Do these changes signal an end to the War on Drugs or merely a hiccup in the status quo?

read more: http://www.drugpossessionlaws.com/war-on-drugs-ending/

People often believe what they believe for a reason. The reasons in the case of the WoD are oft irrational. Irrationality drives fear which can prevent even the highest ordered thinkers from ‘correctly’ processing new info/facts or challenging false sources (i.e. the red tops/tabloids). When it comes to incentives, the horrific efficiency of the WoD structure allows it to constantly provide incentives to not change ones beliefs. Most people don’t believe that the WoD effects them – think ‘I dont smoke weed or snort coke what do I care if they are illegal or not’ type discussion, wholly missing the savage attack on their civil liberties, increased taxes and crime etc. etc.

It has been said many times before, but the intellectual argument on prohibition v legal regulation was won a long time ago. The next step is to challenge the WoD power structure emotionally. The first step has been the use of medical Cannabis in the states – the ‘how can you deny a sick person something that helps them’ line of argument for example that has removed a large amount of the fear surrounding Cannabis, allowing people to more rationally process the available information and illustrated by the high swing of favourable support to ‘legalisation’ in the last decade. This is using their own tactics against them, but in how people collectively act, I don’t really think there is another way (or maybe I’m too naive/cynical?) – the advantage is that if the general population challenged the WoD from an emotional standpoint, even highly ‘credible’ sources i.e. the government, would be discounted if they didn’t agree with them a.k.a progress.

‘Most’ politicians couldn’t really care if drugs were ‘legal’ or not.. they are more concerned about getting re-elected, not rocking the boat to ensure comfy non-exec/CEO status or lucrative lecture circuit tours post-government. Unfortunately the majority of the emotional side of this debate is held in the prohibition camp and until that changes, drug law reform is going to be a constant struggle to critical mass… one worth the fight though!!

Interesting and at the same time complex and controversial issue. I can’t comment on the scientific validity of the research but if what’s said in the article is to be believed there is a lot of questions marks over the analysis and conclusions of said research.

My own, totally unscientific and unsubstantiated, take on the issue is that people will show a higher propensity to change their beliefs in view of new, verifiable information/facts,

1. the higher their capability to assess and process information/facts,
2. the higher the credibility of the source (of the information/facts),
3. the higher the falseability of the source generating the new information/facts and
4. the higher the incentives for changing their previous beliefs.

I tend to share the observation about information glut (internet, 24 hours news and all what the new media entails): even for people for whom point 1 in the list above applies, it has become almost impossible to assess the validity of the terabites of new information available. I think the writer summarises the problem quite well by sayng:

«This effect is only heightened by the information glut, which offers — alongside an unprecedented amount of good information — endless rumors, misinformation, and questionable variations on the truth. In other words, it’s never been easier for people to be wrong, and at the same time feel more certain that they’re right.»

I haven't read all of this article http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/… but "researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger."

The populace is too easy to manipulate for vested interests – just look at the lack of discussion around AV, regardless how one feels on electoral reform, a proper debate was not had and it turned into a popularity contest with people 'believing' they were right without consulting evidence. The same happens with drug policy, except there is a far longer history of lies, misinformation, propaganda and vested interests to contest with. The only argument that will dismantle this war is the emotional one, or if the drug war encroaches on the 'civilised middle class'… but the drug war is pretty robust in denigrating users to non-human status and keeping them in poverty..

However, a positive is the movement of 'mums against prohibition' and organisations such as LEAP in the states as they stir the emotional pot, hopefully illustrating the logic of their positions through the emotional means required to precipitate action…

If you support prohibition then you've helped trigger the worst crime wave in history, raising gang warfare to a level not seen since the days of alcohol bootlegging..

If you support prohibition you've a helped create a black market with massive incentives to hook both adults and children alike.

If you support prohibition you've helped to make these dangerous substances available in schools and prisons.

If you support prohibition you've helped put previously unknown and contaminated drugs on the streets.

If you support prohibition you've helped to escalate Murder, Theft, Muggings and Burglaries.

If you support prohibition you've helped to divert scarce law-enforcement resources away from protecting your fellow citizens from the ever escalating violence against their person or property.

If you support prohibition you've helped to prevent the sick and dying from obtaining safe and effective medication.

If you support prohibition you've helped remove many important civil liberties from those citizens you falsely claim to represent.

If you support prohibition you've helped create the prison-for-profit synergy with drug lords.

If you support prohibition you've helped escalate the number of people on welfare.

If you support prohibition you're responsible for the horrific racial disparities which have breed generations of incarcerated and disenfranchised minorities.

If you support prohibition you've helped evolve local gangs into transnational enterprises with intricate power structures that reach into every corner of society, controlling vast swaths of territory with significant social and military resources at their disposal.

If you support prohibition you're promoting a policy which kills our children, endangers our troops, counteracts our foreign policy and reduces much of the developing world to anarchy.

Neurotics build castles in the sky, psychotics live in them; the concept of a "Drug-Free Society" is a neurotic fantasy and Prohibition's ills are a product of this psychotic delusion.

Prohibition is nothing less than a grotesque dystopian nightmare; if you support it you must be either ignorant, stupid, brainwashed, corrupt or criminally insane.

If you support prohibition then prepare yourself for even more death, corruption, sickness, imprisonment, unemployment, and the complete loss of the rule of law.

I was trying to be ironic and the questions are rhetorical in spirit. As you rightly point out, the number of vested interests are countless, chief among them, the financial system that harbours the huge profits the drug barons have been accumulating over the decades the prohibition policies have been in place. Without money laundering agents (i.e. the financial system) those benefiting from the WoD would have harder times. Again, one have to ask, how is it possible that despite the reams and reams of legislation against laundering activities, drug traffickers and their henchmen manage to turn legal the proceeds of their illegal practices—which depending on whom you ask, could be worth up to 300 billions of Euros PER YEAR. And it's not just drugs, for the same traffickers are also involved in many other illegal activities, to which the banking system is happy to lend its hand.

Call these prohibitionists whatever you want, but those at the top are not stupid and know exactly what they are doing. So, why do we continue policy that we know is counter-productive (to say the least!)? It's a mix of vested interests such as wanting to get re-elected, keeping jobs for law enforcement or being able to maintain a reason for 'big government' etc. and the fear that 'drugs are evil' (obviously not alcohol, tobacco or caffeine) that has been pumped into the mindless zombies over the last 70 years.

The problem for the prohibs is that now that fear is being met by reason, and sooner or later a Latin American government or consortium is going to stand up and say something, or, the USA will legalise Cannabis in a state and this whole argument of prohibition will start to rapidly crumble!

I look forward to many more informative posts

Your point about distributing countries is a good example of how entangled–by that I mean the myriad of conflicting interests lurking about–the whole WoD issue is. International conventions, like the one on narcotics, are legally binding and cannot be rejected willy nilly…we all know the dire consequences of defying the "international community" (at this point you can pick your favourite example.)