Finally A Major Change in Drug Poliicy (Worldwide)

Virgin Website

Almost finally...

Richard Branson is giving a huge push today on worldwide decriminalization of illegal drugs. He posted today on his website his spilling the beans early to put pressure on the last vestiges of the "prisons/law enforcement" power structure...in USA.

His status report is encouaging on making use a medical issue rather than crimes.

I personally do not any drugs so no impact on me.

I am mobile so minimal OP this time.

a reply to: Granite

Good, we should treat drugs like alcohol and make it a social issue not a criminal one.

Like you said if you don't do drugs then it will have no impact.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Granite

Good, we should treat drugs like alcohol and make it a social issue not a criminal one.

Like you said if you don't do drugs then it will have no impact.

Well the drunk driving laws are not a part of this change in policy but a good look at the results of change in policy results may surprise us.

a reply to: Granite

Wasn't talking about drunk driving just that the consumption of alcohol and possession is a social issue when it comes to abuse. Would still want dui laws with drug decriminalization.
Think it was Portugal that decriminalized drugs anf it worked out well for them.

OK, does that mean I won't have to subsidize people who get in over their heads with addiction?

You can say all you want that it doesn't affect me if I don't use, but so long as my tax money goes to pay for people who use and are addicted and can't support themselves as a result, then it very much does.

I'm not talking about treatment. I'm talking about enabling.

originally posted by: ketsuko
OK, does that mean I won't have to subsidize people who get in over their heads with addiction?

You can say all you want that it doesn't affect me if I don't use, but so long as my tax money goes to pay for people who use and are addicted and can't support themselves as a result, then it very much does.

I'm not talking about treatment. I'm talking about enabling.

Thats why you wack a heavy tax on the drug it self.

What we do here in the UK with tobacco and alcohol.

Make the user pay for it.

originally posted by: ketsuko
OK, does that mean I won't have to subsidize people who get in over their heads with addiction?

You can say all you want that it doesn't affect me if I don't use, but so long as my tax money goes to pay for people who use and are addicted and can't support themselves as a result, then it very much does.

I'm not talking about treatment. I'm talking about enabling.

One of the few taxes I support. But I believe we should legalize, regulate and tax drugs like alcohol. Only if the taxes collected from drug sales are used for rehab and education. Anything left politicians will be fist fighting to see who can waste it the quickest.

As an adult you should be able to alter your consciousness with any plant/chemical that you choose. Freedom means access to all avenues of exploration.

a reply to: crazyewok

Taxing it doesn't stop it from being used and doesn't stop junkies from creating themselves.

After watching cigarette tax after cigarette tax get levied, I've seen smokers pay for everything except things related to their own vice, and if the amazing does happen and the sin tax actually works, then the lost revenue has to be made up from another source.

a reply to: ketsuko

And you probably pay for more alcohol abuse then anything.

I think the programs will always be there and should be. Help is better then letting them continue down the path which will still cost you money when they od or hurt someone.

And heavy tax would lift the burden on you, think that was the point. Heavy tax to pay for the rehabs.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: crazyewok

Taxing it doesn't stop it from being used and doesn't stop junkies from creating themselves.

After watching cigarette tax after cigarette tax get levied, I've seen smokers pay for everything except things related to their own vice, and if the amazing does happen and the sin tax actually works, then the lost revenue has to be made up from another source.

The point isnt to stop them useing it. It to pay for any expenses they cause.

a reply to: Sremmos80

I'm not talking about treatment. I'm talking about enabling.

That's why my first post contained these words.

Excuse my cynicism, but I repeat that I have yet to see a sin tax linked into a closed loop system where its revenues only went to programs used by those taxed to raise the revenue in question.

You can levee heavy sin taxes on your vice of choice, but most of the time, they only pass because people think the revenue will go to things like education and the like.

a reply to: ketsuko

What are you enabling tho? All your taxes would go to is rehab.

www.businessinsider.com.au...

From the link above , interesting numbers . If Australia tax revenue from smokers was put back into cancer research who knows the breakthroughs that could be made .

His speech titled, Thank you For Smoking, he praises nicotine fiends for their $8 billion a year contribution to the economy and says he did the maths: Last year smokers cost the health care system $320 million and another $150 million in bushfire control.

Ok so now you have seen from the link the revenue from smoking what absolutely staggers me is below .

The announcement comes a day after Prime Minister Kevin Rudd pledged to "get serious" about the $35 billion cost of tobacco-related disease in Australia.
In announcing $19.5 million in funding for cancer research in Sydney on Wednesday, Mr Rudd said cancer was the "number two killer" in Australia and therefore a "number one priority" for the Government.

So now i am confused , 8 billion or 35 . But we are all saved , the goverment is spending 19.5 million out of the 8 billion on cancer research . Yes we are surely saved .

originally posted by: ketsuko
OK, does that mean I won't have to subsidize people who get in over their heads with addiction?

You can say all you want that it doesn't affect me if I don't use, but so long as my tax money goes to pay for people who use and are addicted and can't support themselves as a result, then it very much does.

I'm not talking about treatment. I'm talking about enabling.

How exactly are your tax dollars being used to enable addicts?

Again, the rhetoric of you - you - paying for those that "can't support themselves."

Actually, a lot of your tax dollars are being used to support those who are already obscenely wealthy, and for military purposes (including the debts on wars; Nam, Iraq, etc).

I get your point and I agree. Those who feed off of the system at our dismay need to go. You're just pointing your finger at the wrong people.

Again, how is your tax dollars being used to enable addicts who can't support themselves? And who are these addicts, and how do you know they can't support themselves?

originally posted by: RomeByFire

originally posted by: ketsuko
OK, does that mean I won't have to subsidize people who get in over their heads with addiction?

You can say all you want that it doesn't affect me if I don't use, but so long as my tax money goes to pay for people who use and are addicted and can't support themselves as a result, then it very much does.

I'm not talking about treatment. I'm talking about enabling.

How exactly are your tax dollars being used to enable addicts?

Again, the rhetoric of you - you - paying for those that "can't support themselves."

Actually, a lot of your tax dollars are being used to support those who are already obscenely wealthy, and for military purposes (including the debts on wars; Nam, Iraq, etc).

I get your point and I agree. Those who feed off of the system at our dismay need to go. You're just pointing your finger at the wrong people.

Again, how is your tax dollars being used to enable addicts who can't support themselves? And who are these addicts, and how do you know they can't support themselves?

Maybe referring to drug users on taxpayer assistance???? Over the years I have known several functional alcoholics, can't really recall too many drug addicts able to keep it together for a job. At least not for very long. But other people may have different experiences.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Here's a Bloomberg article from just a few days ago showing just how much excessive alcohol consumption costs the USA:

The Centers for Disease Control has put a figure on how much it costs the American economy: $249 billion. That includes spending on health care as well as the economic toll of lost productivity, car crashes, crime, and deaths attributable to excessive alcohol consumption.

Bloomberg

$249 billion -- with a "B". To put that in perspective:

Washington spends $92 billion on corporate welfare (excluding TARP) versus $71 billion on homeland security

heritage.org

So American drinking habits are costing nearly 3.5 times more than all this "corporate welfare" that corporations like Walmart get.

But it doesn't end there:

The CDC has previously estimated that one in 10 deaths of working-age Americans are caused by too much drinking.

Bloomberg

So a substance that is 100% legal in all 50 states, ingrained into our culture as "acceptable", celebrated, and glamorized is killing 10 percent of us and costing us billions ever year. If that wasn't bad enough, it's apparently on the rise:

The total cost of excessive drinking to the economy is rising. The last time the CDC made a similar calculation, excess drinking was blamed for $224 billion in costs, estimated for 2006. The increase, about 2.7 percent annually from 2006 to 2010, outpaced inflation.

We're slowly drinking ourselves to death. We're throwing back a solvent that kills organic material, made from rotting fruits and vegetables, and costing us all billions and killing a tenth of our population at the same time. Well done, America.

And it's all legal.

originally posted by: ketsuko
OK, does that mean I won't have to subsidize people who get in over their heads with addiction?

You can say all you want that it doesn't affect me if I don't use, but so long as my tax money goes to pay for people who use and are addicted and can't support themselves as a result, then it very much does.

I'm not talking about treatment. I'm talking about enabling.

I can guarantee it will cost you less tax dollars to keep a junkie high every single day of the year than keep him incarcerated, food for thought.

a reply to: Granite

If you follow in-bedded links in the original headline to www.unodc.org... you will see that ,

UNODC Spokesperson Statement

Vienna, 19 October 2015 - "The briefing paper on decriminalisation mentioned in many of today's media reports, and intended for dissemination and discussion at a conference in Kuala Lumpur, is neither a final nor formal document from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, and cannot be read as a statement of UNODC policy.

It remains under review and UNODC regrets that, on this occasion, there has been an unfortunate misunderstanding about the nature and intent of this briefing paper. UNODC emphatically denies reports that there has been pressure on UNODC to withdraw the document. But, it is not possible to withdraw what is not yet ready.

Overall, UNODC remains committed to the balanced approach that, in particular, promotes alternatives to incarceration in line with international human rights standards."

For more information, please contact:

[snipped]

Nothing about the original article is official but rather just a research opinion that is brought forward for discussion.

Even though I do support the idea that the drug war should be halted, I do not ever see it actually happening in that there is too much money being made by all sides by it's continuation. Just too many supposedly legitimate business, banking, entities and corrupt government potiticians getting filthy rich.

I saw this article earlier today and after also seeing a documentary report via Pirate TV about the destruction the drug industry and subsequent war is causing south of the border, I started wondering about what happened to the billions of drug dollars when one of these drug lords was captured or killed. I know it's not buried in their back yards. It has to be deposited in several banks around the world but just who ends up with it when or if they are killed or captured? I think it is probably a win, win for government. They rake in tax dollars to fight the war and also rake in the profits when these kingpins get too big to handle and are killed or captured.

"IT'S ALL A GOVERNMENT CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE AND RACKET".

a reply to: Granite

Every time I think of the drug war, I think of how during the 1920's banning one single substance, alcohol, required a constitutional amendment. Now there are thousands if not tens of thousands of substances they ban without consulting anyone. The level of stupidity people have to allow the US Feds to trample over them is shocking. So, this new push gives me little hope.

Frankly the hypocrisy is so thick it seems hopeless to me. Its my body, so its my choice. Hard drugs should be my choice to, unless or until I physically hurt someone else because of them, any and all drugs are my natural right as a human being, and certainly I will not wait for the false god of government to authorize the drugs I prefer to consume them.

Alcohol is a hard drug that kills tens of thousands each year. Fact. But somehow that one gets a free ride because it managed to have an improved social image. Yet, it kills more than heroin. When I'm older, I will definitely make it a point to try a variety of hard drugs, partly just as a middle finger to those who say I can't have them.

Using marijuana enabled a number of positive spiritual experiences that I question whether would have happened otherwise. Its a tool for spiritual growth, and I won't let 10x moron uncle Sam pretend to know better on that point. The flaw in majority rule for people like me is that the majority has an average intelligence. So, I have an average intelligence telling me, a smart guy, what to do, which I resent. Hey majority, you are idiots compared to me so I don't like you telling me what to do and I greatly resent it, because I know better than you at decision-making. So majority, do me a favor and just let me figure out whats good for me, because I'm better at it than you.

The second even larger flaw in majority rule is in most cases, nobody cares about you more than you. There are plenty of exceptions, but that is the dominant fact. So, why should people who care for me less than I do be the ones to decide what I should be putting in my body? Joe Six-Pack cares more about Joe Six-Pack than you care about him. So, since Joe Six-Pack cares for Joe Six-Pack, let Joe Six-Pack decide whether putting a six-pack in his gut is the best thing for him. If he ends up hurting others as a result, then only after that is it right to take away his six-pack.