1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
    PLEASE HELP
  1. Alfa
    A call for the decriminalisation of drugs

    Source: Het Parool, newspaper, Saturday, 29 Januariy 2000

    Criminal law - ideally - protects us against certain acts because we do not want these things to be done to us. The prohibition of drugs, however, does the complete reverse, since it prevents us from buying substances that we, ourselves, wish to take. Even if taking these drugs is safe, the prohibition regulations make our behaviour into a criminal act. Repeal the prohibition of drugs, says R. Dufour, president of the Netherlands Drug Policy Foundation.

    RAIMOND DUFOUR

    Recently, the Dutch Justice Minister, Mr Korthals, was asked by a member of parliament whether he expected a fall in crime if cannabis cultivation to supply coffee shops were to be permitted within certain restrictions.
    "That's a good one," he replied, "why not decriminalise theft either? Crime rates would also drop if we did that, wouldn't they?"
    A monumental blunder by the Minister of Justice. For drug prohibition is rather an odd one out amongst criminal law provisions. The purpose of the criminal justice system is to protect us against acts that we want the state to safeguard us from. The prohibition of drugs, however, impedes us in our freedom to choose to buy drugs that we ourselves, as consumers, wish to take.
    The above situation is exceptional, as criminal provisions of this kind are few and far between. The rare examples of this type of legislation whose purpose is to prevent people from their own foolishness include the provisions that drivers must wear seat belts, and motor cyclists and moped riders must wear crash helmets. But these are exceptions, and sanctions are confined to fines. They cannot be compared with the draconic punishments imposed on drug dealers.
    Meanwhile, the drug prohibition has created its own circle of crime. Half of the prison population in our country is serving a sentence for drug-related crime. The IRT-scandal (in which undercover police teams, in an attempt to catch some big fish in organized crime, seem to have smuggled large amounts of cocaine, ecstasy pills and cannabis into the country with the public prosecution turning a blind eye) and everything that happened in its aftermath have shaken the foundations of our legal system. If the drug prohibition laws were repealed and replaced by regulation, decriminalising the production and sale of drugs, our criminal justice system would be more balanced.
    The protection of people against undesirable acts would remain as it is, whilst there would be a fall in total crime of several tens of percents. You would expect the public prosecution services to jump at the opportunity of being able to reduce crime. You would expect them to be the first to support the idea. Oddly enough, quite the opposite is true.
    When on 1 October 1999, at the initiative of the Netherlands Drug Policy Foundation, no less than 20 mayors asked the government to allow for pilot projects involving the controlled cultivation of cannabis for coffee shops, Minister Korthals seemed far from enthusiastic.
    A symposium on the regulation of soft drugs initiated by the Dutch Ministry of Justice that was held last week emanated a sense of reluctance to implement reforms, imagining problems where there are none, and fear of taking action. A curious situation indeed: representatives of the department of justice who seem to wish to wreck a chance of reducing crime. Do they realize that by so doing they appoint themselves to patrons of criminals who earn a fortune in the drug trade?
    Not to mention the representatives of the department of health who seem to be afraid to say anything when they are given the chance to offer 500,000 regular cannabis smokers the protection of quality control under the Dutch Commodities Act .
    The cComments by Minister Korthals and the attitude of his representatives may serve as an illustrate how ion of the fact that the implementation of the drug prohibition has gained such a momentum that the original motive ation for introducing the prohibition seems to be forgotten is currently being overlooked.
    The Ministry of Justice has apparently started to think that the drug prohibition is a goal in itself with regard to criminal justice, and seems to have forgotten that its role is just that of being the Health Ministry's dogsbody in what is supposed to be the interest of public health.


    All drugs must remain illegal. Why was that again?
    What is the drug problem all about? What is clear is that drug prohibition is not only failing - for drugs can be obtained at any street corner, and even in our prisons - but that it also has three adverse side-effects. For one thing, it leads to congestion of the criminal justice system, with the police force and public prosecution services being swamped with work. Public safety and proper safeguarding of legal rights are affected as a result. There are unnecessary additional health risks for drug consumers because the production and trade are left to organized crime.
    Are illicit drugs really all that dangerous anyway? Compared to the true giants amongst addictive drugs, i.e. alcohol and tobacco, illicit drugs seem to be more of a dwarf than anything else. There are 22 thirteen times as many people with an alcohol addiction than people with a drug addiction; 2712 times as many people die prematurely as a result of damage to their health caused by alcohol abuse compared to people who die as a result of drug use, and 133 275 as many die from the effects of smoking.


    Is then not the number of people with a drug addiction as limited as it is thanks to drug prohibition somewhat limiting the availability of drugs, or because the prohibition underlines the fact that society condemns the use of drugs?
    No. For more then than twenty years now we have been able in the Netherlands to purchase soft drugs in coffee shops, and drug consumption does not noticeably differ from that in countries around us. The question whether policy makers shouldcan come up with a more sensible solution is therefore becoming more and more pressing. In other words: isn't it high time that the Health Secretary, Ms Borst, relieved her colleague, the Minister of Justice, of the onerous burden of the drug prohibition? Surely she is able to regulate the drugs market in a better way than organised crime, which is now in charge of distribution and sale of drugs? Market regulation by criminals is the worst possible option, so of course society is better off if government were to hold the reigns of power where the distribution of drugs is concerned. The Netherlands Drug Policy Foundation has already suggested a model: the use of the discretion expediency principle for not prosecuting not to prosecute those who cultivate cannabis, regulation of the production and sale of other drugs. Attitudes abroad are changing, too. With Jospin at the helm, a wind of change is blowing through France. In Belgium and Germany we see similar developments. Switzerland is already ahead of us and will, in the very near future, take a decision on the recommendations made by a special committee set up by the Swiss parliament to adopt statutory provisions to regulate the production of marihuana and hash.
    Meanwhile, in our country the public health sector has taken up the challenge to come to a regulation of drugs. At the end of this month a report entitled 'A new drug policy?' will be released whose aim is to give a new impulse to the debate on the decriminalisation and regulation of drugs.
    This initiative brings the responsibility for the shaping of our drug policy back where it belongs:, for that responsibility lies with the Ministry of Health.
    In his capacity as the minister responsible for public safety, law and order, Mr Korthals should be knocking on the door of the Ministry of Health every week to plead with Minister Borst to be allowed to do repeal the sinister laws of drug prohibition.
    However, we would already be very happy if he would take his beloved fictional character Oblomov as his a model. With this e Prince of Sloth as his example, he should at least he would not do anything that would impede the solution to the drugs problem.
    <SCRIPT type=text/javascript>
    <!--
    nopopups();
    //-->
    </SCRIPT>

Comments

  1. OccularFantasm
    That was quite an interesting post alfa. Swim couldn't agree stronger with that logic. Research has shown from the Netherlands that not only soft drug use declined, but there was a more swift decrease in hard drugs as well. Swim beleives this is partially because the public there is more trusting, after their government agreed that certain drugs weren't al that terrible. If nothing else decriminilization of drugs is a long overdue right of the taxpayers of whatever country they reside in that practices prohibition. SWIM mainly knows about the United States in regards to drug policy and abuse. Swim has found that the US government spends far too much of its national debt incarcerating non-violent 'criminals'.


    I found a statistic for how mnay people are incarcerated form marijuana alone but with accordance of the rules i will not post a link, but rather the proceeding quote.

    "The actual number of persons jailed for marijuana possession in the U.S., many of whom have plea-bargained down from more serious drug charges, is around 35,000. There are approximately 3,365 local jails in the United States, for an average of 10 to 11 marijuana possession offenders per jail. This figure does not include the 9,000-10,000 incarcerated in federal prisons on marijuana charges, where the average possession has been measured in pounds and tonnage, not grams and ounces."

    I used to have information of how much this costs, but this information seems to have been outdated thus making it useless: however this country is losing money by promoting illegal drug activities and then incarcerating people for such an offense. This is actually worse than it ounds because this is what the United States is doing, the predominant funding organization to foreign countries. What this means is The United States can decided a local issue for another country by simply placing it into the agreement for funding. An example of such an action can be seen currently with such issues as abortion an birth control. It would be nieve to beleive the same is not being done for drugs.
    Also, anyone whom still beleives the government is trying to help them scare tactics is pretty much patetic and needs to do more research. Back in the Nixon administration an appointed team was given the asignment of studying marijuana, in hopes of revealing some sort of negative effects. The results showed that marijuana is harmless and should be decriminilized, most notably the non-profit transport and personal use. What happened however was a totally different story. The memebers of the team were fired and the report was never sent out. It is now a matter of public record after the designated 30 years. There is also a link for that information but again with rules I shan't post it, however i reccomnd googling it and having a read, as it is interesting reading material.
    The sad part is even after this is public record and more recent research actually shows marijuana use to increase brain cells, kill tumors, and combat a few common types of cancer, such as lung and breast. It also helps to kill virus induced glaucoma. This research was done inside the United States where it was dismissed, and then in Canada and Spain, where it wasnt dismissed. To date every single cannibinoid orgainic or synthetic has had anti-tumor effects, yet most countries worldwide still view it as a 'gateway drug' or at the very least an evil of some way. And this is what occurs with a relatively benign substance, with limited psychoactivity, whos psychoactivity could be cut if calamus root were taken with it anyway. SWIM knows that in New York, USA (swims state) the state has taken measures to decriminilize marijuana long ago but since the federal government changed its postition to the War On Drugs, the state has since eradicated its efforts. SWIM beleives that we need to go after nonaddictive drugs however swim is not sure how to go about such a thing. This seems like the perfect thread for this to go, so SWIM asks any of you SWIY's what you think about this and if anyone has any ideas as to how to organize such an effort. Thanks, and sorry if swim gets off topic sometimes; swim has terrible short term memory and ADD, heh. Also sorry SWIM focused on marijuana so much, but i felt it necessary to empahasize what is happening with the least dangerous of all the drugs, as we can expect other drugs to be delt with the a similar, perhaps harsher way. SWIM specifically think cannabis, mushrooms, and mescaline should be legalized, as well as the cocoa leaf. Basically anything in its natural state. Im going to stop talking now in hope that someone will be able to read this whole article before they become elderly.
  2. Benga
    nice article. as swim has already posted here a few times, he strongly believes (all) sustances should be legalised and made available in safe controled settings either because of their relative inoccuity or specifically because of the health danger associated with their use.
    The key is to cut down the prices and the criminal market and to inform and protect the potential user. Making susbtance use a socio-medical problem (if any) rather than a politico-legal issue.

    b
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!