|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:26 am Post subject: UN: Latin America undermining drug war by decriminalizing |
 |
|
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2010/0224/UN-Latin-America-undermining-drug-war-by-decriminalizing-drugs
| Quote: |
UN: Latin America undermining drug war by decriminalizing drugs
Latin America, being asked to stop decriminalizing drugs, received a harsh slap on the wrist by a United Nations body today for the burgeoning movement in various countries to decriminalize small amounts of drugs.
Drug reform activists have hailed the moves as a new approach that refocuses resources on big-time traffickers and views drug abuse as a health problem instead of a police problem. (How Mexico quietly decriminalized drug use.)
But the Vienna-based International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), in its annual report released today, stated its concern over Latin America�s �growing movement to decriminalize the possession of controlled drugs, in particular cannabis.�
After decades of hewing to the US�s tough stance, some Latin American nations in recent months have moved toward more leniency for personal possession, particularly of marijuana.
Last year Mexico decriminalized possession of heroine, cocaine, and other drugs found in small amounts. Argentina followed with a Supreme Court ruling stating the unconstitutionality of the arrest of five youths carrying a small amount of marijuana. Brazil has also introduced legislation to replace jail sentences with educational measures.
The INCB report says: �The board is concerned that the movement, if not resolutely countered by the respective governments, will undermine national and international efforts to combat the abuse of and illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs. �The movement poses a threat to the coherence and effectiveness of the international drug control system and sends the wrong message to the general public.�
Whether the message will have an impact on the movement remains to be seen.
It could be used by those governments who still support the so-called �war on drugs� to bolster their positions.
�It will be used politically,� says Jorge Hern�ndez Tinajero, the president of Cupihd, a group in Mexico that disseminates information about drug policies. �Those governments in the region pushing for a war against drugs will use it to bolster their argument.�
'Unwarranted intrusions'?
But the INCB was rebuked by leading drug policy-reform groups. The Transnational Institute (TNI) and the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) said in a press release today that �the criticisms clearly overstep the INCB's mandate and constitute unwarranted intrusions into these countries' sovereign decision-making.�
And while the INCB also stated its regret that �influential personalities, including former high-level politicians in countries in South America, have publicly expressed their support for that movement,� Mr. Tinajero says the debate on reforming drug policies will continue to be robust.
His group just hosted a two-day panel, including former president of Colombia, C�sar Gaviria Trujillo, on reforming the drug strategy in Mexico, which has been dogged by violent drug trafficking that has left over 17,000 dead since Mexican President Felipe Calder�n took office and declared war on organized crime.
The former Colombian president is not the only high-level person to support drug reforms. The former president of Brazil, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, also led a group that published a report urging President Obama to decriminalize marijuana use. |
Yes another reason to despise the UN. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's not even the worst of it. Check out what the UN's official stance on Portugal's decriminalization experiment was less than a year ago:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/24/un-backs-drug-decriminali_n_220013.html
It seems as though those with a vested interest in continued prohibition are stepping up their game now that the softer propaganda method is losing its hold. I imagine a conversation between a CIA official and some UN staff went something along the lines of "Oh, wow. I know we said you were free to say that, but we didn't think you'd actually say that..." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
So the UN is whining about LA drug policies. Not like the UN can do anything about it.
But yes, if the UN was sensible, it would be applauding and supporting those countries' policies, not condemning them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The U.N. was, is, and will continue to be a totally pathetic organization. Some sort of hypothetical world organization with a limited, human-rights focused mission might be useful, but the U.N. is just a waste of time and money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
This sheds some light on why we haven't been able to even legalize pot in over 40 years of trying. Attitudes are so entrenched. Everyone is bought off. I remember thinking all those years ago that it was right around the corner. 
Lots of money in drug enforcement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| The U.N. was, is, and will continue to be a totally pathetic organization. Some sort of hypothetical world organization with a limited, human-rights focused mission might be useful, but the U.N. is just a waste of time and money. |
I think you rip on it a little too much. It has effectively kept the peace in:
Cyprus, Haiti (before the earthquake), Sierra Leone, and Liberia. It has mixed success in the Congo. And that's off the top of my head.
I should also note that studies show that its peace keeping missions are in fact not a waste of time and money, and actually have a great rate of return. Much better than our recent invasions. 
And if it is pathetic, I'd look more at the member states than the organization itself. For instance in this article, how much influence do you think the US had in this statement? As Street Magic's link notes, the UN actually had good things to say about decriminalization in Portugal. So which is the actual voice of the UN? Given its wide spectrum of members, both no doubt are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fox's analysis stands. One of the most dismal failures of the UN was Saddam Hussein's manipulation of the Oil for Food Program. He used oil to make billions for his slaughterhouse of a state amongst the thoroughly anachronistic permanent members of the UN Security Council (at the expense of untold misery caused to millions of Iraqis). Next there's the fact that Cuba, China, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan sit amongst the Human Rights Council (somehow, they manage to pause briefly from abusing human rights in order to do so). The UN Commission on Sustainable Development? Invited North Korea to become a member - a wonderful tribute to the 2 million North Koreans (at least) who've been starved, worked and in many cases boiled to death in Kim's gulag. Burmese, Sudanese and Zimbabwean governments have committed genocide and ethnic cleansing and have been practically ignored, and the UN did indeed prove totally pathetic, a waste of time and money as the wholesale slaughter ensued in Somalia, Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
Particularly in the light of this obscene take on the peaceful (and indeed medical!) use of drugs, all UN capital would simply be blown to smitherines without delay, if I had any say in it - preferably with its army of boorish and bumbling bureaucrats inside. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| And if it is pathetic, I'd look more at the member states than the organization itself. For instance in this article, how much influence do you think the US had in this statement? |
Yeah, that's what I was getting at (more the "US was involved" part than the "UN is alright" part though). The more recent statement seem to focus on Mexico "undermining" the "War on Drugs," so it's pretty obvious what interests are being protected there.
By the way, I love the notion that nations successful in ending prohibition by moving from policies of punishment to those of more sensible harm reduction are "undermining" the US's "war."
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| As Street Magic's link notes, the UN actually had good things to say about decriminalization in Portugal. So which is the actual voice of the UN? Given its wide spectrum of members, both no doubt are. |
That was my first impression too, but if you look at both articles again...:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/24/un-backs-drug-decriminali_n_220013.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2010/0224/UN-Latin-America-undermining-drug-war-by-decriminalizing-drugs
... you'll find that both statements were about the same exact topic released in consecutive editions of the same annual report by the same International Narcotics Control Board. The recent attack on Canada's medical marijuana program was also made by the UN's INCB.
While it's often the case that news articles twist around the details to highlight interesting coincidences or acts of hypocrisy, this complete reversal on decriminalization policy with no new evidence backing it (despite plenty of hard evidence from Portugal backing the last report) is the real deal of total nonsensical contradiction.
I mean, the UN's INCB went from:
| Quote: |
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.
...
It also appears that a number of drug-related problems have decreased. |
to:
| Quote: |
| The movement poses a threat to the coherence and effectiveness of the international drug control system and sends the wrong message to the general public. |
In under a year, they went from espousing the evidence based social benefits of decriminalization of all drugs in small quantities to attacking it for the vague risk of "sending the wrong message." Decriminalization works so well that it can only be attacked by appealing to the circular logic of drugs being bad because they send the wrong message about drugs not being bad.
And for those who believe the UN is laughably powerless in their attempts to influence the policies of individual nations, unfortunately, their INCB's reports actually do have an impact on how other nations manage their drug laws. It's commonly suggested that the Netherlands would outright end all prohibition, but instead stick to extreme "non-enforcement" to comply with the INCB's standards. Similarly, the article about the INCB attacking Canada's medical marijuana program has already prompted Justice Minister Nicholson to respond agreeably:
| Quote: |
| Nicholson said he took heart from that, adding it �plays very well� into the government�s efforts to push through a crime bill containing tougher drugs-offences sentencing provisions that has been held up in the Senate. |
Last edited by Street Magic on Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:06 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| The U.N. was, is, and will continue to be a totally pathetic organization. Some sort of hypothetical world organization with a limited, human-rights focused mission might be useful, but the U.N. is just a waste of time and money. |
I think you rip on it a little too much. It has effectively kept the peace in:
Cyprus, Haiti (before the earthquake), Sierra Leone, and Liberia. It has mixed success in the Congo. And that's off the top of my head.
I should also note that studies show that its peace keeping missions are in fact not a waste of time and money, and actually have a great rate of return. Much better than our recent invasions. |
I don't disagree that it has some limited, individual successes, which is why I'm willing to entertain the idea of a much more restrictive, focused U.N. like entity. For the little good it does, though, it's got a lot of problems under its belt (Sergio mentioned some; I personally feel the makeup of the Human Rights Council is one of the biggest farces of our age) , and is overall fairly ineffective.
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| And if it is pathetic, I'd look more at the member states than the organization itself. |
Of course ultimately the failures of the U.N. represent failures in the governments which partake in it, which in turn represent failures in the voters who elect said governments (in the case of democracies) or failures in the citizens who refuse to oust said governments (in the case of dictatorships). It all always ultimately comes back to the character of the common man and the various values of the given culture he lives under. That doesn't change the result, though.
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| For instance in this article, how much influence do you think the US had in this statement? As Street Magic's link notes, the UN actually had good things to say about decriminalization in Portugal. So which is the actual voice of the UN? Given its wide spectrum of members, both no doubt are. |
And the fact that it can as an organization so blatantly contradict itself just shows how pathetic it is, honestly. The U.N. should have a focused, pro-legalization message. Everything points to legalization being the proper method for dealing with drugs. If it's willing to condemn Latin America for correctly moving towards legalization -- or even more ridiculously, willing to condemn Canada -- I'm willing to yet again condemn it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not going to read the full reports, but HufPo quotes this and it seems to be the core of why South America and Portugal are treated differently -
| Quote: |
| "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?" |
So, should drugs only be legalized in developed countries with an educated society, or is access to drugs a human right?
(I would argue an educated society is actually more important than one with access to drug treatment; and I'd say that the UN does have the right to 'suggest' methods of development, it certainly does economically)
I think you slightly mis-read this. The UN is concerned about people growing medical marajuana then selling it illegally. This is something Canada should address, if you're going to legalize it, then legalize it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| "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?" |
Pro-drug lobby? What does that even mean? Most people who are for legalization support it because we feel legalization will reduce violence and criminal activity. Legalizing drugs in South America isn't going to result in an epidemic anymore than it did in Portugal. I also don't think there's anything particularly Libertarian about the argument that drug production should be a regulated and taxed industry rather than a criminal enterprise. People who want to use drugs are going to use drugs. Far better for the government to enforce reasonable standards of quality and use drug sales as a source of revenue for drug rehabilitation programs than for the government to waste money and harm its citizens by criminalizing drug usage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Legalizing drugs in South America isn't going to result in an epidemic anymore than it did in Portugal. |
So, what about legalizing the international sale of heroin into a 'poor' country. Would a company be able to increase consumption of this drug, would an uneducated and poor populace be able to resist this drug and would it hurt a country's development?
(Yes, No, Yes for me) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
I'm not going to read the full reports, but HufPo quotes this and it seems to be the core of why South America and Portugal are treated differently -
| Quote: |
| "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?" |
So, should drugs only be legalized in developed countries with an educated society, or is access to drugs a human right?
(I would argue an educated society is actually more important than one with access to drug treatment; and I'd say that the UN does have the right to 'suggest' methods of development, it certainly does economically) |
I think the sentence introducing the quote you cited explains pretty well what the context was:
| Quote: |
| This year's report begins with a lengthy rebuttal of arguments in favor of legalization. |
The INCB was never in favor of legalization, but was impressed with the evidence for decriminalization's benefits in Portugal in last year's report.
Also, the obvious target of the more recent report, Mexico, does have access to medical facilities for treating addiction and withdrawal and isn't
exactly a developing country itself.
| RufusW wrote: |
I think you slightly mis-read this. The UN is concerned about people growing medical marajuana then selling it illegally. This is something Canada should address, if you're going to legalize it, then legalize it. |
Nah, I understand the specifics of why they're going after medical marijuana policy in Canada. They want Canada to abide by a 1961 convention on narcotics (which cannabis isn't, by the way, making the International Narcotics Control Board's involvement here all the more ridiculous), which would make the government the sole distributor of medical cannabis, which would necessarily restrict the efficacy and availability of cannabis for those in need. For the same reason you wouldn't want to switch a terminally ill patient off of a painkiller that was working to try something new out for the sake of complying with an obscure, outdated, and generally unenforced safety code, it probably wouldn't be the best idea to force medical cannabis patients to go through a new registration process so they can apply and possibly get accepted for a new cannabis supply in new policy restricted quantities which might work as well as the stuff they were already successfully treating themselves with. In practice, that would do nothing to the illicit cannabis supply and would only serve to hassle medical cannabis patients.
The issue is those who use the medical cannabis laws to supply or engage in recreational cannabis use, which necessitates coming after medical cannabis laws and medical cannabis patients in making the empty gesture towards an official restriction of legal supply.
| RufusW wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Legalizing drugs in South America isn't going to result in an epidemic anymore than it did in Portugal. |
So, what about legalizing the international sale of heroin into a 'poor' country. Would a company be able to increase consumption of this drug, would an uneducated and poor populace be able to resist this drug and would it hurt a country's development?
(Yes, No, Yes for me) |
You would have to establish first that legalization would indeed increase the supply of heroin instead of simply eliminating the punishment of essentially victimless crimes. All the evidence we have available today suggests it wouldn't have an effect on the supply, save potentially reducing it through regulated heroin markets in wealthier nations making the trafficking of heroin in poverty stricken regions too unprofitable to catch on. If these hypothetical undeveloped regions are poor, would be legal heroin suppliers probably wouldn't stand to gain much from pursuing customers there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Legalizing drugs in South America isn't going to result in an epidemic anymore than it did in Portugal. |
So, what about legalizing the international sale of heroin into a 'poor' country. Would a company be able to increase consumption of this drug, would an uneducated and poor populace be able to resist this drug and would it hurt a country's development?
(Yes, No, Yes for me) |
What do you mean by "legalize the international sale of heroin?" Do you mean a country legalizing the import and sale of heroin from other countries? Assuming that's what you mean, my answers are yes, yes, and no, especially in light of the fact that money saved on the enforcement of drug laws and money brought in by heavy taxation on both the import and the sale of the drug could be used for education and treatment programs. Violent crime would also be reduced as a result of the elimination of that country's drug trade.
The biggest problem I have with arguments regarding the illegalization of drugs is that they remind me of the American prohibition of the sale of alcohol, and we all know how that turned out. Illegalizing it did nothing but make the alcohol less safe to drink and increase crime. Legalizing it didn't suddenly cause our society to be crippled by alcoholism. Sure, there are alcohol related problems, but they aren't made worse by the legality of alcohol. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
