addicts out of jail would leave more room for the long-term incarceration of truly dangerous criminals.

Some might view this approach as the wishful thinking of the far left. The truth is that ending drug prohibition is not a left- or right-wing issue. Many conservatives have supported drug policy reform, including an American icon, William F. Buckley Jr. Addressing a panel of lawyers regarding the "war on drugs," he recommended they "proceed to recommend the legalization of the sale of most drugs, except to minors."

While Buckley wanted to permit the sale of "most drugs," that might not be the right approach for Canada. Fortunately, there are a range of options available within a regulatory framework. Each drug has unique properties so it makes sense to regulate each one differently. Perhaps some drugs could be taxed and sold like tobacco and alcohol. Others could be prescribed in maintenance doses by doctors and then consumed by addicts at monitored sites (this is the model used for heroin addicts in Switzerland).

These changes need to be made slowly, with a strong focus on evidence-based policies. But first we need to have this discussion. We need to admit that what we're doing is not working and embrace the concept of legalization, to better serve and protect citizens across Canada.

David Bratzer is a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (www.leap.cc) and a police officer in British Columbia. The opinions expressed in this article are entirely his own. [email protected].
---end---

source: http://www.thestar.com/article/644431

___________________

Once you've examined the statistical evidence in relation to the so called "war on drugs" and its effectiveness thus far, there are only two very clear positions one can take: you can either accept the facts as they are or you can look away. It's as simple as that---there is no controversy here.

By accepting the evidence, it becomes painfully clear that the war on drugs is nothing more than a charade, and that it’s actually responsible for creating the conditions which allow and in fact promote drug-related criminal activity to take place--that's not to mention that the only reason these drugs lords are making the sort of money they are is precisely because of this so called 'war on drugs.'

However, as I mentioned, you can certainly take the other side, but you cannot do so under any rational grounds. The majority of arguments in favor of the 'war on drug' can all be broken down to an appeal to emotion or tradition, among other fallacious arguments.

At the end of the day, though, you cannot reasonably argue against the evidence. If you are sceptical, I refer you to read anything by Dr. Ethan Nadelmann and his colleagues. Also Chomsky did a good interview on this topic a couple years ago, and while his views are slightly different from that of Nadelmann, it is still worth a read if you want to understand the ineffectiveness of criminalization from a Chomskyan perspective.

Read it here: http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20020208.htm

Legalizing or regulating drugs can be the most rational thing the government can do. But it's not favourable for a politician to be a person that encourages or solicit drug use. The majority of the population would most likely not vote for that politician.

quote:

Originally posted by Invasionmix Legalizing or regulating drugs can be the most rational thing the government can do. But it's not favourable for a politician to be a person that encourages or solicit drug use. The majority of the population would most likely not vote for that politician.

thats because the general population is brainwashed about the war on drugs.

___________________

"I am a police officer who supports incremental change toward the legalization and regulation of all drugs. This includes marijuana, heroin, cocaine and other substances." -he's got to be kidding. I don't think he knows what he's talking about.

Drugs or Anti-drugs has always been the central moneymaking cash cows for government. Legalizing and regulating drugs will put a huge dent in the pockets of those with vested interest.

Now I'm not talking about the little drug cartels...I'm talking about the Big Pharma companies that payout big to lobbyists and government election campaigns.

Case in point:
Drug production in Afghanistan has had a 40-fold increase since the US led invasion of the country in 2001.

http://bimchat.wordpress.com/2009/0...ords-this-year/

Canada's close relationship to Britain means that her hands are tied. Britain's convenient relationship with the USA only affirms that all drugs shall remain illegal in order to protect thier vested interest in Opium Production for dia-morphine by Big Pharmaceuticals.

British Farmers Recruited to Grow Poppies...click here

Diamorphine is used to relieve the pain caused by heart attack, injury, surgery and cancers. As baby boomers progress towards retirement...the need for such a drug is huge.

Currently the poppies are being produced legally – at undisclosed locations on farms in central and northern England – for processing in Britain by Macfarlan Smith, the Edinburgh-based pharmaceutical division of Johnson Matthey, the FTSE 100 company.

Macfarlan Smith, controls one third of the legitimate global trade in diamorphine, and has been producing it for medical use for more than 100 years. In 2006, farmers cultivated 165,000 hectares of poppies -enough to make more heroin than the world’s addicts use.

Since Afghanistan has doubled its opium production over the past two years, is now producing at record levels and accounts for 93 percent of the world's output. Opium is, of course, a huge cash crop, i'm sure that Afghanistan's opium is being distributed around the world and most assuredly to big pharma which is the only one who stands to gain the most.

If other drugs are legalized, it would only bring down market value and profits...so it stands to reason that legalizing would be Out of the Question!

___________________
Peace, Unity, Luv and Havin Fun!!

"People seem not to see that their opinion of the world is also a confession of their character."- Ralph Waldo Emerson, US essayist & poet (1803 - 1882)

Last edited by b4k-oz on Jun-15-2009 at 17:19

unless the government can profit from it, they dont really have a motive to change whats in place. it would be interesting to find out drug (if legalized and regulated) vs alcohol vs tobacco use in health risks, deaths, long term effects etc

___________________
"Silly Clubbers, Docks are for Boats"
Soundcloud

quote:

Originally posted by jchung52 unless the government can profit from it, they dont really have a motive to change whats in place. it would be interesting to find out drug (if legalized and regulated) vs alcohol vs tobacco use in health risks, deaths, long term effects etc

The government would profit from it.....taxes taxes and more taxes.

Before anything like this could happen the government would need to change the general populations view on the illegal drugs. Its something we won't see in our life time. Maybe our grandchildrens children might see this but we won't.

___________________

quote:

Scott has been introduced to the rave scene, and Ecstasy, by Craig. The two of them go out on the weekends, with some of Craigs friends, and stay up all night, dancing in a drug-fueled trance.

Last edited by Moral Hazard on Apr-26-2011 at 07:48

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced The government would profit from it.....taxes taxes and more taxes. Before anything like this could happen the government would need to change the general populations view on the illegal drugs. Its something we won't see in our life time. Maybe our grandchildrens children might see this but we won't.

Well basically what i meant by it. The costs to change the public's view would be too high and the party wouldn't be in office very long either.

___________________
"Silly Clubbers, Docks are for Boats"
Soundcloud

quote:

Originally posted by jchung52 unless the government can profit from it, they dont really have a motive to change whats in place. it would be interesting to find out drug (if legalized and regulated) vs alcohol vs tobacco use in health risks, deaths, long term effects etc

Watch BBC Horizon's "is alcohol more dangerous than ecstasy"

A study over 10 years and 20 types of drugs legal or not.

Out of a rank of 20 (20 being the least lethal and 1 being the most)

E was ranked 18th (2nd least harmful)

Weed was ranked 9th

Alcohol is the 5th most harmless drug and if was new on the market today it would be classified as a A class banned substance

2nd deadliest is coke

and 1st obv. was heroin.




16th was steroids which makes me want to take some...jk...

quote:

Originally posted by Capo di tutti 2nd deadliest is coke

screw you, bbc!

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon screw you, bbc!

the bbc lies.

___________________

I've been saying 'legalize' since 1994.

___________________
Be the best person you can be. Always.