Prompted by “Ecuador Moves to Decriminalize All Illegal Drugs”: http://www.hightimes.com/read/ecuador-moves-decriminalize-all-illegal-drugs
“Convinced that prohibition of marijuana, or even cocaine, is not the solution to curbing addiction rates or fighting against the black market drug trade, Ecuadorian lawmakers have proposed a historic piece of legislation aimed at decriminalizing all illegal drugs.”
Convinced that prohibition is a moneymaking scam built upon ruining non-violent (so actually innocent by any uncorrupted measure) lives to reinforce sanctioned thuggery against civility, I agree with that proposal with a serious exception.
Decriminalization is not legalization, and while the latter contributes to “fighting against the black market drug trade” (by giving drug consumers safe access channels to much less expensive and topnotch quality products), the chosen option for that purpose fails in that key regard.
“Treating the drug phenomenon in a repressive way, as was done in the 1980s and 1990s when prison was the only destination for the drug consumer, is absurd…”
“The law, if passed, would allow for the creation of a Technical Secretariat of Drugs, which would set controls on more than 100 substances, regulating every aspect from importation to general use. Anyone wishing to take advantage of the system, whether it is consumer or dealer, would be required to register with the agency and adhere to the rules set forth. The current law punishes individuals caught growing or selling illegal drugs to up to 16 years in prison. Under the revised statute, violators would only be required to surrender their stash and pay a fine.”
So what happens upon lawful acceptance of that decriminalization proposal is judicially exposed activities involving certain drug supply and demand result in lesser punishment, which is equally absurd. I am dedicated to leveraging whole truth to improve life without compromising principle. The reason my fully logical results deviate strongly from normalcy is the apparently chosen need by society to support conflicts of interest to muddy laws (e.g. keep some legal restrictions to respect power structures containing people making a living off of absurdity) and to uphold righteousness in presentation form alone (actual righteousness sometimes be questionably damned by our species).
Making a living from persecution (either heavily or lightly) is obviously unethical by any fair conclusion, and while much of the world can pretendedly drink their problems away via the seriously risky drug called alcohol, users of far safer (if not outright safe) drugs — e.g. any psychedelic responsibly consumed — remain ironically abused by another drug-like experience… leveraging power.
“Many legislators believe the measure is entirely too liberal to be effective, paving the way for an escalation in drug use, while giving dope dealers a free pass.”
“Others suggest naysayers should look no further than Portugal for evidence against continued prohibition. After all, the latest statistics show that since eliminating penalties for small time drug offenses, Portugal has experienced no significant increase in drug use. In fact, their user rates remain under the European average, and more of their citizens are seeking treatment for opiate addiction than ever before. With that in mind, it is no surprise that the nation’s drug overdoses are also on the decline, as well as cases of HIV/AIDS.”
Portugal decriminalized illicit drugs over a decade ago (2001, memory serving), and how often do we see that result reported in the mainstream (or any other) news to help confirm the typically proclaimed disaster from “weakening” drug laws? Never, at least to the best of my knowledge (and I remain at least reasonably tuned in with this issue).
The absence of that disaster should send a shock wave of reasoning worldwide to prompt a sufficiently powerful public demand for ending the aforementioned demonstrable scam against the masses.
The case against Certain Drug Prohibition is a slam-dunk one, based upon the whole truth and nothing but. No prohibitionist could ever literally sustain a single point in their favor (which is why serious momentum is on our side, but still off due basically to corrupt political agendas), and I welcome any prohibitionist to challenge me to the contrary (e.g. the war on some drugs is somehow constitutional, effective, destructive within reason, not too expensive or insufficiently funded to be effective, and/or scientifically warranted).
Lacking that disaster is critical here. Without that disaster, the evidence clearly shows Certain Drug Prohibition is laughably (if not so horribly tragically) irrelevant when opposing drug abuse. “We the people” are funding that prohibition to the tune of billions of taxpayer dollars annually, and when we line up that absence of disaster necessary to even minimally legitimize that prohibition, we clearly see that money is being misspent (i.e. Certain Drug Prohibition is demonstrably destructive against public safety and sanity).
Certain Drug Prohibitionists try to present themselves as toughly “grabbing the bull by the horns”, but the result clearly reveals they are merely pretending to “sweep” the drug abuse problem “under the rug” (and corruptly making a lot of money and other forms of power for themselves in the process).
Actually “grabbing the bull by the horns” in this case is favored by yours truly, and that starts by removing all (including nationally rationally unconstitutional) laws pushing certain drugs into the black market to provide violent criminal organizations an unmatchable revenue stream and huge profit margin therein for serious power leverage within humanity’s scope (e.g. bribing “law enforcers”, and wielding military grade weaponry), and increases the risk of public exposure to dangerous products due to insufficient public exposure of corruption in that underground marketplace — i.e. lawful businesses cannot readily get away with selling known dangerous products upon sufficient public concern, but hidden businesses in the black market can and do achieve that destructive end.
Moreover, this issue is fundamentally all about intentional perception alteration itself, which can be used or abused in any of its overwhelming number of forms. While the methods of that alteration are changing and increasing in number (e.g. substantial improvements in virtual reality, reasonably assumed upcoming illicit-like drugs from nanotechnology and biocomputing, etc.), the basics of use and abuse remain easy to understand and fixed throughout posterity, so form the strong educational front perpetually needed to prevent abuse without infringing upon the fundamental right to liberty which must (to negate corruption) include the right to use any drug (or engage in any form of intentional perception alteration as long as it avoids direct, not indirect or potential, rights infringement). The clarification of ‘not indirect or potential’ exists within my Liberty Shield introduction, which is worth reading in general, based upon my perhaps-obscenely biased opinion.
Those abuse-prevention basics (and much more) are listed in my Respect Cannabis campaign’s introductory essay. so feel free to give that piece a worthy read too.
While the world excessively presses to compromise principle for ‘prohibition light’ (e.g. a complex set of regulations and bans showing no regard for the risk of ironic abuse of that set itself), my proposal is dedicated to logically forming the righteous slam-dunk needed to actually win for public safety (i.e. upholding legitimate law, liberty, and health for us all).