quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/war-on-drugs-has-made-no-difference-to-number-of-users-and-actively-harms-public-health-major-study-a6956836.html

The five-decade long international “War on Drugs” started by US president Richard Nixon has harmed the public health and should be scrapped in favour of a process of decriminalisation, a major new report has concluded.

Anti-drug policies and laws have had “no measurable impact on supply or use” and cannot be justified on scientific or public health grounds, according to the authors of study commissioned by the Johns Hopkins Ivy League university and The Lancet.

The report presents “compelling evidence” that countries such as Portugal and the Czech Republic have decriminalised non-violent minor drug offences with positive results, including “public health benefits, cost savings, lower incarceration [rates] and no significant increase in problematic drug use”.

Urging action from countries such as the US and UK which still have highly strict drugs policies, the authors called on governments to consider “regulated markets” for cannabis like those in Uruguay and the US states of Washington, Colorado, Oregon and Alaska.

Looking at evidence from around the world, the study found drug laws had been applied in a way that was “discriminatory against racial and ethnic minorities and women, and has undermined human rights”.

And it identified prison terms for minor drug offenders as the single “biggest contribution to higher rates of infection among drug users” with diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C.

Dr Chris Beyrer, from Johns Hopkins’ Bloomberg School of Public Health, said prohibition was the basis for many national drug laws - “policies based on ideas about drug use and dependence that are not scientifically grounded”.

“The global 'war on drugs' has harmed public health, human rights and development,” he said.

“It's time for us to rethink our approach to global drug policies, and put scientific evidence and public health at the heart of drug policy discussions.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

You know I keep scouring through the constitution and BoR, the conventions, federalist papers, and no matter how hard I search I cant find anywhere anything that so much as even implies the gubblemint crookocracy has been granted the authority by the people to interfere with anyone taking or growing ANY drug?

Maybe someone can help me find it. Must be in there somewhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

The US 'War on drugs' that is, controlled substances otherwise known as contraband, is to serve two main purposes.

One...demonstrably help militarize our local police force. Two, create a profit-center for the producers and service providers under contract to the various govts....in its pursuit.

The actual so-called war on drugs, has very little to do with drugs.

A real war on drugs would be a war on legalized prescription drugs which claim for more lives, the distribution of which is regulated, monopolized and rarely approved through actual efficacy and effectiveness...the two main FDA functions, resulting in the most profitable industry in the world.

2013 saw pharmaceuticals as the most profitable industry again no matter suffering the greatest fines for malpractice.
HERE

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

The US 'War on drugs' that is, controlled substances otherwise known as contraband, is to serve two main purposes.

One...demonstrably help militarize our local police force. Two, create a profit-center for the producers and service providers under contract to the various govts....in its pursuit.

The actual so-called war on drugs, has very little to do with drugs.

A real war on drugs would be a war on legalized prescription drugs which claim for more lives, the distribution of which is regulated, monopolized and rarely approved through actual efficacy and effectiveness...the two main FDA functions, resulting in the most profitable industry in the world.

2013 saw pharmaceuticals as the most profitable industry again no matter suffering the greatest fines for malpractice.
HERE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

You know I keep scouring through the constitution and BoR, the conventions, federalist papers, and no matter how hard I search I cant find anywhere anything that so much as even implies the gubblemint crookocracy has been granted the authority by the people to interfere with anyone taking or growing ANY drug?

Maybe someone can help me find it. Must be in there somewhere.

I assume you are being facetious and checking to see if anyone else knows, because of all people, you should.

But I will iterate it for the masses.

First of all let me touch on the subject of prohibition. It was a Constitutional amendment, why ? Well simply put, they had no authority to tell anyone what to put into their own bodies. The reason they didn't simply legislate it is because there would have quickly been a challenge in the courts and it would have been struck down. That is because back then, judges knew the law. (they may have also remembered who the KKK was REALLY after, crooked judges)

Since the US went into receivership in the 1930s, we have been living under what is called Admiralty Maritime Jurisdiction, which means the Constitution is effectively suspended. That all comes under "Emergency Powers". Also, changes in the "Trading With The Enemy Act" means that all of our property actually belongs to the government. That is what supposedly gives them the right to legally confiscate just about anything you think you own, because they actually own it. It is officially defined in the act as "booty" when on land and "bounty" when at sea.

With a few more legislative strokes, we were all made property of the government and not just our property, but our bodies, thought and labors are considered the property of the government, by the government at least. We are actually the real collateral for the national debt. This is how the bankruptcy in the 1930s came into play. They technically sold us.

Now, you get a deed for a house and a title, actually certificate of title for a car. The certificate of title for a car is issued after the government takes ownership of your new car, even if you paid cash, and the manufacturer statement of origin is recorded for their records, to prove they own it and they issue you a certificate of title which makes you a holder of that property in good conduct. In fact later they started doing that with boats and now the coast guard busts you for a joint and auctions off you boat and uses the money against you. And they think that is alright.

Only the President can call an end to Emergency Powers, now why the hell would he do that ? It effectively lets him slip by the Constitution, as well as the legislative branch. Most laws are unconstitutional.

The one weapon we have is disclosure. When you go to court, the aim is to threaten them with said disclosure. This means knowing what evidence to file with the clerk of courts (or if you really got balls, publish an affidavit in the local paper) so the judge cannot make it disappear. Sometimes when you really stick it to them they seal the case and the docket is marked "This case not to be cited or quoted". Well if nobody can see it they cannot incarcerate you, except maybe for contempt of court, which is a highly abusable power they should not have. At least we used to have habeaus corpus, but that is gone.

The bottom fucking line is we live in a country with damnear the shittiest court system possible. So many people mistakenly think that in other countries there are no courts, or no juries, or no rules of evidence or any rights for a defendant, but that is simply not true. Courts in other countries are frequently more fair than those in the US. They do not trump up charges to get you 350 years in prison for stealing a loaf of bread to induce you to take a plea deal and become yet another felon, whose rights they then limit.

And these judges, vested interest in private prisons ? No conflict of interest there huh. A JUVENILE court judge getting paid for every kid he locked up in a privately owned DH ? Tell me another country where that has happened, and what's more, tell me that every judge who ever did that got busted. My ass, there is more unsolved crime in this country than solved, which is another thing people don't know. They don't know because the TV tells them the police and detectives will go to extreme lengths to solve every crime. That is simply not true, never has been. They simply do not fucking care.

And they don't want your guns to protect you from yourself, or from others, or them from you, they want your guns because they know goddamn well who needs shooting around here and it is them.

T^T

You can see the modern crookocratic definitions (from wiki and some law office) versus the original. bend over and smile while you get fucked!

people in america today have USE rights, when you title or register anything with the gub they illegally split the title to 'create' a state 'interest' (under trust law) which they then use to regulate it, yes the birth certificate creates a state interest!

Allodial is NOT reserved to governments as wiki says UNLESS and EXCEPT THEY ARE FEUDAL GUBBLMINTS!

They are now stretching and or sliding all the definitions to protect their illegitimate power again because the people are so fucking on to their shit games.

What the new (regurgitated) definitions are saying is that the highest title in lands in America is FEUDAL!

As I am sure you are already aware and those who are not can see how they FUCKED US out of our FREEDOM and relabelled the same slavery 'freedom' and dumb assed americans were too fucking stoppid to knwo the difference!


stupid fucking americans.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/war-on-drugs-has-made-no-difference-to-number-of-users-and-actively-harms-public-health-major-study-a6956836.html
The five-decade long international “War on Drugs” started by US president Richard Nixon has harmed the public health and should be scrapped in favour of a process of decriminalisation, a major new report has concluded.
Anti-drug policies and laws have had “no measurable impact on supply or use” and cannot be justified on scientific or public health grounds, according to the authors of study commissioned by the Johns Hopkins Ivy League university and The Lancet.
The report presents “compelling evidence” that countries such as Portugal and the Czech Republic have decriminalised non-violent minor drug offences with positive results, including “public health benefits, cost savings, lower incarceration [rates] and no significant increase in problematic drug use”.
Urging action from countries such as the US and UK which still have highly strict drugs policies, the authors called on governments to consider “regulated markets” for cannabis like those in Uruguay and the US states of Washington, Colorado, Oregon and Alaska.
Looking at evidence from around the world, the study found drug laws had been applied in a way that was “discriminatory against racial and ethnic minorities and women, and has undermined human rights”.
And it identified prison terms for minor drug offenders as the single “biggest contribution to higher rates of infection among drug users” with diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C.
Dr Chris Beyrer, from Johns Hopkins’ Bloomberg School of Public Health, said prohibition was the basis for many national drug laws - “policies based on ideas about drug use and dependence that are not scientifically grounded”.
“The global 'war on drugs' has harmed public health, human rights and development,” he said.
“It's time for us to rethink our approach to global drug policies, and put scientific evidence and public health at the heart of drug policy discussions.”

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/war-on-drugs-has-made-no-difference-to-number-of-users-and-actively-harms-public-health-major-study-a6956836.html
The five-decade long international “War on Drugs” started by US president Richard Nixon has harmed the public health and should be scrapped in favour of a process of decriminalisation, a major new report has concluded.
Anti-drug policies and laws have had “no measurable impact on supply or use” and cannot be justified on scientific or public health grounds, according to the authors of study commissioned by the Johns Hopkins Ivy League university and The Lancet.
The report presents “compelling evidence” that countries such as Portugal and the Czech Republic have decriminalised non-violent minor drug offences with positive results, including “public health benefits, cost savings, lower incarceration [rates] and no significant increase in problematic drug use”.
Urging action from countries such as the US and UK which still have highly strict drugs policies, the authors called on governments to consider “regulated markets” for cannabis like those in Uruguay and the US states of Washington, Colorado, Oregon and Alaska.
Looking at evidence from around the world, the study found drug laws had been applied in a way that was “discriminatory against racial and ethnic minorities and women, and has undermined human rights”.
And it identified prison terms for minor drug offenders as the single “biggest contribution to higher rates of infection among drug users” with diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C.
Dr Chris Beyrer, from Johns Hopkins’ Bloomberg School of Public Health, said prohibition was the basis for many national drug laws - “policies based on ideas about drug use and dependence that are not scientifically grounded”.
“The global 'war on drugs' has harmed public health, human rights and development,” he said.
“It's time for us to rethink our approach to global drug policies, and put scientific evidence and public health at the heart of drug policy discussions.”

Boy, you want to talk about pissing of the Afghanis?!? We drop the "War on Drugs," and all those local Warlords are gonna be sooo pissed we destroyed much of their poppy production. At least if we're still fighting the WoD's, we have a semi-rational reason for doing what we did. If we drop the WoD, we don't even have a reason. They're already pissed. This is just going to make them moreso.

ETA: Another example of why we should allow other countries to exercise their own sovereignty.

quote:

What part of fucking Islam allows this shit ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/war-on-drugs-has-made-no-difference-to-number-of-users-and-actively-harms-public-health-major-study-a6956836.html
The five-decade long international “War on Drugs” started by US president Richard Nixon has harmed the public health and should be scrapped in favour of a process of decriminalisation, a major new report has concluded.
Anti-drug policies and laws have had “no measurable impact on supply or use” and cannot be justified on scientific or public health grounds, according to the authors of study commissioned by the Johns Hopkins Ivy League university and The Lancet.
The report presents “compelling evidence” that countries such as Portugal and the Czech Republic have decriminalised non-violent minor drug offences with positive results, including “public health benefits, cost savings, lower incarceration [rates] and no significant increase in problematic drug use”.
Urging action from countries such as the US and UK which still have highly strict drugs policies, the authors called on governments to consider “regulated markets” for cannabis like those in Uruguay and the US states of Washington, Colorado, Oregon and Alaska.
Looking at evidence from around the world, the study found drug laws had been applied in a way that was “discriminatory against racial and ethnic minorities and women, and has undermined human rights”.
And it identified prison terms for minor drug offenders as the single “biggest contribution to higher rates of infection among drug users” with diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C.
Dr Chris Beyrer, from Johns Hopkins’ Bloomberg School of Public Health, said prohibition was the basis for many national drug laws - “policies based on ideas about drug use and dependence that are not scientifically grounded”.
“The global 'war on drugs' has harmed public health, human rights and development,” he said.
“It's time for us to rethink our approach to global drug policies, and put scientific evidence and public health at the heart of drug policy discussions.”

Boy, you want to talk about pissing of the Afghanis?!? We drop the "War on Drugs," and all those local Warlords are gonna be sooo pissed we destroyed much of their poppy production. At least if we're still fighting the WoD's, we have a semi-rational reason for doing what we did. If we drop the WoD, we don't even have a reason. They're already pissed. This is just going to make them moreso.

ETA: Another example of why we should allow other countries to exercise their own sovereignty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

I never heard of a Nazi raping.

That would qualify you as being as ignorant as a stone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/war-on-drugs-has-made-no-difference-to-number-of-users-and-actively-harms-public-health-major-study-a6956836.html
The five-decade long international “War on Drugs” started by US president Richard Nixon has harmed the public health and should be scrapped in favour of a process of decriminalisation, a major new report has concluded.
Anti-drug policies and laws have had “no measurable impact on supply or use” and cannot be justified on scientific or public health grounds, according to the authors of study commissioned by the Johns Hopkins Ivy League university and The Lancet.
The report presents “compelling evidence” that countries such as Portugal and the Czech Republic have decriminalised non-violent minor drug offences with positive results, including “public health benefits, cost savings, lower incarceration [rates] and no significant increase in problematic drug use”.
Urging action from countries such as the US and UK which still have highly strict drugs policies, the authors called on governments to consider “regulated markets” for cannabis like those in Uruguay and the US states of Washington, Colorado, Oregon and Alaska.
Looking at evidence from around the world, the study found drug laws had been applied in a way that was “discriminatory against racial and ethnic minorities and women, and has undermined human rights”.
And it identified prison terms for minor drug offenders as the single “biggest contribution to higher rates of infection among drug users” with diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C.
Dr Chris Beyrer, from Johns Hopkins’ Bloomberg School of Public Health, said prohibition was the basis for many national drug laws - “policies based on ideas about drug use and dependence that are not scientifically grounded”.
“The global 'war on drugs' has harmed public health, human rights and development,” he said.
“It's time for us to rethink our approach to global drug policies, and put scientific evidence and public health at the heart of drug policy discussions.”

Boy, you want to talk about pissing of the Afghanis?!? We drop the "War on Drugs," and all those local Warlords are gonna be sooo pissed we destroyed much of their poppy production. At least if we're still fighting the WoD's, we have a semi-rational reason for doing what we did. If we drop the WoD, we don't even have a reason. They're already pissed. This is just going to make them moreso.

ETA: Another example of why we should allow other countries to exercise their own sovereignty.

I am not clear on this with respect to the Afghans. They are producing as I understand it...75% to 90% of the world's opium according to who you read. If anything, any 'war on drugs' outside the country, just might be reducing any competing supply. Prices though remain down or stagnating.

It was the Taliban who at first cut opium production. Now they are in on it the US govt. doesn't really give a shit anymore. Oh and with Billion$ of US tax dollars now having been wasted.