Some views on the ‘war on drugs’
* Use the left and right arrows mid way down the screen to skip to the previous(<) or next (>) clip.
* Hover over the bottom of the image and a series of thumbnail images will appear with the titles of the clips. You can click on any of them to watch instantly.
* Use the lower left and right arrows to move to the next / previous set of thumbnails
The Avaaz petition is at http://www.avaaz.org/en/end_the_war_on_drugs/
The Global Commission on Drugs is at http:///www.globalcommissionondrugs.org
The purpose of The Global Commission on Drug Policy is to bring to the international level an informed, science-based discussion about humane and effective ways to reduce the harm caused by drugs to people and societies.
The Global Commission on Drug Policy will build on the successful experience of the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy convened by former presidents Cardoso of Brazil, Gaviria of Colombia and Zedillo of Mexico. Persuaded that the association between drug trade, violence and corruption was a threat to democracy in Latin America, the Commission reviewed the current ‘war on drugs’ policies and opened a public debate about an issue that tends to be surrounded by fear and misinformation.
Disclaimer: All reasonable measures have been taken to ensure the quality, reliability, and accuracy of the information in this interview at time of filming. Some details may have been changed in the interests of protection of others. Know Drugs is a platform for airing opinions and experiences and the views expressed in this interview do not necessarily reflect the views of Know Drugs. Know Drugs content is provided for general information only, and should not be treated as a substitute for the medical advice of your own doctor, psychiatrist or any other health care professional. Know Drugs is not responsible or liable for any diagnosis, decision or self-assessment made by a user based on the content of its interviews. Know Drugs is not liable for the contents of any external internet sites listed, nor does it endorse any commercial product or service mentioned or advised on any of the sites. Know Drugs is a hub for discussion and does not advocate illegal behaviour of any sort.
This introduction is full of untruths
-”One of the subjects we ask people about in our interviews is the War on Drugs. With attention being drawn to this subject via the Global Commission on Drugs and the related AVAAZ petition to end this war and regulate drugs, we’ve pulled together a playlist of clips from the interviews we’ve published so far to give you some diverse views on the subject. In this playlist are addicts, recreational drug users, people who’ve never used drugs, a drug prevention campaigner, a psychologist and a famous author. They share their views on the War on Drugs…”
There IS NO WAR ON DRUGS!! This is the problem, the law is misconstrued to be about prohibiting objects when this is a complete lie, and the so-called reformists are unwittingly caught up in it. You cannot regulate drugs either – the law regulates human actions with certain property to target the misuse of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs
It may be an expression in popular use, but that’s because we are enveloped in a prohibitionist paradigm. As it says in Wiki – Richard Nixon coined the expression – nuff said.
It’s an expression. Exactly. Which means for the purposes of conveying an idea in this post, and in the project generally, it is useful.
Quibbling about the semantics of the post is not.
You haven’t the slightest idea what I am talking aboutg Adam. To call this semantics is wrong – the reality of oppression is law and law is nothing but words. The idea it conveys as with the lies of “illicit drugs” or “illegal drugs” is a huge diservice to the countless millions who have suffered through this hate crime being waged against peaceful persons. Calling it a war on objects is like calling the bombing of a city as a war on concrete. Not only that, these terms mask the improper use of the law – the tfalse erms legal and illegal drugs do not exist in law, and obscure that the law is an instrument to regulate persons with respect to harmful drugs. It does not regulate drugs, we cannot regulate persons fairly until this is understood. Rather than seek to prohibit, the law is supposed to regulate persons causing social harm – if you start from the drug rather than the person, no regulation is actually possible as the issue of use vs misuse doesn’t arise until the person is involved, and even then there is no mandate for interference until they cause harm.
I understand your point perfectly.
What I don’t understand is the need you felt to label a perfectly constructive and honestly produced post with the line “contains many untruths”, simply because it uses a commonly held term to convey an idea. To attempt to use words such as ‘war on some people who take some drugs’ instead would not convey the idea to enough people well enough.
Is the lack of inverted commas around ‘war on drugs’ a reason to label someone’s work as untrue? Is it a reason to come across as so aggressive?
Adam, with respect, if you understood it ‘perfectly’ then I consider that you too would be opposing work that propagates the very lies that are responsible for our oppression. These constructs are the basis of the problem, even when reformists talk about ‘regulating drugs’ and there being a ‘war on drugs’, we perpetuate the myths that are used against us, its not the arbitrary control of objects that is at stake. It’s our minds.
The real irony is that when confronted with this, rather than thank me for it and determine to make tomorrow’s effort more incisive, persons often argue the toss complaining about their worthy sentiment, semantics, and my tone – be honest, none of that is relevant – what matters is that it is understood as it is, and not as it is touted. I cannot believe that you think your vastly improved summary of reality of it being a war on people who take some drugs is too much to bear for people to listen to. Actually even this description falls short of the problem – it’s a war on the potential to take drugs (ie for everyone) and the ignoring of two of the most harmful drugs (as well as ignoring many dangerous pharmaceuticals) – the whole artificial divide, created thru the misuse of language intended to deceive. I cannot tolerate the de-personalisation of the subject of this arbitrary and diabolical policy that vests upon the memes we are given by Nixon, and these being the one’s most ironically used by those who have not had the benefit of reading an insightful critique.
Fact is, anyone can jump on this bandwagon and use a few rehearsed sound-bites – it’s not that you need any qualifications, scientific rigour or have done any original research to call oneself an activist or run various initiatives and petitions in this arena. Reality is that we consume ideas in packets from various sources and buy into and invest in them. There is an impasse that can only be transcended through creating a new paradigm that accurately describes what it going on. It just isn’t good enough to trot out the old stuff without thinking deeply upon it. I wish people would acknowledge that what I am saying about the law is fact, and that they are protecting something they were tricked into believing. Best thing is to be prepared to budge, this war isn’t going to be won with the same tools people have been using for donkeys years. This isn’t a straightforward issue that can be entered into using everyday words – this is concerning the limits of perception and the boundaries of your existence. This is about chemistry and mind control. Mind control doesn’t come out and say ‘welcome to mind control’ and those who don’t want it can sign this petition to let us know how you feel. The whole process is mind control; even the bulk of the opposition to it is inadvertently saying the same thing whilst ostensibly listing objections. Do you really feel it’s aggressive to complain? To me it’s just well meaning mediocrity that paradoxically entrenches misunderstandings and hinders the transformation I seek.
Oh dear, lets ee if we can sort this out:
There is a war on drugs because it’s an accepted term which which is understood to mean prohibition.
Prohibition however is not a form of drug control because it focuses on what people can are allowed to do, not on the substances themselves.
Prohibition is confrontational as it simply seeks to prevent people doing something they want to do.
Darryl is less semantically correct when he says we can’t control drugs, drug control would mean controlling the trade which is of course a human activity.
So drug control, like prohibition, is a control over what people are allowed to do. However, the difference is real drug control – regulation and control of the trade – would have the support of the consumer because it would ensure a consistent standard of supply coupled with protection for the vulnerable.
Proper drug control – legalisation and regulation of the trade – would also allow us to know what’s actually going on.
Under prohibition we have next to no idea because we can’t measure the trade. Under prohibition we don’t know what’s on sale, where from or who is selling it.
Incidentally the clips include comments from “a drug prevention campaigner”, but not from a law reform campaigner? Why?
Derek, ‘prohibition’ is also a loose way of saying we endure a policy of restricting activites with controlled drugs to research, medical and specialised uses. You make a useful point in that you have distinguished two forms of the meaning of ‘drug control’. We mean is two things, one is something which I would accept can be described as drug regulation (even though it refers to regulating persons at the end of the day) which concerns drug production and purity etc, and the other concerns how people can access them, and I don’t accept that the latter is drug control, it’s people control, its a very vital restriction on rights to access mind states wea re talking about. Right now its the failed policy of people control masquerading as drug control that has lost control completely of it’s goal and methods. It’s not able to accommodate the regulation of persons because it believe that it is concerned with a war on objects, determines that they are illegal objects. Most ironically, the reform movement start from the same premise and want to argue out of the box they agree to be put it. What I have a problem with is your view that because people accept it, we should accept it, who is leading here? Was the world was actally flat because people accepted it was? Perhaps it was, the best knowledge we have is truth, until its found to be wrong, it was true, but now it isn’t. That not the same as pervasive ignorance making something true that we know isn’t true – its the very acceptance of control memes that we are trying to break, not indulge in them.
Thanks Darryl. Quotation marks duly added.
Here are a couple of other pieces you might want to take to task too.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mary-ann-sieghart/mary-ann-sieghart-a-war-we-should-fight-no-longer-2290818.html
http://www.countthecosts.org/resource-library/noam-chomsky-war-drugs
Derek – this is a selection of clips from interviews published so far. There are more to come and the breadth of backgrounds and opinions will continue to grow.
Cara
Daryl. How about calling it the war against us using drugs instead then?
I think it does impact upon users, the only issues are that it only impacts upn the users of some drugs, and I don’t want to give the impression that using drugs is illegal either. Let’s not be afraid to have a sentence, some things, like complicaed ideas cannot easily be reduced to a three word slogan.
i do not consider marijuana a drug…there should be no “so called war on it”..we fill our courts and jails spending tons of money each year on housing inmates for marijuana only crimes!!! it is WAY less harmful than smoking and alcohol…its just another B.S. way for big bro to controll Americans more…I’m on many pain meds due to a disease that has melted the bones in my spine…without smoking. I could not be able to eat…it helps with other physical pains as well as mood. It is not legal in Illinois, yet i do what i have to until the Illinois house stops being ignorant. MANY MANY people suffer without or have to go around shady dealers..”just for marijuana”…and these shady people “try” to press worse/harder things…and or your just around alot of scary people….simply for a flower top to smoke,”marijuana”…after time of smoking pot you get used to the side effects..you don’t act all high and silly anymore kinda like when people take some pill medication for the first time…after a while of taking it…you don’t notice the negative side effect anymore. There are so many ignorant/ misinformed people, on this issue…. I honestly believe that if marijuana is illegal, alcohol should be too as it is way worse. but then again…who am i to think i know anything?