Hilary Clinton is in Mexico, talking about the US, Mexico, and drugs. Here's what she got right, and what she got so very wrong.
Right:
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the US must take part of the blame for drug-related violence in Mexico. Speaking as she arrived in Mexico, she said the US's appetite for drugs and its inability to stop arms crossing the border were helping fuel the violence
This really isn't surprising. It's the laws of economics, really. The US wants narcotics to help them forget how badly they're being wallet raped; Mexico supplies. If they can only be supplied by criminals willing to take the risks involved, then they'll be the only suppliers.
Wrong:
Her two-day visit comes a day after the Obama administration announced new measures to boost border security.Of course, when you have a system of prohibition that has continuously failed to work, the most obvious thing to try is more of the same.
Right:
"Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians.
This is true. This is what happens- when you criminalize a trade, pushing it into the hands of criminals with no respect for human life.
Wrong:
Mrs Clinton said the Obama administration, working with the US Congress, intended to pledge $80m (£55m) to help Mexico buy Blackhawk helicopters.
Again, nothing but "more of the same". Plus, why should the US taxpayer be paying for stuff Mexico "needs" to fight a "War on Drugs" that shouldn't be fought?
Right:
She also acknowledged that US efforts to ban drugs had so far been unsuccessful in stopping the narcotics trade.
This is because prohibition of drugs, including alcohol, has been tried, and it failed consistently.
Think back to the American prohibition of alcohol- sure, there was violence and crime associated with it- but it was peanuts compared to the boom caused by the prohibition itself. The same applies to drugs other than alcohol.
I personally think that when it comes to drugs, a civilized discussion is pretty much impossible in the UK today. We're too blinded by fear of "The crazy drug dealer who wants to sell your kids meth!" and the stories of "Teenager found dead after injecting herself with drug extracted from horse glands!" or any other number of tabloid fodder.
Yet, looking back to the American prohibition, and a bit of reason and logic as opposed to media-driven sensationalism results in a simple realization: Most of the problems we associate with drugs are in fact caused by their prohibition. Of course, addiction, chance of overdose, etc, these are all real problems, yet even these could in many causes be reduced if we legalized the trade. For example, drugs have become increasingly potent since criminalization.
Another factor contributing to increased health consequences
of marijuana use is the increase in potency over the past several
years.
—The White House Drug Abuse Policy Office, 1984 National
Strategy for Prevention of Drug Abuse and Drug Trafficking
This happened in US prohibition of alcohol, too- you see, selling and transporting alcohol was risky because of its illegality, so in order to maximize returns for their risk, bootleggers would only sell stronger drinks- same with other drugs. It's called "The Iron Law of Prohibition", and it's one of the reasons prohibition is the worst policy when public health is concerned. There are countless others.
You can actually get heroin on the NHS if you're an addict- now, tell me, do you honestly think the drug dealer around the back of Asda will sell you stuff anywhere near as clean and well regulated as this?
Sterilized needles (how many times have you heard of the dangers of shared needles amongst addicts?), regulated potency and quality as well as quantities of the drug- imagine if all narcotics could be sold like this, on the market, much cheaper than dealers of banned substances. Can't you see now why prohibition causes so much violence and crime, rather than the drugs themselves?
LPUK policy is to end this "war on drugs" which has caused so much pain, and cost the taxpayer so much money. As our manifesto states:
Legalisation of all narcotic substances for adult consumption. The well respected Transform Drug Policy Foundation has a wealth of information explaining how this approach is the only one that will effectively address the problems that illegal drug use currently cause individuals and the wider nation.The Transform Foundation have produced this document outlining why and how prohibition has failed, and how a sensible policy of legalization can benefit everyone.
7 comments:
And before anyone talks about how instantly addictive Heroin is (which is what Diamorphine is), the drug is routinely given to mums in labour.
I had a discussion recently with a friend who likes to get stoned now and again. I don't take drugs but favour as rapid a move to full legalization as Australia can manage. He does and prefers maintaining the status quo. Figure that one out. I think it's partly that legalization would take the fun out of it but mainly because he's of a generation brain washed to think government regulation is necessary for everything.
You may be right about not being able to have the debate in the UK. My election campaign last May was railcrashed by Harriet Harmann helping to deliver this leaflet (pdf) - and of course second tier local authorities have little if any influence over anything to do with drugs so it was not even terribly relevant.
But in the US I heard of an idea the other week which sounds sensible - campaigners believe that a majority of both parties in congress would favour at least a mature debate and probably a substantial change in the way they deal with drugs. They have been suggesting that a debate is preceded by an "anonymous straw poll" amongst members of both houses so that in the debate they can know, and the public can know, that a majority of them support change without exposing any of them up front to a potentially damaging named vote.
It seems like a practical way forward to beginning a proper debate.
Depressing as it is to think of it, would not be surprised if the "debate" matures driven more by the potential spending cuts on enforcement and tax revenues from sales than any concept of freedom.
The drugs "debate" is insane. The tabloids have the upper hand here and apply the logic "Drugs should be illegal because they are illegal".
Even if RT's second comment is correct, surely it is better to do the right thing for what you consider to be 'the wrong reasons' than not at all. And those are two very good reasons for doing 'the right thing' AFAIAC.
@ANGRY EXILE
You have identified a very alarming and depressing aspect of this bogus war, namely that even casual 'drug' users themselves mostly oppose legalization. It defies comprehension. I watch those documentaries on Bravo about US prisons, and it is so depressing to observe that virtually everyone in those shitholes that has been caged like an animal cause of petty drug offenses accepts that they are guilty and wrong and deserve to be caged. Go figure.
Despite the ATF's claims, the amount of arms Mexican criminals get from the US is actually only about 17%. The rest (such as machine guns and explosives that are illegal in the US) come straight from the corrupt Mexican military and foreign sources (especially China).
Post a Comment