Drug Policy

Drug Warriors Fear Their Efforts Could Become Incoherent and Ineffective

|

In a report issued last week, the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), a U.N. agency based in Vienna, bemoans recent moves toward drug decriminalization in Latin America:

The Board notes with concern that in countries in South America, such as Argentina, Brazil and Colombia (and in countries in North America, such as Mexico and the United States), there is a growing movement to decriminalize the possession of controlled drugs, in particular cannabis, for personal use. Regrettably, influential personalities, including former high-level politicians in countries in South America, have publicly expressed their support for that movement. 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. In any case, 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.

Is the INCB right to worry that reducing or eliminating criminal penalties for possessing small quantities of illegal drugs will undermine international efforts to block the production and distribution of those substances? That is the board's excuse for meddling in the domestic policies of the countries that have adopted a less punitive approach to drug users, but it is hard to imagine how "the international drug control system" could become more farcical than it already is. The INCB is right that locking up people who assist drug use does not make much sense when the actual users are not doing anything worthy of punishment. But since when have prohibitionists, who arbitrarily distinguish between intoxicants based on nothing more than prejudice and historical accident, been concerned about making sense? To say that decriminalizing drug use "poses a threat to the coherence and effectiveness of the international drug control system" is like saying that a malfunctioning Teleprompter poses a threat to the coherence and effectiveness of the Swedish Chef

More on Latin American deviation from hard-line prohibitionism here, here, and here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

35 responses to “Drug Warriors Fear Their Efforts Could Become Incoherent and Ineffective

  1. is like saying that a malfunctioning Teleprompter poses a threat to the coherence and effectiveness of the Swedish Chef.

    Racist!

  2. Likewise, I fear that one day the Detroit Lions may suck.

    1. Hah! Like THAT will ever happen!

  3. There’s nothing incoherent about the Swedish Chef. Observe.

  4. Ah, dammit, it won’t let me link directly. You have to click the “dialectize!” button to enjoy the fun.

  5. BORK BORK BORK BORK

    1. I ran this through the Google Translator: “Drugs are bad, m’kay?”

      1. BORK BORK

        1. “Die Sauerkraut ist in mein Lederhosen.”

  6. I suspect Bunsen Honeydew Muppet-rapes Beaker. Just look at Beaker’s eyes, man.

    Good luck getting that image out of your head.

    1. The good doctor has quiet shoes. Beaker can’t hear him coming.

      1. I also think Yoda trolls for freshly-hatched Gremlins…

    2. They need to recast “Silence of the Lambs” with a muppet cast. Bunsen Honeydew would be Hannibal Lecter. Janice would be Starling, Miss Piggy could be the Senator’s daughter. Animal could be that guy who flings his genetic material at Starling. Kermit could be Jack Crawford, Fozzy would be Buffalo Bill. It would be awesome.

      1. if you’re a twisted puppet geek

  7. In any case, 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.

    Translation:

    “We might lose our high-paying UN jobs.”

    1. “Holy underwear! Sheriff murdered! Innocent women and children blown to bits! We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph! “

  8. Unfortunately the move has considerable opposition from the religious right(mostly catholics) in Latin America. Hopefully its a step toward real reform (ie. cocaine and heroin legalization). However, the US might not let that happen…

    1. That’s right, we will invade.

      Regime Change!!! Shock and Awe!!!

      J

  9. BORK BORK BORK. Bonus: brilliant youtube comments.

  10. 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.

    So they are advocating that governments take “resolute” steps to combat political initiatives among citizens.

    The word for governments that do that is “tyrannies”.

    1. Who’d of thought that the organization that legitimized the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China by making them permanent members of the security council would support tyrannies? I can’t think of a greater crime against humanity than the UN. Nice to know those cretins are against us.

      1. But, what about all the good things the U.N. did for Rwnadans.

        1. Not to mention their troops getting involved in human trafficking.

    2. “””The word for governments that do that is “tyrannies”.””

      That term was once applied to governments that wanted to watch your ever move. Now, it’s business as usual in the US.

  11. The governments are trying their best to help people. I understand some frustration for what appears to be unfair punishments occasionally, but we must never entertain conspiracy theories regarding the drug traffickers being behind drug enforcement. The government/CIA has never dealt drugs and they honestly just want to stop drug usage because they care about you so much. The 2 million prisoners in jail in this country are not viewed as a income stream by the prison industry and we are different than other industries, we do not seek revenue growth.

  12. Yo Shock And Awe, Regime Change!!!

    Wuzzup is Juanita!!!

  13. “The Board is concerned that the movement…will undermine national and international efforts to combat the abuse of and illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs.”

    Is “narcotic drugs” here a code word for drugs that aren’t marijuana? I don’t think so.

    And if they mean marijuana when they’re talking about “narcotic drugs”, then it’s hard to imagine how decriminalization could undermine efforts to combat trafficking.

    I mean, why wouldn’t trafficking go down in conjunction with marijuana decriminalization?

  14. My owners get high, eat some Doritos, and watch cartoons. I get shot in the face by a meter maid on steroids. Where the hell is the stupid ass PETA billboard on this one?

    The INCB can lick my balls. After I lick them. In front of company.

    1. I know that’s just the contact high talking.

  15. The Romans did better at Cannae than the drug warriors have done at fighting drug use.

  16. The question is, how could they tell they were being incoherent and ineffective, when that is the default condition?

  17. INCB is a front for european bank money launderers that are making obsene profits keeping drugs illegal!

  18. Thank you, my dear on this important topic You can also browse my site and I am honored to do this site for songs
    http://www.xn—-ymcbk0bld8nta.com
    This website is for travel to Malaysia
    http://www.xn—-ymcbk0bld8nta.com

  19. Thank you, my dear on this important topic You can also browse my site and I am honored to do this site for songs
    http://www.xn—-0mcg3at9ge.com
    This website is for travel to Malaysia
    http://www.xn—-0mcg3at9ge.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.