Should drugs be decriminalised?

^That question is probably not best answered here

S'alright, I already know.

Injecting some pure internetz right now.

Maaan, look at all teh pixels.

I don't buy drugs, either on or off-line, so it's not really something I can help with. I also don't have anything more than anicdotal evidence.

But based on the anicdotal evidence of white middle class late 20 - early 30 year olds ...buying illegal drugs online has pretty much all the benefits associated with e commerce; freer more open market, more choice, more competition, resulting in better products, often lower prices, delivery, etc. Apparetly the sellers are often very passionate about their product, quality etc. I've also heard stories of people being compensated if they have issues.

Obviously at the moment the market is restricted to those who know how to access it but that's going to change over time.

Also interestingly I have heard that it is not a priority for police as you obviously a loose the violent element at the user distribution end. So then it only really leaves a problem in the production and trafficking countries... Although I'm not really sure law enforcement has ever cared about WMC people using or selling drugs very much.

Silk road ftw.

Is there much 'on' silk road? I cant get that tor shit to work on my computer.

Its a long way from becoming law and even if it did it would undermine the American's war on drugs to such an extent there will just be a coup, an invasion, loads of bloodshed and then an anti drug puppet installed.

Standard response American forrin policy.

You do realize weed is legal in 2 states of America.

I don't realize anything.

I had a poke around on silkroad but am too poor to actually buy drugs, I just mug homeless people and gurning students. You can get pretty much everything and different kinds of everything if it comes in varieties, dealers get rated too on quality and the like, it seemed pretty cool.

Is there much 'on' silk road? I cant get that tor shit to work on my computer.

^That question is probably not best answered here

.

This article may be useful.

http://dailyanarchist.com/2011/06/21/how-and-why-to-get-to-silk-road/

Interestingly there is an ever increasing shift in the US over their own drugs policy. Especially in relation to cannabis.

There are now plenty of rightwingers who'd never dream of inhaling who are calling for it to be taxed and legalised for lots of reasons; loss of tax revenue, cost of policing, insane levels of violence in/around Mexico, etc.

It will always be a slow process, but I think over the next 20 years there will be a fundamental change in how the West approaches drugs.

Green is still 100% illegal in the US.

Federal law states Marijuana is a schedule 1 controlled substance.

There is a marked difference in state law and federal law. Federal law still prohibits green. It is a matter of time before the anti medicinal herb lobby groups pressure the federal govt into a high profile case with some poor scape goat, probably a nice old lady with ME and loads of grand children.

Federal law will always be in line with current domestic policy and foreign policy works in part to reinforce domestic policy or so its meant to.

This kind of thing is possible only in relatively unstable states. Assuming that this is even what the US wants, what kind of premise could they find for launching a coup in the economically, politically and socially stable country?
I think you're being overly cynical here.

Since when?

Egypt / Cuba / USSR / Panama / Venezuala /Guatamala / Ecaudor / Brazil / Peru / blah blah blah.... list goes on and on and oddly enough Uruguay between 1964 - 1970

Surely those egs disprove your point?

I'm not up enough on the history of each, but from what I do know surely US intervention in most of them came at a time when they were unstable and on the whole had serious internal conflicts between the established elites and new political factions? Hence the rational for US intervention.

Green is still 100% illegal in the US.

Federal law states Marijuana is a schedule 1 controlled substance.

There is a marked difference in state law and federal law.

...

Federal law will always be in line with current domestic policy and foreign policy works in part to reinforce domestic policy or so its meant to.

Right, but much of US history is about States Vs The State. On the whole Washington has won, but individual States are still a barometer for the whole country. If there is enough of a shift then why wouldn't' Washington follow?

Not only that but the US is still struggling to get out of its own economic crisis. Reducing spending on tackling drugs and reaping revenue from previously untaxed sales sounds like a winning formula to me.

I'm not saying there still aren't going to be sources of internal opposition but I don't think it's as clear cut as you seem to, plus I don't believe that the US, or the Fed is one single homogeneous entity with immovable policy. The War on Drugs was initiated, just like the War on Terror. It can just as easily be shifted onto the back burner.

Well seeing as I was in the coffee thread we can pick Guatamala..

Democratically elected, popular progressive PM Arbenz floats land reform bills nationalising fruit farming land. US multinational United Fruit brings pressure to bear on the US government.

Cue CIA organized coup and then 40 years of instability and violence.

This isnt really enough to explain it all and the different factors that played out and its moving away from the purpose of the thread but its widely documented by many credible sources.

The point I was making was that the US cannot really let Uruguay legalise cannabis because if it works the geo socio political rammifications would require a regional and then a global rethink of their position.

Too many vested interests in the stuff being illegal as jack herer wrote in his book The Emperor wears no clothes
Cotton industry
Fuel
Paper
Medicines ...

If all fossil fuels and their derivatives, as well as trees for paper and construction were banned in order to save the planet, reverse the Greenhouse Effect and stop deforestation; then there is only one known annually renewable natural resource that is capable of providing the overall majority of the world's paper and textiles; meet all of the world's transportation, industrial and home energy needs, while simultaneously reducing pollution, rebuilding the soil, and cleaning the atmosphere all at the same time... and that substance is -- the same one that did it all before -- Cannabis Hemp... Marijuana!

^^ right, but I still don't think that proves your point.

^ yep, heard the hemp conspiracies. I always wonder whether its a bit stretched. Also I don't think hemp comes into the legalisation argument.

Right, but much of US history is about States Vs The State. On the whole Washington has won, but individual States are still a barometer for the whole country. If there is enough of a shift then why wouldn't' Washington follow?

Not only that but the US is still struggling to get out of its own economic crisis. Reducing spending on tackling drugs and reaping revenue from previously untaxed sales sounds like a winning formula to me.

I'm not saying there still aren't going to be sources of internal opposition but I don't think it's as clear cut as you seem to, plus I don't believe that the US, or the Fed is one single homogeneous entity with immovable policy. The War on Drugs was initiated, just like the War on Terror. It can just as easily be shifted onto the back burner.

So many points...

Federal Preemption - if a federal law conflicts with a state law, state law dont mean shit.

Hip voters in Cali might vote for a state bill legalising green, Utah wont.

Individual states cannot be called a barometer.

Yes the US is in a recession and reducing prison populations, increased taxation etc does sound like a winning formula. however the people most opposed to legalisation are the ones currently earning bare cash from the prohibition. Think of all the industries involved with dealing with drugs, their fall out, the infrastructure, its mind boggling. they will fight hand and tooth to ensure their companies still pay a dividend to their shareholders.

As for the War on Drugs... its so much more...

I'm not a mental conspiricist, Im looking at this from an economic and political stance.

^^^

Ah yes, ban the trees - that'll learn 'em

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/13/alcohol-pot-use_n_3914511.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-drugs-that-cause-the-most-harm-2013-9

Found this very interesting, some very obvious scores there but how high cannabis places did sort of shock me a little, it scores well above ectasy and Ketamin.

The criteria that scores them would be good to know. I CBA signing up to the Lancet to find out though.

Far too skagged up.