Drogas sí/Drogas no. ¿Porqué?

homing

#363 si tienes razon pero lo ke keria decir es ke el uso descontrolado en una persona es una gran imprudencia

H

No a la droga, que somos muchos y hay poca. ¬¬

B

#383: Entendiendo drogarse en el sentido 'peyorativo' de la palabra... tomarse una copa de vino no lo es, beberse 5 cubatas, 6, 7, o 10 sí, y lo hacemos muchos (y a mucha honra).

Atheist

Acabo de leer esto, y no sabía donde soltarlo, así que por si a alguien le interesa, ahi va:

"Switch of focus in US war on drugs

By Harvey Morris in New York

Published: March 15 2009 21:59 | Last updated: March 15 2009 21:59

The US spends $1,400 a second in the war on drugs, according to a recent Harvard study, while the savings and revenue that could be generated by legalising narcotics would equal a 10th of President Barack Obama’s fiscal stimulus plan.

With neighbouring Mexico descending towards the status of a narco-state and with US jails crammed with small-time drug offenders, experts in the field have launched a debate on whether a 40-year crackdown, and the more than $1,000bn (€773bn, £716bn) spent on it, has had any impact on narcotics abuse or on the violent trade that feeds it.

Government ministers gathered in Vienna for the highest-level international conference in 10 years on the drugs question last week issued a declaration re­affirming a commitment to combating narco-trafficking.

But differences emerged at the United Nations’ Commission on Narcotic Drugs over whether the emphasis should be on prevention or cure. Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, acknowledged in Vienna “the world drug problem has been contained but not solved”.

However, an unintended consequence of international drug control efforts had been the creation of “a criminal black market of staggering proportions”. While opposing calls for the legalisation of narcotics, Mr Costa said: “When mafias can buy elections, candidates, political parties – in a word, power – the consequences can only be highly destabilising. While ghettos burn, west Africa is under attack, drug cartels threaten central America and drug money penetrates bankrupt financial institutions.”

Drug reformers greeted the Obama administration’s nomination of Gil Kerlikowske, currently Seattle police chief, to serve as head of national drug control policy as indicating a likely switch in emphasis from enforcement to treatment. “The success of our efforts to reduce the flow of drugs is largely dependent on our ability to reduce demand for them,” the drug tsar nominee explained.

As the debate intensifies, some experts are offering radical solutions, including decriminalisation, at least in the case of marijuana. The anti-prohibitionists include civil libertarians, former drug war enforcers and some legislators.

In cash-strapped California, Tom Ammiano, Democratic assemblyman for San Francisco, has introduced a bill to tax and regulate marijuana, which is estimated – at $14bn annually – to be the state’s most lucrative crop. “With our state in an on­going fiscal crisis, it is time to bring this major piece of our economy into the light of day,” he said.

Jeffrey A. Miron, a senior economics lecturer at Harvard and free-market libertarian, estimated in his paper, published in December, that the drugs war in the US alone cost authorities $44.1bn a year. Legalising all banned drugs, in contrast, would raise $32.7bn annually in taxation."

Fuente

Es un punto de vista puramente económico, seh.

RoBErTiTo

Menuda campaña esta organizando alguien a favor de la legalizacion de las drogas... The Economist, Gabilondo, FT,...

Atheist

Hombre, sería una forma interesante de recaudar más dinero ahora que la cosa está chunga. Igual que están sondeando con los paraísos fiscales...

TheV1ruSS

#396, sacas mas provecho confiscando dinero, coches, mercancia, que recaudar impuestos...

Phatality

#394 Jeffrey A. Miron, a senior economics lecturer at Harvard and free-market libertarian, estimated in his paper, published in December, that the drugs war in the US alone cost authorities $44.1bn a year. Legalising all banned drugs, in contrast, would raise $32.7bn annually in taxation."

Macroeconómicamente una bendición, socialmente una devastación.

M0E

Pero #395, es q canta xDD hay alguna gente con muchos intereses en esto, xq algo así no es coincidencia.

¿George Soros? ¿Eres tú? xd.

#397 xDDD Eso no te lo crees ni tú.

Recuerdo cuando Ron Paul mencionó todo este tema de la fracasada guerra contra las drogas, y dijo q si fuera presidente la anularía para abordar el tema dsd otro punto de vista, la cantidad de mierda q le cayó.

Cr3ative

Yo no bebo casi nada pero si que fumo porros los fines de semana, alguno me puede explicar porque le parece bien que puedda pillar la borrachera del siglo y no me pueda fumar un porrito?

Aridane

La marihuana por supuesto que si, en muchos países está legalizada, es que este país entre la justicia, lo otro, lo otro...vaya (me callo)

Masackre

Ahora con la coña de la crisis, si que era un buen momento para legalizarlas, unos estarían a favor porque ya lo estaban, y otros porque se recaudaría un monton de dinero, y se ahorraría otro tanto.

LiuM

A ver si os creeis que legalizar es decir: 'legalizacion aceptada' y todo ale todo como hasta ahora pero legal. Hace falta mucha infraestructura, invernaderos, plantas de control, y toda la reforma que ello implica.

Estoy a favor de legalizar, porque es tonteria permitir unas y prohibir otras que son igual o peor para la salud, pero no creo que sea logico que el poco dinero que se mueve ahora, se invierta en algo que se implantaria y daria beneficios a medio plazo, por el deseo de 4 fumetas.

Que parece que mas que luchar por una causa, es luchar por luchar.

Aridane

#403 si la legalizaran no sabes cuantos voluntarios se prestarian a hacer invernaderos y tol rollo xDDD