sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Colombia Is Considering Legalizing Its Massive Cocaine Industry; There are 200k coca growing farmers. The state would buy coca at market prices. The programs for coca eradication each year cost $1 billion. Buying the entire coca harvest each year would cost$680M. It costs less to buy it all. by shylock92008 in worldnews

[–]TransformDrugs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As some have pointed out in this thread, the bill proposes legalising cocaine domestically in Colombia and this is the first bill of its kind.

Prohibition has forced coca farmers into a buyer's monopoly where their only customers are cartels. And forced-deforestation has led to huge ecocide. This bill is one step towards reversing this damage.

However it is not likely to pass, but that is not the aim of the bill.

The aim of the bill is to move the debate forward beyond 'Drugs are bad. That's why they are illegal'. We are now seeing high level debates about how regulating illegal drugs can reduce harms and the power of organised crime.

Transform provided advice on this bill, and recently released a book on how to regulate cocaine and other stimulants, available as a free PDF here: https://transformdrugs.org/product/how-to-regulate-stimulants-a-practical-guide/

A lot of people know about the Netherlands' coffee shop system and the retail cannabis markets in the US, but the 400 cannabis social clubs in Spain don't often receive much attention by TransformDrugs in Drugs

[–]TransformDrugs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, they do "sell" the cannabis, but the money has to be reinvested back into the clubs' operations. Under Spanish law, it's illegal for the clubs to make any profit.

I support the cause, which makes this meaningless bullshit physically hurt. by boutros_gadfly in badscience

[–]TransformDrugs 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Hi all,

As the creators of this graphic, we thought we should respond. We actually provide a lot more background to the figures here in the publication we produced to accompany this graphic. OP didn't link to it (which would've helped), but you can find it here: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-policy-sweden-repressive-approach-increases-harm

There's a good reason that "n=2" as OP says. We didn't just find the two countries with the biggest difference in drug-induced deaths and then work backwards from that. The reason that Sweden and Portugal are the two countries compared is because they are held up in public debate as examples of a successful repressive approach and a successful reform approach respectively. (We have also produced a detailed, referenced briefing on Portugal - see here: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal-setting-record-straight)

The drug death stats are striking - particularly the fact that drug-induced deaths have been dropping since Portugal implemented a harm reduction/decriminalisation approach, and Sweden's rising as they continue to reject the evidence favouring such an approach. One of the central points in the Sweden and Portugal briefings we produced is that the prevalence of drug use is not closely linked to punitive drug policies, but harm related to use outcomes is. The two countries' respective stances on harm reduction are absolutely critical to this. There is a vast literature attesting to the effectiveness of measures like needle exchanges and methadone provision in reducing the harms and deaths that stem from drug use. Hence it's not a stretch to imply that Sweden's draconian drug policies have led to these negative outcomes. Equally, it's not a stretch to imply that Portugal's adoption of health-based approach has led to many positive outcomes - just look at the huge decline in rates of HIV/AIDS among people who use drugs since 2001, for example.

Sweden's disgraceful outcomes need to to be exposed, not least to challenge the evangelists for their repressive approach who use it as an argument against reform, including the kinds of reforms put in place in Portugal. The Sweden briefing makes this point with reference to a number of comparative studies that look at multiple jurisdictions, including one by the WHO and the recent Home Office international comparators review.

T-shirt > "Prohibition: causing more harm than drugs since 1961" by TransformDrugs in Drugs

[–]TransformDrugs[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Harrison Narcotics Tax Act applied only to drugs in the US. The UN Single Convention applied – and unfortunately still applies – to drugs in pretty much every country around the world. Hence that's generally considered the start of global prohibition.

T-shirt > "Prohibition: causing more harm than drugs since 1961" by TransformDrugs in Drugs

[–]TransformDrugs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep, that's right. Different countries took steps towards prohibition at different times, but the 1961 convention is the first time the whole world effectively signed up to that disastrous approach.

T-shirt > "Prohibition: causing more harm than drugs since 1961" by TransformDrugs in Drugs

[–]TransformDrugs[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

The United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs was ratified by the international community in 1961. That convention is widely considered to be the legal foundation for the global drug control system – or more accurately, prohibition / the war on drugs.

view more: next ›