Do you think governments should admit that the war of drugs has been lost?

Yes.

Drugs should be made available but controlled.  Especially things like ecstasy and cannabis where its the unknown factor which is the most serious issue and causes the most deaths.

Controlling but licensing the selling of drugs would also allow a measure of taxation which could be plowed into education and treatment.

A lot of the criminality around the sale of drugs would also be removed.  Selling drugs openly would remove the appeal of smuggling and the gang warfare culture which can exist around competing sellers.  What percentage of people incarcerated in British and prisons around the world are there for drug offences up to small scale distribution?  There could be a huge cut in the prison population overnight if a controlled supply was available.

Yes there would be some problems ... but on balance the UN was right when it called for a change in strategy on the "war on drugs".  Prohibition doesn't work and has NEVER worked.

There's been a fascinating series of articles in the Times recently about how things are panning out in Colorado, which legalised the sale of marijuana about 18 months ago. It seemed that the result has been overwhelmingly positive - more money raised through taxation which the state is using to build schools, usage of marijuana by younger people is down, several high-profile people who opposed the original law have changed their minds, other states have wheels in motion to do the same thing and so on.

I'm not saying any of the above should necessarily be surprising - for example, I've never met a medic who didn't think legalisation should be the way forward - but I do think it's significant that, despite the second thoughts that the Netherlands, for example, seems to be having about their historically very tolerant approach, a large administration in the developed world has put through a more-or-less full legalisation process and it seems to have gone very well. Many of the remaining administrations in the world are now going to have a tricky time trying to claim that legalisation would lead to plague, pestilence, war and famine.

Mark

When have you known a government or any minister admit any sort of failure, except when they have been caught with their hands (or fingers) in the "cookie jar"?

When the failure can be blamed on the other party.

The government will follow the press on this one.

Whether it's a government program or a management fad, no one ever admits that something was a dumb idea. It just isn't there one day.

You do not admit to a failure, the change is introduced as an improvement in the way drugs are handled, plus sell the improvements,  reduced prison population, tax revenue increase, ability to  look after addicts with no fear to the users of prosecution.

The idea of a 'war on drugs' run by SWAT teams and helicopter gunships is utterly bonkers in my opinion-and even the USA is perhaps wising up to that. A more nuanced way of attacking the drug trade through direct action (including economic support) in supply areas etc plus law enforcement has to replace that approach. I accept the arguments about taking money out of the system but firstly I am entirely sure that the criminal gangs who thrive on the current illicit drug trade will not just simply fold up; they will find new business by creating new powerful versions of the licensed drugs, pushing the harder drugs and other forms of criminality. I don't think that is ever a winnable war. Drug taking and the associated criminality will always exist

What I am less sure of is whether we want more licensed intoxicants in society. Alcohol is accepted in western society but is actually a nasty poisonous little drug that causes huge amounts of harms to society, personal relationships and also to health. Sure, some can use it safely/sensibly but many cannot, and some have a deeply harmful addiction. It has both short term and long term dangers. I have had two patients under 25 die of alcohol misuse, and another who is permanently neurologically damaged. Not by acute intoxication but by cumulative use, the binge weekend culture.

If we were designing our utopian society from scratch we might chose to ban alcohol and accept marijuana. There is an argument that it may be safer-but it is not totally safe and neither is ecstasy or the derivatives. The affects of these drugs as sold (not just high potency batches) are not just acute but cumulative. We are seeing patients who have used ecstasy and analogues hard in the 80s now developing serious health problems that appear to be related. There is also no doubt that some marijuana users experience significant mental health problems related to use-either caused by or more likely exacerbated by the drug.

So I'm not sure we want to sanction another intoxicant in our society, purchased in licensed premises and given some official stamp of safety. I'm not naïve enough to believe it will go away but I think drug use should be tackled at source (the growers and suppliers) and also at societal levels.

Bruce

Is there a war on drugs, or is there war, because of drugs?

The age of information, check out some excerpts, starting with Oliver North, and ending with, former Secretary of state, Hillary Clinton:

25 years ago, Marine Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North did something really, really bad. He sold weapons to Iran in an effort to help fund rebels fighting Nicaragua’s Socialist government.

It was a war that was already being funded by the small country’s cocaine trade, a fact that prompted Congress to halt the flow of money from the U.S. to Nicaragua.

After a short prison sentence and a successful appeal, North continues to be a polarizing figure and important voice in the conservative sphere......................next

The Golden Crescent is the name given to one of Asia's two principal areas of illicit opium production (with the other beingthe Golden Triangle), located at the crossroads of Central, South, and Western Asia...............next

In 2014 the Afghan opium cultivation has once again hit a record high, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime’s 2014 Afghan Opium Survey. ................................next

The Heroin Epidemic, in 9 Graphs | ...

U.S. News & World Report › 2015/08/19

Mobile-friendly - Aug 19, 2015 - Hillary Clinton has called the heroin and methamphetamine addiction a "quiet epidemic" and held roundtables to discuss the issue with voters. ... The rate of heroin-related overdose deaths increased 286 percent between 2002 and 2013 . ... In 2000, black Americans aged 45-64 had the highest ...

Wow! The interesting thing about the internet, if you inquire in-depth, pop ups will bombard your cellphone/monitor.

Al Pacino, Scarface, one of my favorite all time greats, along with the God Father.

In the roll off credits, towards the end, it mentions that organize crime, would be impossible to stop, due to it's infusion into the Government!

Let's face it, Drugs is big Business, kinda goes hand and hand, in a Capitalist Society.

Supply and demand!

Just some Thoughts!

Allante93!

Governments stand to make a lot of money by continuing with the criminalisation of drugs

For example the US gov't has the patent on using cannabis oil as a medicine.

Go figure

There are three things that I have never done.

1) Taken Recreational Drugs

2) Been to a professional football match

3) Killed anyone!

Would be quite nice to do one of these three before I die!

I have however been to a "Celebrity Party" and amongst the guests were several politicians, actors and pop stars and even the odd policeman - most of whom were kneeling at  a glass table!  

A tad hypocritical?