(Huffington Post) In an about face, the United Nations on Wednesday lavishly praised drug decriminalization in its annual report on the state of global drug policy. In previous years, the UN drug czar had expressed skepticism about Portugal’s decriminalization, which removed criminal penalties in 2001 for personal drug possession and emphasized treatment over incarceration. The UN had suggested the policy was in violation of international drug treaties and would encourage “drug tourism.”
But in its 2009 World Drug Report, the UN had little but kind words for Portugal’s radical (by U.S. standards) approach. “These conditions keep drugs out of the hands of those who would avoid them under a system of full prohibition, while encouraging treatment, rather than incarceration, for users. Among those who would not welcome a summons from a police officer are tourists, and, as a result, Portugal’s policy has reportedly not led to an increase in drug tourism,” reads the report. “It also appears that a number of drug-related problems have decreased.”
“The International Narcotics Control Board was initially apprehensive when Portugal changed its law in 2001 (see their annual report for that year), but after a mission to Portugal in 2004, it “noted that the acquisition, possession and abuse of drugs had remained prohibited,” and said “the practice of exempting small quantities of drugs from criminal prosecution is consistent with the international drug control treaties,” reads a footnote to the report.
Also for the first time, the report addresses legalization, but argues against it by writing, “Why unleash a drug epidemic in the developing world for the sake of libertarian arguments made by a pro-drug lobby that has the luxury of access to drug treatment?” Unfortunately, that perception exists because it is a report on drugs, not cannabis alone. It would be laughable to exclaim that legalizing marijuana alone is unleashing a drug epidemic in the developing world. Considering how 47% of all drug arrests in America are for cannabis and a large proportion of funds expended worldwide on drug prohibition are spent on cannabis eradication and prohibition, legalizing marijuana would give drug control offices worldwide more resources to deal with the addictive drugs that are unleashing a drug epidemic in the developing world.
One thing we desperately need to do as reformers is to decouple “drugs” from “cannabis”. We also need to emphasize that “legalization” is a very broad term. We need to point out that both morphine and aspirin are “drugs” and both “legal”, but we regulate them very differently. Beer and Bacardi 151 are both “legal drugs”, but you can get one in any supermarket and the other one only at the adults-only liquor store. Alcohol is federally “legal”, but in California you can get spirits in the supermarket, in Utah you’ve got a ton of hoops to jump through, and in some counties in America, you can’t get it at all.
So when we are calling for “marijuana legalization”, it doesn’t mean that we want heroin and crack sold in convenience stores, it doesn’t even call for marijuana to be sold in convenience stores, it doesn’t even mean your local government has to allow marijuana, period. We just figure if we can come up with a regulatory system that allows adults to purchase and responsibly enjoy Bacardi 151 rum, we should be able to regulate something far less dangerous.
Contact your elected representatives and urge them to 'Stop Arresting Marijuana Smokers'. 
I find I was surprised a little by this report.
Mr. A. Costas is a maroon. His avoidance earlier this year at the UN conference to answer any questions regarding his biased positions confirmed that he was in the pocket of the American DEA, and other global interests, in preventing the general world population from consuming drugs of any kind for any reason..My hope is that he will be relieved of his duties and someone who is willing to take meetings with NGO’s seriously will come to power..The human rights abuses that happen globally over this WAR on DRUGS is insanity at it’s best, and criminal at worst. 10,000 dead in Mexico in the last few years. Ruined land and peoples health in Latin America due to pollution from eradication from the air. War in Afghanistan…Trafficking just a few pounds of weed in many Oceania countries will bring the death penalty. Meanwhile people suffer from lack of cheap pain meds all across Africa and other poor countries. Mr. Costas it’s time to go. You have long out lived your usefulness. Step aside for people who are willing to actually DO SOMETHING…instead of just talking the same old BULLSH*T …
To be fair, we should recognize that there is a lot of recent research into exactly what kind of drugs are in cannabis, especially we like. All those folks back then did not have the benefit of modern research and results. I’m not saying it would have made them more reasonable, just that they would know more about what they are talking about. There’s still a lot we don’t know. Researchers have to have the plant available to them in order to conduct research, and no doubt, you have to jump through a lot of hoops to get permission. Yet another good reason to legalize it.
I agree, just because cannabis has a psychoactive drug in it doesn’t mean that people should be put in jail for possessing it, growing it or using or for anything having to do with cannabis.
I am not offering any logic. I am making a simple observation. Cannabis contains drugs. You say bananas contain THC and poppy seeds contain opium? So what if they do? They don’t have enough of the substances to be any use as a source of drugs, like cannabis is a source of drugs. It doesn’t help efforts to legalize cannabis by clouding the issue with twisted semantics. The opposition is not so easily confused.
At least not in this issue. But as a general posture for political progress, I think it is always best to speak and respect a common language. Where people have misconceptions, it is better approach them with the language they already know.
[...] NORML Stash, 24.6.2009. Hallo! Wenn du hier neu bist, ist der RSS-Feed vielleicht interessant für dich. Wenn [...]
It’s about time that the current status of “hemp and Cannabis” be looked at as an economically viable agricultural product for the farmers of Oregon and the rest of the country.
Hemp/cannabis have a lot in common with the wine grape. Both, can be made into a “drug” but, only one is prohibited from the agricultural production because of antiquated “rule of a few” imposed on the citizens.
Oregon Farmers are not allowed to grow an industrial plant that could have an large impact to the continued viability of their farm operation. The environment farmers create with the mechanicalized agricultural practice with the use of pesticides, herbicides, and ferilizers, that have removed the nutrients needed to grow a crop. Hemp/cannabis is a weed, it grows well without much attention.
Repeal Hemp for our farmers.
The Rev. Sleezy
The Universal Life Church of the Holy Smokes
Portland, OR
That’s a good place to confront the language. And this is what everyone is saying who defends “legalization”. Legalization is always juxtaposed with the promise of taxation which implies licensing and regulation. Compare with prohibitionists who, after these years, could never offer “control” as a word to describe how well they are suppressing cannabis in the Drug War.
Imagine what it would mean to the Drug War if the antiprohibitionists could promise fewer users, especially among minors, and no more drug trafficking accross borders. We can offer real control — cheaper, healthier and with some added bonuses like an exploding fiber industry.
Why should we stop with cannabis? We could probably shut down heroine and cocaine distribution completely with a similar plan of attack. Quit locking people up. Focus on distribution, not possession. Let people grow it themselves.
so bannana’s have thc,and poppy seeds have the opium in them,,so by that logic,,those are drugs??????YOUR WRONG!!!!!herbs are just herbs,,nothing more,nother less,,,put here by god for all to enjoy.its the hand of man that screws everything up.
I think it smells of desperation when you try to change the language to shape the dialog. It is not necessary to twist the English language out of shape in order to defend the drug containing parts of cannabis. Forcing people to stop and change their definitions of such a simple word like “drug” is not likely to even slow people down, especially not prohibitionists. Cannabis contains drugs. So what? Let’s call a spade a spade and quit hiding behind the skirts of our already horribly abused language.
Remember ’1984′ and ‘Down the Looking Glass’? “It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.” “When I use a word, … it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
Cannabis has other uses than just consuming it as a drug. It is just a plant with many uses historically. See http://www.walnet.org/rosebud/ancienthistory.html
If you look at the ‘modern’ meandering definition of marijuana, it is just some sort of substance derived from the ‘parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L.’. Even the Schedule is not clear on whether it is a ‘drug or other substance’.
That it has a psychoactive effect is still no justification for putting people in jail. People who abuse cannabis users are the ones who should be put there.
Congress ‘temporarily’ put it in Schedule 1, then ignored medical advice and left it there. It was Anslinger, and the other drug Czars who called it a menacing drug. He is dead now, so let’s move beyond those hysterical fears.
[...] remarks from our Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy on the release of the UN 2009 World Drug Report, which endorsed drug decriminalization in a reversal of previous policy. Guess which 17-letter [...]
I disagree. Consumption of cannabis is consumption of a therapeutic herb or psychoactive plant. As far as I am concerned, a “drug” requires human synthesis. Willow bark is a therapeutic plant; aspirin is a drug. Opium is a psychoactive plant; morphine and heroin are drugs. Coca leaves are stimulating plants; cocaine is a drug.
The point is that cannabis is natural and drugs are artificial. Cannabis can’t kill you; drugs can. The reason the point is important is from a civil liberties perspective. No authority has any right to declare nature illegal. If I own a plot of land and a plant springs up from it, by God (literally), it’s mine to ingest if I please so long as I don’t disturb others.
I do believe authorities have a right to declare certain drugs illegal, however. Man’s synthesis of coca leaves and opium, for examples, create much more toxic and addictive substances than the natural plants from which they came. I still wouldn’t favor locking up the users of cocaine and heroin (prison’s a lousy rehab).
“One thing we desperately need to do as reformers is to decouple “drugs” from “cannabis”.”
What is the point in doing this? For all effective purposes the consumption of ‘cannabis’ means the consumption of a drug. Aren’t people’s minds clouded too much already about the issue?
The only reason it might make sense to do this is if we started reminding people that the world is missing a highly valuable agricultural product in cannabis for the production of fiber and byproducts of seeds. All of these things are available from the same cannabis plant that people harvest for the drug containing parts in the leaf and flower.
But nobody is doing that.
[...] remarks from our Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy on the release of the UN 2009 World Drug Report, which endorsed drug decriminalization in a reversal of previous policy. Guess which 17-letter [...]
I try to avoid the word “legalization” because, as you noted, people think it means what is actually going on with prohibition. Better terms are “regulate” or “control”.
Here’s a way you might approach it in reverse. Ask someone if they favor a system where anybody who wants to can sell liquor anywhere they want to. They can sell it to whomever they wish at whatever price. They can get their liquor supply from anyone who makes it, whether it’s House of Bacardi or some dude with a bathtub still. They don’t have to check IDs and they are also allowed to sell heroin, cocaine, and meth along with their alcohol.
They’ll say “of course not!” Then you start asking why… “Why not let anyone sell alcohol?” “Why should we check IDs for alcohol?” and so forth. Let them explain to you, bit by bit, why regulation and control of alcohol is superior to your premise. Once you’ve got their rhetorical leg firmly in the center of the bear trap, point out that your premise of “alcohol gone wild” is how marijuana is treated today, and their explanation for alcohol control is exactly what you suggest for marijuana.
I like 180′s
:)
The evidence in Portugal (Spain too)is hard to deny, isn’t it? While I’m sure there are still leaders here who will continue to stick their heads in the sand, these facts will be hard for voters to disregard.
Props to The Netheralnds, as well. You held your ground all this time. You looked some of the powerful forces in the eye and THEY blinked.
Respect!
“The UN Office of Drugs and Crime Executive Director, Antonio Maria Costa acknowledges that controls have generated an illicit black market of macro-economic proportions that uses violence and corruption”
The reason people favor decrim over legalization is because they don’t know what either word means.
They believe that “legalization” means no rules at all and that the cartels and drug dealers would be legalized and kids could legally smoke in public libraries.
They don’t know what decrim means either but they know that it’s not as big a thing as legalization.
We have to find a way to educate the general public if we want to get the right policy implemented!