Pages

Sunday, November 27, 2016

A Highly Respected Medical Journal Just Declared 'The War On Drugs' An Epic Failure

“The war on drugs has failed,” the editors of the peer-reviewed British Medical Journal declared this week, arguing that doctors should lead the global effort to reform drug policy.

Fiona Godlee, the journal’s editor-in-chief, and Richard Hurley, its features and debates editor, penned an analysis citing academic and scientific reports to argue global policies on drug use — including the United Nations’ — have fallen drastically short.

Godlee and Hurley note the annual cost of prohibition, which entails criminalizing “producers, traffickers, dealers, and users,”totals at least $100 billion annually.

“But the effectiveness of prohibition laws, colloquially known as the ‘war on drugs,’ must be judged on outcomes,” they write. “And too often the war on drugs plays out as a war on the millions of people who use drugs, and disproportionately on people who are poor or from ethnic minorities and on women.

The authors cite a variety of reasons why the global war on drugs has been a failure.

More

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

As if we haven't been saying this for decades. When did they wake up?

Anonymous said...

How can we win the war on drugs when we currently have a president that help the drug dealers at every turn.
1. Open boarders to let them get their product in
2. Dealers when caught are being pardoned by Obama in a wholesale manner.
3. The police that arrest these criminals are under attack by the Obama justice department

Anonymous said...

You don't need a medical journal to tell you the obvious.

Barry b said...

Wow I could have told them the war on drugs wasn't working 15 years ago and I didn't have to spend tens of millions of dollars on studies to know that. Totally agree with 1:28. Matter of fact I've been commenting on this blog since 2007 saying this.

Anonymous said...

The problem lies on the words "war on drugs." It was a mistake to use those words because it implies it can be won. In truth it can't be won but must be fought nonetheless. Murders and rapes will always happen and if you wage a war on them you will lose as well. The bottom line is you still have to fight and good versus evil is forever. In some respects the battle againot evil drug dealers is working evidence by our prisons being overcrowded with them. What hasn't been addressed enough is demand reduction. In this are we have failed. If you compare the US to Mexico (virtually overrun and controlled by cartels) the US is much better off. We do have plenty of drug related homicides but you are not likely to come across 20 decapitated bodies. The battle is infinite and should always be fought lest we end up like Mexico. Ask yourself what is the alternative? Give up and not enforce our nation's drug laws? That is when we truly fail.

Anonymous said...

3:09
The war on drugs can be won. It's all in the rules of engagement. Put some real teeth in the drug laws.
1. Mandatory death sentences for dealers.
2. Smugglers shot on sight.


You want to stop the problem? Address it for what it is.

Anonymous said...

If we surrender the war on drugs, how will police afford all their fancy cars and trucks purchased with seized drug funds???

Anonymous said...

The war is intended to benefit those who sell the drugs: the military and intelligence agencies

The victims are the people who use the product, get caught, and go to prison.

That was the whole point.

For profit private prison system

Anonymous said...

3:09 said, "If you compare the US to Mexico (virtually overrun and controlled by cartels) the US is much better off."

Duh, if it wasn't for the huge appetite of US citizens for drugs that have been deemed illegal by US citizens then the drug cartels in Mexico would not exist. We have created the problem with our war on drugs. As far as our prisons being filled with drug dealers that is also part of the problem because resources are being allocated for the wrong things. If we had a "war on drunk drivers" we could fill the prisons with drunk drivers and make MADD happy but we would still have plenty of drunks on the highway. You are using the same argument that the temperance crowd used from the turn of the 20th century until we outlawed booze with prohibition. At least the citizens back then were able to realize that was a failed policy in a decade instead of over four decades of the war on drugs. Imagine what life would be like if coca leaves and poppies could be grown in our country instead of latin america. We would probably come across much more than 20 decapitated bodies. Remember the Valentines Day massacre in Chicago back in the day.

Steve said...

5:55 hit the nail on the head. Until the profit is taken out of the Afghan "infestation" of US troops overseeing the drugs for weapons programs through the CIA, UN, and the rest importing this malicious disease into our society in order to fund the legal establishment and the for profit prison system, we will continue to have a heroin problem.

Cut this Foreign Policy set up by the Clintons and Soros, and you will end the epidemic.

I truly hope Mr. Trump can see this for what it is, and use his "lack of experience" in foreign policy to right this disastrous wrong! God bless the Donald!

Anonymous said...

6:00 You are ignorant- the drug problem existed well before the "declaration of war" on it. I Agee with 4:58 with regard to rules of engagement- if you really want a war let's treat it as such- hang heroin dealers and see how many step up to take their place. I've lost 3 friends to drugs and I have no sympothy for dealers- hang them high. It is a fight that needs to continue regardless of the cost. 6:00 probably never lost a loved one to drugs. That pansie wants to wave a white flag- move to Mexico.

Anonymous said...

6:00 mentions the Valentines Day massacreally to compare the drug carnage in Mexico to gang wars in Chicago during prohibition. What a joke- beheasing and mass killings are commonplace in Mexico. If you read my statement you should have read that demand reduction is our problem- too much demand from druggies like you who want to legalize it.

Anonymous said...

6:51/6:57 you should really go back and read some history.

I am sorry for your loss of friends to drugs. I have also lost friends to both drugs and alcohol abuse. However no one held any of them down and forced the drugs on them. They all made conscious decisions to use drugs even while being aware of the consequences of drug use. One cannot be ignorant to the hazards of drug use in this day and age. Even 50 years ago the police came into schools and delivered the message of the perils of drug use, yet people still use them.

I would submit that the hypocrisy about marijuana use while turning an almost blind eye to alcohol and cigarettes (especially years ago) has exacerbated the drug problem. What should a young person think when they see their parents drink? Teenagers experiment and some drink, some have sex, some drive fast, and some eventually try pot. Most young people will think that if people in authority are lying about pot(as compared to alcohol and cigarettes) then maybe they are also lying about cocaine and heroin and ecstasy and other drugs so they experiment ever further. It is easy for them to obtain since in a lot of cases the hard drug dealers are also the marijuana dealers.

Yes the drug problem existed before the war on drugs. It has existed almost since the dawn of civilization. I submit that hanging drug dealers won't stop the flow of drugs. Other countries that aren't required to be as civilized as western countries have done the exact same thing without stopping drug use.

Also the black on black violence that inhabits our inner cities is mostly from drug dealers killing other drug dealers. For every street corner dealer there are three standing by to take his place. So if them killing each other doesn't deter dealers from dealing why would you think hanging them would have any effect? Other than to make a reactionary fascist like you feel better(see I can be a troll too and use derogatory terms, by the way pansy is with a y not ie).

I don't want to raise a white flag I just believe in reality. Just as people continued to drink and make liquor when booze was illegal (witness the number of bootleggers back then compared to now) people will continue to use, grow, and make drugs (witness the growth of meth labs in this country). The reality is that people will continue to use drugs no matter what the legality or how you or I or anyone personally feel about drugs.

I say legalize it, regulate it, tax it, Then use that money to provide treatment, fund things like methadone and narcan and find ways to cure or lessen the dependency of drug users.

If you were to actually read accounts of gangland violence during prohibition you would see that they were just as depraved then as the cartels are now. The main difference is news is more widespread and available now and the population is three times larger.

I am sorry that you can't see reality, however if you are so adamant about hanging drug dealers I suggest you put your money where your mouth is and go buy some rope and hang out on a city street corner.

NO, I don't use drugs. I did smoke pot a long time ago(just like I drank and smoked cigarettes) but I grew up. Some are not so lucky. Also I believed the facts about hard drugs.

Anonymous said...

Opiate addictions have existed for over a thousand years. Good luck with stopping them.

Anonymous said...

Wow 9:01 I must have struck a cord! Why else the dissertation! Sorry for misspelling the word pansy as I was more worried about content. So your bottom line is this: legalive drugs so it can be taxed. You want to make the government a drug dealer. You want to reap the benefits of money made from those addicted to drugs. You should be the first to hang. I know my history sir and I know that during the Boxer Rebellion in China, that country got serious about punishing drug dealers and it worked. We should do the same in this country.

Anonymous said...

No I just don't suffer fools. The government already is a drug dealer. Keep drinking that kool-aid.

Anonymous said...

The gov't IS a drug dealer. The war on drugs is an ironic moniker since even the time of the Romans, leaders have used drugs and given them to the soldiers to fight in their wars. Truly a war ON drugs. Germans using crystal meth, amphetamines given to Vietnam warriors, Iraq and Afghan, on and on.

They have to demonize and make the enemy sub-human to make killing them easier. Drugs to stay awake and be aggressive. Then more drugs to deal with the crap they have seen and done.

Don't take my word for it. The information is out there. Start with WW11 and go forward or backward in time. War is not about honor, democracy, or anything else "they" tell you. Greed, power, and hate. That is what war is about. Everybody thinks they are the good guy. Populations don't want to go to war with anyone. They want to live in peace just like we do. It's the few leaders of populations that want and get war.

They whip people up into a frenzy, tell lies, stage events, whatever is necessary to get the people willing to fight and die for whatever reason they are given. While the elite get richer and plan their next money making war.

Anonymous said...

I agree with most of what you say about war- however some wars are necessary- we stayed out of WWII until the attack on Pearl Harbor- not staged. I'm aware of the drug use during the various wars and know that the German Tank crews use of meth was the origin of the term Nazi method for cooking Meth. I don't agree that our government is already a drug dealer. More should be done to reign in big Pharma but there are plenty of folks on the take. I hope that will change soon. 1 in 10 Chinese were addicted to opiods during the Boxer Rebellion (about as close as you can get to a zombie apocolypse) and they pulled out of it. Not fully- never fully- but kept it at bay and improved their situation by really fighting it

Anonymous said...

Statement: The government is not a drug dealer.

Counter Statement:

1. The government taxes and regulates cigarettes(half the price of cigarettes are taxes). Main ingredient addictive drug Nicotine.
2. The government taxes and regulates alcohol(half the price of a bottle of liquor are taxes). Alcohol also an addictive drug.
3. The government taxes and regulates and operates gambling services(government takes in huge sums of money off the top aka skimming and then taxes the winnings). Gambling is also addictive and affects the same pleasure centers in the brain that drugs do.
4. The government through medicare, medicaid, and obamacare subsidies, prescribes(via doctors) and dispenses(via pharmacies) pain killing drugs that have enabled a whole generation of people to become drug addicts.

Conclusion: The government IS a drug dealer.

One success with the Boxer Rebellion does not equate a successful strategy. Also how many innocent people died from the Boxer Rebellion as opposed to how many died from the drugs. Just as how many people have died in the war on drugs and the fight over corners to sell drugs, and the fight among drug cartels over territory as opposed to the actual number of people who have died from drug overdoses and the overall effect of drugs on their health.

Drugs have been illegal for over a century and the war on drugs has lasted almost half a century. With this kind of failure don't you think it is time to try something else. Hanging drug dealers isn't something new. It has already been done.

Anonymous said...

November 26, 2016 at 9:26 AM

I thank you for your comment and the manner in which you delivered it. With that said, I will tell you I disagree, and attempt to explain why.

Without doing any research to show verification, I have read in the past that our government knew they were going to attack Pearl Harbour and allowed it to happen to get Americans angry and motivated to join that war. It has also been reported that companies in this country were supplying materials to the German war machine, specifically steel for railroads for example. ( I think it was the Bush family involved in that )

Considering members of the military were smuggling in drugs from Viet Nam, the C.I.A. dealing drugs to raise money for the Contras, ships belonging to at least one member of congress was found to contain drugs, ( cocaine I believe ), our government/military giving drugs to soldiers in Viet Nam to keep them awake and more aggressive, and that is just off the top of my head without searching on the internet.

There has at least one book written about these things, and I dare say several books have been written.

I do agree with you about people in government being on the take. That has probably been the case ever since there has been a government, on some level. Pharmaceuticals and the companies that deal with them, ( pun intended ), are huge money beasts. I doubt they will ever be fully reigned in by that fact and like you said, people on the take.

It is by design that certain naturally occurring medicines are banned or highly restricted. There is more money in manufactured drugs that what anyone could make themselves with natural ingredients and treat/cure themselves.

There is a saying about the medical field, they make customers, not cures.

I could go on, but I think you get my points. You don't have to agree with what I am saying, nor will I try to force you to. I am just sharing what I have read and for the most part, I believe it to be true.

Feel free to offer a rebuttal and we can get deeper into it. I like learning and if you can point out any errors in what I have said, all the better. I have no problem admitting when I am proven to be wrong, and judging by your style of writing I think you are of like mind.

I really wish I had paid more attention in history class while in school. lol Peace.

Anonymous said...

damn Joe, I took all that time and effort to try to write a nice comment and you don't post it and now it's off the main page. Maybe you could keep threads up longer if people are actively still commenting on them?

Anonymous said...

Just because the government profits from taxing cigarette sales doesn't make it right. Like I said in my first post- good versus evil. Profiting off the addiction and misery of others is evil. If our government does it to to some degree it is wrong. You make some good points but tossing out the law enforcement aspect of combating illicit drugs would be a mistake. We need to combat out demand for drugs most of all. I retract my use of the word pansy- was in poor taste. Cigarettes should be made illegal period. They are killing my mother right now because she could never kick the habit. As far as knowing the con sequences of drug use and doing it anyway being all the users fault I disagree - we are flawed beings and all of us makenmistakes-.drug dealers exploit this and then you are hooked- still think they should hang.

SbyNews_Staff said...

1:08
The spam filter grabbed your comment. Might be because of the length of it? Anyway I pulled it out of spam and moved the most to today.

Anonymous said...

Blogger SbyNews_Staff said...
1:08
The spam filter grabbed your comment. Might be because of the length of it? Anyway I pulled it out of spam and moved the most to today.

November 26, 2016 at 1:26 PM

Well I thank you for your effort. I apologize to you and your readers if it is too long, but I took extra effort to try to make myself well understood and to not offend anyone.

Anonymous said...

1:24 said "We need to combat out demand for drugs most of all."

The demand for drugs come from the users. So what you are saying is we should combat(kill) the users of drugs to eliminate the demand. I think that is a bit harsh don't you? I know you aren't advocating that but that is what your statement about demand means.

I understand your dislike and disgust of drugs, believe me when I tell you I feel the same, but your solutions are very simplistic and unreasonable and will do nothing to lessen the problem. The past 100 years have proven that. Short of genetically modifying humans to not like drugs, we need innovative thinking to rid ourselves of this scourge. Not more law and order.

You can eliminate one drug and then someone else will find another to take its place because of the money involved. You can lock up or hang all the dealers and then other dealers will take their place because of the money involved. You can fine the pharmaceutical companies million of dollars and another company will do the same thing because of the money involved. You can lock up or kill all the drug users and more will take their place because of the feelings of euphoria that are involved.

To the poster 12:33 who has commented about the military and wars, you are pretty much spot on.

SbyNews_Staff said...

2:01
The spam filter tends to spam long comments for some reason. We have no control over it. The only thing we can do is go into the spam folder and pull things out of it. No offense taken :)

Anonymous said...

if there were a war on drugs, then the cocao plant and the poppy plant would be eradicated.

That is not what is happening.
Instead, the soldiers are 'guarding the poppy fields' so the Taliban can't burn them down.

The war on drugs is a war on drug users.
First the government imports the drugs and sell them.
Then they lock up the users in for-profit private prison systems.

Brilliant.

Anonymous said...

Still not swayed - your defeatest stance does nothing for my confidence that your idea of legalizing all drugs and profiting from it is the answer. If your child was dealt heroin by some scumbag and died as a result of an overdose I guess you would just blame your child. Sad. You would want to make sure the government made money on the taxed sale of that drug. Sad. You are wrong in so many ways it isn't worth carrying on this argument. Think more in the microcosm and maybe it will make more sense to you. You and most others should see the justice in hanging the person that sold your family member poison despite the fatal mistake your family member made in taking the drug. Obama pardons drug dealers because he calls it a non- violent crime. That is BS. Poisoning an individual is a violent crime. I stand by my position.

Anonymous said...

5:36 No I wouldn't blame my child. I would blame myself, then I would go and take care of the drug dealer myself. Not because they were to blame but I would kill them after torturing them just because they provided the means for my childs death. I would do the same to anyone that caused the death of my child or wife(drunk driver, terrorist, etc.). That is the difference between you and me.

Anonymous said...

5:36 By the way I'm not leaving these comments to sway you. Your heart has already been hardened due to your loss(a loss of which I am sincerely sorry and can understand your bitterness). I am writing these comments to those who are tired of a status quo that hasn't brought about any tangible results in the fight to eradicate the scourge of drug use in our society. As Einstein said to keep trying the same thing over and over and to expect different results is insanity. It is time to try something different especially when documented evidence shows that what we have been doing is failing(that is after all the headline of the article of which we are commenting). I know you think I am a young liberal drug user. But believe me when I say that although I used drugs many,many,many years ago I am totally against drugs, cigarettes, gambling, and alcohol and am anything but liberal or young for that matter. I am however a realist and understand all to well human nature.

Anonymous said...

As the daughter of a DEA agent, I have been exposed to this topic for the majority of my life. I know for a fact that the government is not a drug dealer and am disgusted by the way people are accusing it of being one. So, who is the real villain? The user or the dealer? I strongly believe that the user is the lesser of two evils. The dealers take advantage of the adicts and benefit from their suffering, spreading the problem,selling the problem. They deal poison for a living! They are the root of the issue and we need to divest our country of them! Yes, it is obvious that we need to change the way our laws are being enforced - but this doesn't mean we should discard our existing system entirely by legalizing drugs (which will not solve anything). Instead, strengthen it. Create harsher punishments to truly scare people (both users and dealers). It's time we address the problem appropriately, with whatever means necessary.

Anonymous said...

We used to be free.

Now we don't even own our bodies.

Unknown said...

November 26, 2016 at 11:17 PM

You are only seeing one side of the drug trade, the enforcement arm. The C.I.A. was producing, distributing, studying, drugs beginning in the 1940's then stumbling on and researching LSD in 1951, which was first synthesized in 1938 by Swiss chemist Albert Hoffman. They employed at least one F.B.I. agent, under contract, to use whores under his command to dupe drunks and others with no experience in the drug to dose them then he would study the effects on them through a two-way mirror.

I was just this morning reading about this and some of the books written about this. George Hunter White is the name of the F.B.I. agent I refer to, MKULTRA is the name of (1)? C.I.A. program which studyied LSD and other drugs, The Electric Kool Aid Acid Test, Acid Dreams: The Complete Social History of LSD: The CIA, the Sixties, and Beyond, are two books written about this. There are more books on the subject.

Keep in mind LSD was legal until banned by the feds in 1970, 1966 at the state level in Cali. Another interesting point is that this drug and others were used in religious ceremonies for thousand(s) year(s).

Although they operated out of Orange County, most of their famous Orange Sunshine acid—in total, roughly a kilogram, or 10 million hits—was produced in France, by a mysterious figure named Ronald Hadley Stark.

As one of the biggest clandestine drug producers in the world at the time, Stark unsurprisingly led an extraordinary and secretive life, and it’s likely most of the details will never be completely pinned down. But it’s clear Stark had one thing that separated him from many other drug kingpins— extensive ties to the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies. Stark’s involvement in the acid trade was yet another sign of just how long the Agency’s reach into this world really was throughout the '60s and early '70s.

I could go on, but this is already a fairly long comment and I don't want if flagged by the spam filter of this blog. So in short, to say our gov't was not deeply involved in the drug trade is at best naive. I don't fault you or anyone since it was done in secret until being disclosed. I certainly don't know everything about it, nor do I claim to.

Anonymous said...

820
Thank you for detailing the obvious connections of intelligence with drug smuggling.
You are right on. Man. :)

Anonymous said...

Why tell us something we already knew since Vietnam. But , what you all didn't tell, how much you rich folks made off the war on drugs. I sure empires were created by the likes of you.

Unknown said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Why tell us something we already knew since Vietnam. But , what you all didn't tell, how much you rich folks made off the war on drugs. I sure empires were created by the likes of you.

November 27, 2016 at 11:44 AM

Well Mr. Troll, it is obvious not everyone knows it, and besides, I went further back than the Veit Nam war era. Why the personal attack? I am just sharing information.

Unknown said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Why tell us something we already knew since Vietnam. But , what you all didn't tell, how much you rich folks made off the war on drugs. I sure empires were created by the likes of you.

November 27, 2016 at 11:44 AM

I just noticed you refer to me as one of the rich folks?! lmao. I wish.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Why tell us something we already knew since Vietnam. But , what you all didn't tell, how much you rich folks made off the war on drugs. I sure empires were created by the likes of you.

November 27, 2016 at 11:44 AM

so negative tsk tsk tsk