Silk Road forums
Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: flyinghigh1660 on August 11, 2013, 07:11 am
-
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21583270-new-zealands-plan-regulate-designer-drugs-better-trying-ban-them-and-failing-new?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/pe/anewprescription
[Clearnet]
Yet another country has gotten fed up with the current approach. We have seen several nation states start to adapt their approaches. With the well know example of the US state and new approaches on using weed.
When it was just Portugal and the Netherlands, many politicians lied behind the "it would never work like that here". But the more states start to adapt their policy and have success. The less arguments the moralizers have.
-
Would you mind pasting the article here?
-
Would you mind pasting the article here?
Sure..
New Zealand’s plan to regulate designer drugs is better than trying to ban them and failing
AS THE world’s drug habit shows, governments are failing in their quest to monitor every London window-box and Andean hillside for banned plants. But even that Sisyphean task looks easy next to the fight against synthetic drugs. No sooner has a drug been blacklisted than chemists adjust their recipe and start churning out a subtly different one. These “legal highs” are sold for the few months it takes the authorities to identify and ban them, and then the cycle begins again. In June the UN reported more than 250 such drugs in circulation.
An unlikely leader in legal highs is New Zealand. Conventional hard drugs are scarce in the country, because traffickers have little interest in serving 4m people far out in the South Pacific. Kiwis therefore make their own synthetic drugs, which they take in greater quantity than virtually anyone else. The government shuts down more crystal-meth labs there than anywhere bar America and Ukraine. But the business has adapted. First it turned to benzylpiperazine, which a third of young New Zealanders have tried. When that was banned in 2008, dealers found plenty of other chemicals to peddle. Today the most popular highs are synthetic cannabinoids, which pack a harder punch than ordinary cannabis.
Sick of trying to keep up with drugmakers, the government is trying a new tack. Last month a law was passed which offers drug designers the chance of getting official approval for their products. If they can persuade a new “Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority” that their pills and powders are low risk, they will be licensed to market them, whether or not they get people high. Drugs will have to undergo clinical trials, which the government expects to take around 18 months—much less than for medicines, because the drugs will be tested only for toxicity, not for efficacy. Drugs that are already banned internationally, such as cocaine and cannabis, are ineligible. Only licensed shops will sell the drugs, without advertising and not to children.
The arguments for legalisation—that it protects consumers, shuts out criminals and saves money while raising tax—are familiar to readers of this newspaper. Yet it requires careful regulation to ensure that its outcome is not worse than widely ignored prohibition. New Zealand must now get the details right. The government has yet to define “low risk”. Set the bar too high and the policy will be prohibition by another name; too low and potentially lethal products will be on sale legally. (They are already, in the form of alcohol and tobacco, but consistency is hardly a feature of drug policy.) Nor does anybody know what level of taxation will most effectively deter consumption without encouraging a black market. Similar debates are under way in Uruguay, which is poised to legalise cannabis, and in Colorado and Washington state in America, which voted to do so last year.
Trust the health ministry over the mafia
These tricky questions may look like weaknesses in the policy. In fact, they are its strength. While New Zealand and Uruguay are discussing what level of toxicity or what dosage is acceptable, every other country is leaving the matter to drug dealers, who do not care about quality control and who peddle to children on the same terms as adults. As New Zealand ponders what rate of tax to levy, in the rest of the world the business is tax-free. A hard road lies ahead for New Zealand and its fellow policy innovators. But every dilemma they face is a reminder that, unlike other jurisdictions, through government they are regulating the drugs business, not the gangs.
-
Thanks. It really makes me wonder what's in store for the future.
-
Just a random question. If you were arrested x years ago for a banned substance, that just became legal, are those charges dropped from your record / would you be released from prison?
-
Thanks. It really makes me wonder what's in store for the future.
[/quote
Yes, I do think it will change, many people under 40 haven't grown up believing the crap around drugs. The attitude is changing, once a few progressive governments change their policy. We will start to see others change. There will be a back lash in some countries (you see a similar thing with gay rights), so it won't be a smooth transition. More of a couple of leaps, backward steps and then large shift over a couple of decades.
Change happens in small discrete steps, but I think at least in my lifetime, things will have changed. Once the realise the amount of money that they can make as well.
Plus I think medical research has just started to realise the power of psychedelics in treating mental health problems. I just finished reading The Psychedelic Explorer's Guide by James Fadiman. Excellent background on the positive effect guided psychedelic use can have.
-
Just a random question. If you were arrested x years ago for a banned substance, that just became legal, are those charges dropped from your record / would you be released from prison?
I think that is one of the biggest practical problems right there. But not for all countries, the USA will face that problem more than others. Since they have the largest prison population in the world. With many people being there for drug offenses. Portugal must have tackled that problem when they decriminalised all drug possession
-
If drug law reform became reality, the entire structure of world politics will immediately change. They won't give that up without a fight. The infrastructure surrounding the prison industry are most dependent on drug laws; it's a power struggle.
-
does htis mean they are decriminalizing all research chemicals like bk mdma but marijuana is still illgeal ?
please correct me if im wrong im just wondering
-
If drug law reform became reality, the entire structure of world politics will immediately change. They won't give that up without a fight. The infrastructure surrounding the prison industry are most dependent on drug laws; it's a power struggle.
This assumes that such a change happens directly overnight. But in reality change comes in small steps, and over time a large change is seen. Drug law reform is already happening in several countries, but with small tests of policy change.
Yes there will be fight as people fight for their wages. But each small step will chip away until finally the world is a different place. You only have to look at other large societal shifts, that seem normal practice now. But at the time the same interplay of forces were present as we have now. Women's rights for example, started with the vote, a simple thing that was blocked by those who had the most to lose. The US civil rights movement has some similar stories surrounding it.
The forces stroking drugs legalisation are a similar story, most politicians in private admit that the approach needs to change. Ex national leaders are calling for it, the medical profession is promoting the treatment of drugs as a health problem. Every single scientific research study that comes out promotes the benefits of certain classes of drugs. Drugs charities promote the benefits of harm reduction over criminal sanctions. Small changes are taking place, decriminalised weed and possession in US states and countries.
Parties that benefit from the illegal nature of drugs, fight hard because they know once people see the effect with their own eyes, their arguments fall apart. Society hasn't crumbled and we live our lives as normal as we did before. Their biggest failing is they paint a picture of societal chaos. Think about the arguments surrounding issues like gay marriage. Advocates of traditional marriage say that we will fall into abyss of self destruction. But in reality, life goes on with, no plagues, and no destruction of society.
The more evidence we gather that their dystopia isn't happening, the more momentum we gather. We have already won, younger generations aren't saddled with the preconceptions of their elders. The education systems in the west are based on rationally and science. It is a natural progression to more liberal drug laws. It's coming, it is just a matter of time now.
-
Just a random question. If you were arrested x years ago for a banned substance, that just became legal, are those charges dropped from your record / would you be released from prison?
If i can remember correctly the charges stay, as it was against the law at the time of the offense, but they would have to be real ass holes to keep you inside for a long sentence for something that was made legal after you were sentenced lol i think they would probably shorten the sentence a bit.
-
well maybe NZ isnt as fucking retarded as our shithole of a country...
Murica
bitch
-
Now movement in America.
[Clearnet warning] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/12/eric-holder-prison-reform-mandatory-minimums
Eric Holder calls for criminal justice reforms aimed at easing drug sentences
US attorney general mandating changes that would eradicate mandatory minimum sentences for some drug-related crimes
Non-violent drug offenders will avoid mandatory minimum sentences under proposals to cut America's soaring prison numbers due to be unveiled on Monday.
Attorney general Eric Holder is expected to issue new guidance to prosecutors that could have a dramatic effect on the lengthy jail terms that judges are required to give anyone convicted of possessing more than a proscribed amount of certain drugs.
In the future, many low-level charges against dealers not judged to be part of a large gang or cartel will no longer detail how much they were caught with – side-stepping the federal minimum sentencing laws.
Holder is also expected to announce other proposals to curb America's vast prison population, including compassionate early release for elderly inmates who are no longer viewed as dangerous and will promote drug-treatment programs as prison alternatives.
"We must never stop being tough on crime. But we must also be smarter on crime," he is expected to tell the American Bar Association on Monday afternoon. "Too many Americans go to too many prisons for far too long, and for no good law-enforcement reason … Although incarceration has a role to play in our justice system, widespread incarceration at the federal, state and local levels is both ineffective and unsustainable."
The US accounts for 25% of the world's prison numbers, even though it has only 5% of the world's population. Drug-related offences drive the vast majority of this, and people convicted of conspiring to sell 5kg of cocaine will currently receive a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence.
Aggressive enforcement of federal criminal laws is necessary, but "we cannot simply prosecute or incarcerate our way to becoming a safer nation", Holder said. "Today, a vicious cycle of poverty, criminality and incarceration traps too many Americans and weakens too many communities. However, many aspects of our criminal justice system may actually exacerbate this problem, rather than alleviate it."
"We need to ensure that incarceration is used to punish, deter and rehabilitate – not merely to convict, warehouse and forget," said the attorney general.
Holder said mandatory minimum sentences "breed disrespect for the system. When applied indiscriminately, they do not serve public safety. They have had a disabling effect on communities. And they are ultimately counterproductive."
Senators Dick Durbin, Patrick Leahy, Mike Lee and Rand Paul have introduced legislation aimed at giving federal judges more discretion in applying mandatory minimums to certain drug offenders.
Holder said new approaches – which he is calling the "Smart On Crime" initiative – are the result of a Justice Department review he launched early this year.
The attorney general said some issues are best handled at the state or local level and said he has directed federal prosecutors across the country to develop locally tailored guidelines for determining when federal charges should be filed, and when they should not.
"By targeting the most serious offenses, prosecuting the most dangerous criminals, directing assistance to crime 'hot spots,' and pursuing new ways to promote public safety, deterrence, efficiency and fairness – we can become both smarter and tougher on crime," Holder said.
The attorney general said 17 states have directed money away from prison construction and toward programs and services such as treatment and supervision that are designed to reduce the problem of repeat offenders.
In Kentucky, legislation has reserved prison beds for the most serious offenders and refocused resources on community supervision. The state, Holder said, is projected to reduce its prison population by more than 3,000 over the next 10 years, saving more than $400m.
He also cited investments in drug treatment in Texas for non-violent offenders and changes to parole policies which he said brought about a reduction in the prison population of more than 5,000 inmates last year. He said similar efforts helped Arkansas reduce its prison population by more than 1,400. He also pointed to Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Hawaii as states that have improved public safety while preserving limited resources.
Holder also said the department is expanding a policy for considering compassionate release for inmates facing extraordinary or compelling circumstances, and who pose no threat to the public. He said the expansion will include elderly inmates who did not commit violent crimes and who have served significant portions of their sentences
-
wHY THE HELL??? eg It is safer to snort MDPV-adfdgs-sdafdg-fdhgh-sdg-ine than cocaine??? what is the meaning of all this?
why not do this quality test for true drugs rather than research chemicals... fucking hypocrites
-
+1 flyinghigh, great info.
-
does htis mean they are decriminalizing all research chemicals like bk mdma but marijuana is still illgeal ?
please correct me if im wrong im just wondering
This is a good question.
I didn't see the article mention anything about RC's however. Just synthetic weed, but that could be because these products are the ones that pushed this bill the parliament.
-
does htis mean they are decriminalizing all research chemicals like bk mdma but marijuana is still illgeal ?
please correct me if im wrong im just wondering
This is a good question.
I didn't see the article mention anything about RC's however. Just synthetic weed, but that could be because these products are the ones that pushed this bill the parliament.
A psychoactive substance can be sold and used, if
a - It's not currently an illegal drug (NZ is ahead of most in terms of what is illegal)
b - It's not an analog of an illegal substance (NZ analog laws are very broad, covers all the main RCS except maybe some cannaboids)
c - It goes through expensive tests to classify it as "safe". No word on how much this will cost, or how high the bar will be, so perhaps nothing will make approval
-
It's been reported that the process to get approval is upwards of 1 MILLION DOLLARS