Tuesday, September 05, 2006


The Wars on Drugs and Terror......Two Failures.


Yet another example of the failure of the so called 'war on drugs'. I wonder what dilemma this must be creating for Mr Blair, when the results of this particular war are running contrary to the aims of the 'war on terror' (i.e by creating more Talibanis).

The solution should be clear yet our politicians who are too cowardly to admit the failure of the prohibition policy will not admit this, at least not for a long time.

It is to legalise all drugs, thus bringing the price down. This will stop addicts from commiting crime to finance expensive and illegal habits. It will enable the State to regulate the supply, as it does with tobacco and alcohol. The drugs will no longer be filled with impurities, thus making them less of a health hazard.

This will enable third world opium and coca farmers in Colombia and Afghanistan to grow their crops and sell them legitimately on the market. Large criminal cartels will lose a major source of their income.

Meanwhile the Western powers should withdraw the hated military presences from both Afghanistan and Iraq, presences which are fostering resentment and ultimately terrorism. These wars have strengthened the phenomena the West claims to be fighting against. People do not like living under occupation. Neither do hungry and poor peasant farmers like to see their livelihoods destroyed.

Quite simple, really. Why these truths elude the likes of George Bush and Tony Blair remains a mystery.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

So you will entrust pharmaceutical and tobacco compnies with the manufacture and distribution of drugs? You really think they will sell them cheap? Maybe at first, but not for long.
Therer will always be a black market and criminality involved enen if drugs are legalised, selling to kids and selling new more powerful drugs for example.
How exactly would you do safety tests? As you well know quite a few drugs such as ectacy have failed safety tests due to unpredictable and dangerous side effects, thats why its no longer licensed for medical use, same with LSD, some amphetamines, cannabis.
Would there be one saftey standard for medical use and a lower one for so called recrational use?

Liz said...

No, there wouldn't be different safety standards.

However, we know the dangers of alcohol yet it is legal. As for children an age restriction can be imposed as there is with alcohol and tobacco. I know kids get hold of them sometimes anyway, but so do they get hold of cannabis if they really want it. Safety tests - scientists know the effects of pure ecstasy, or MDMA, as it was initially a psychiatric drug. Of course there are side effects, but if people are aware of that then they know the risks, as with alcohol.

I don't know where you get that about cannabis as it has never been used for medical purposes or sufficiently tested enough, that is why there has been debate over it's medicinal purposes - not enough is known.

But ultimately, as long as they are not hurting anyone else and know what is involved and the risks etc, it is down to individuals what they do with their bodies. Of course pharmaceutical firms will put tax on drugs, but it will not be as high as is the cost of prohibition, not only in finance (to the individuals and to the State via policing etc) but the social cost as well to pursue the policy. Else the State can be responsible partly for their production, as is the case with non brand name aspirin, ibuprofen etc.

Liz said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.