I would like to point out that prohibiting drugs is a particularly extreme form of power. Not saying the act of using drugs is extreme, nor the penalties necessarily, but telling someone what mind-altering substances they may take is to some degree dictating what they may do with their minds. If you thirst for power, mind control, even partial, is the gold standard.

I agree that the pursuit of money has entirely different and, until recently, entirely unchecked social ramifications for an individual. –
“Of course it’s ok to pursue money!”

That’s what our society is designed to do. Only now that the structure has cracked at the seams, and collapsed about us, are arguments against mindless pursuit of money, power within a particular model, given any credence at all.

That is one adavantage to this economic crisis – that the materialistic and superficial bullshit we’ve been wading through for the past ten years has finally been shown to be flawed in its own terms.

The Mafia, for $0.17 per gram. It was an offer the horse couldn’t refuse.

Are not most governments historically more authoritarian than they need to be? Maybe we should start to see law enforcement excesses through the lens of the simple human thirst for power over others, and how government will naturally attract those in the sway of this. I realize this sounds like what a lot of the Libertarians say, but I would say wealth is also a form of power, and the thirst for it has similar motives, but less muted by a sense of responsibility to the whole of society.

That sounds completely sensible, and not especially Libertarian.

Are you saying that this case of the Brown government ignoring its own advisory committee’s counsel is due to the influence of nefarious drugs cartels? That it doesn’t want to downgrade Ecstasy because it’s making, in a roundabout way, too much money from its production and sale?

Wouldn’t downgrading the drug increase demand, and in this case make more underhand money for the double-dealing government? I have to say, if I understand what you’re saying correctly, I find it hard to believe.

I would assume we are discussing the ‘drug war industrial complex’? I have heard it stated that 5% of the US economy is directly related to the drug war. Between the money spent in the coast guard, national guard, regular military, and police forces, the total adds up to 5% of GDP.

I have no substantiation, i just read it somewhere.

But I would bet the dollar amount is huge.

Add that to what a GREAT way it is to put people in jail for being, say, black…

That’s easy to say, but harder to actually be specific about where this driving force originates from, or where it’s pushing towards. I do think the problem – in that there are glaring inconsistencies all over the shop – is largely political, but it would be folly to ignore economic weight as well, hence the Valium example. It’s germane to note that Valium is capitalised, while heroin, cannabis, and so on, are not.

>Illegal< drugs cartels are undoubtedly very wealthy, but I sincerely doubt they have much say in governmental decisions. Legal drugs companies, on the other hand, most certainly do.

If you’re just going to say that the problem comes down to m-o-n-e-y, then you’re really going to have to be more specific. Perhaps an argument could be made that no government wants its population to be caned off their faces, so reducing productivity, and so on, but I think it would be a pretty flimsy way of explaining the contradictions in current drugs legislation.

Analogously look at (much of) the media on eggs:

Eating eggs makes you live forever!
Eating eggs will kill you tomorrow!
Eating eggs makes you live forever!
Eating eggs will kill you tomorrow!

Once that gets old then you get:

What is it with Scientists that they can’t make up their mind on eggs!?

The scary part is how such a large part of the population will happily go along with this fairly transparent charade unquestioningly.

Everyone knows the current legislative and, by extension, general social attitude towards drugs is extremely misinformed, wholly illogical, and completely self-contradictory. Even when the government appoints an expert scientific advisory panel (for the purpose, it now seems, of avoiding criticism that it is making ill-informed decisions), it just ignores its two most significant pieces of advice. For what reason?

Largely fear, I would argue. Fear that in a time of economic crisis, hard work is the image to pursue, so downgrading cannabis or MDMA would be seen as out of touch, harking back to the party days of Blair. Fear that half the voting public have actually bought into the crap that previous governments have fed them about drugs (while at the same time offering another pint of beer, and a pleasant cigarette), and so would rebel at the polls.

I find it hard to believe that any intelligent, informed and reasonably transigent [not sure if that’s a word, but it fits] person could go along with the logic that alcohol and tobacco are OK to be freely distributed, but that cannabis and MDMA are not. It doesn’t add up. And horses are really dangerous!