In December 2004 European Parliament has approved the 'Catania report', a set of recommendations on the EU Drug Strategy 2005-2012. This report calls for a fundamental change of course in European drug policy.

However, authorities are still ignoring it. Therefore ENCOD (European Coalition for Just and Effective Drug Policies) has started a petition with the aim of mobilizing European citizens to press their national authorities to enforce the recommendations of the European Parliament.

So far we have collected {signatures} signatures from all over Europe, but we need much more. Please add your voice!

SIGN THE PETITION FOR A CHANGE IN EU DRUG POLICIES NOW: http://action.encod.org/

Why would anyone in their right mind sign?:confused: :rolleyes:

Why would anyone in their right mind sign?:confused: :rolleyes:
Because a spammer told them to?

Reminds me of the magazine “High Times” in the 70s and Early 80s

I do have a politically incorrect method to end the crack cocaine problem.

Lace it with cyanide?

Lace it with cyanide?


Make it legal and free.
So all an addict has to do is agree to a few conditions. Like they can’t get in trouble with the law, they have to get on semi-permanent birth control.

Here’s what would happen.

1. The Cartels would be stripped of their profit.
2. Addicts would die in about 24 months or less
3. Other young people would see the carnage and refrain from getting hooked.
4. Street dealers would lose their profit motivation, thus making their recruiting efforts go away.

Within 2 years the crack cocaine problem would be relegated to a much smaller group, with significant reductions in new cases.

My opiniun was formed after I saw a report on mice that were in an experiment. Two groups of mice were induced to become addicts. One group became heroin addicts, and the other cocaine.

Both groups were aloud to self minister. The mice in the heroin group lived a normal lifespan but showed the signs of addiction. The ones in the cocaine group died at a rate equivalent to 24 months to humans.

O...K.... Well I don't think "politically incorrect" was the proper wording, I think "inhumane" is a bit closer. But in any case, there are about a bazillion problems here:

Make it legal and free.
So who pays for it?

So all an addict has to do is agree to a few conditions.
Addicts, as we all know, tend to be reliable and trustworthy...

Like they can’t get in trouble with the law,
I'll give this 1,000,000 to 1 odds.

they have to get on semi-permanent birth control.
Now this I'm for. I think everyone should do this...

Here’s what would happen.

1. The Cartels would be stripped of their profit.
Not likely, they'd just switch to something else.

3. Other young people would see the carnage and refrain from getting hooked.
Again, not likely. There's few oung people unaware of the effects of drugs these days. Most people in the demographic most likely to become addicted to crack probably already know someone who's died from it. People rarely learn from their own mistakes; learning from someone else's is practically a miracle.

4. Street dealers would lose their profit motivation, thus making their recruiting efforts go away.
See #1. Ending prohibition didn't exactly make organized crime go away, did it?

Make it legal and free.
.
Are you willing to let your daughter be a guinea pig? :confused:

Make it legal and free.

You know, if they were to legalize it, that will create more law suites, which will cost us non-user more money. Because people will begin sueing the crack makers because it is causing medical problems. That will in turn cost more for marketing to place warning labels on the products. :rolleyes:


Sorry j, this is one time I absolutly do not agree.

You know, if they were to legalize it, that will create more law suites, which will cost us non-user more money. Because people will begin sueing the crack makers because it is causing medical problems. That will in turn cost more for marketing to place warning labels on the products. :rolleyes:


Sorry j, this is one time I absolutly do not agree.

Did you read the part where they all die?

Did you read the part where they all die?
So are you seriously suggesting extermination is a valid solution to a societal problem?

Did you read the part where they all die?

Well, that won't stop the family members from sueing. Look at the tobacco companies having to pay out billions to family members of the dead. But that is a whole other topic, and I am not getting into that today.

Did you read the part where they all die?
...in my pants.

Lightens the mood, doesn't it? :p :D

...in my pants.

Lightens the mood, doesn't it? :p :D


Even I was starting to get a bit riled up. :D

Even I was starting to get a bit riled up. :D
only a bit? :eek:

only a bit? :eek:

What brat!!

So are you seriously suggesting extermination is a valid solution to a societal problem?

First off this will never happen. Secondly the ancillary cost of the existing crack industry is very high.

Not to mention it produces countless thousands of cocaine babies every year.

I’m suggesting that if you take to money part of it away, it will solve all of the secondary crime problems associated with crack addiction.

After a while all the crack abusers will be dead, and there will be a much smaller problem.

As far as inhumane:
How humane is it for kids to kill each other for crack territories?
How humane is for teenage girls and boys to enter prostitution for it?

You are having a knee jerk reaction because you still think some kind of social program is going to end crack addiction.

Can you think of any program that has had an effect beyond saving a handful of addicts?

This was just an exercise in thinking.

I don’t think most people have a clue how to deal with addictions. One of my long time sober friends has recently fallen.

He will be dead soon.

No power on earth (earthly power) will stop his decent into hell.

But I ask you; is it humane to stop him from driving a motor vehicle?

You are having a knee jerk reaction because you still think some kind of social program is going to end crack addiction.
*Ahem* Kindly do me the courtesy of not telling me what I think. I've said nothing about my opinion on the subject, I've only analyzed the feasibility of your solution. If you're going to construct my entire opinion based solely on the fact that I disagree with you, then there's not much a point in having a discussion, is there?

Now then...

First off this will never happen. Secondly the ancillary cost of the existing crack industry is very high.
Agreed. I did not intend to imply the existing drug problem has no cost, but if you implement your solution almost all the same costs would remain for a minimum of two years while introducing a new, very high, cost of suppying addicts. My logic may be a bit off on this, but considering the various drug suppliers around the world have a budget vastly superior to the DEA's, even if you eliminated the entire drug enforcement budget (and so far you've only discussed one drug) it wouldn't be enough to supply addicts. So, someone will have to foot the bill.

I’m suggesting that if you take to money part of it away, it will solve all of the secondary crime problems associated with crack addiction.

After a while all the crack abusers will be dead, and there will be a much smaller problem.
This might be true, then again it might not. It is notoriously difficult to control the flow of money. My point regarding prohibition still stands; if you end the money flow to criminals from selling crack, they'll step up another business. Sell more pot, more meth, more heroine, more guns, more stolen goods, etc., etc.

As far as inhumane:
How humane is it for kids to kill each other for crack territories?
How humane is for teenage girls and boys to enter prostitution for it?
So, you're saying that inhumane acts are justified if they eliminate other inhumane acts? Obviously, the conditions associated with drug abuse are deplorable, but these are conditions we work to prevent, not enable.

I don't talk much about morality because I consider it a personal idea that cannot be applied to other people, but my moral compass says it's much worse to actively cause bad things to happen than to not do enough to stop bad things from happening.

Can you think of any program that has had an effect beyond saving a handful of addicts?
Nope. But your way doesn't save even one. I absolutely, 100%, put-money-on-it gaurantee you that if all the addicts (and I'm talking addicted to anything) in the entire world dropped dead today, someone would start doing drugs tommorrow.

I admit, in a way I applaud your thinking. I'm very much of the mindset that "more of the same" in a bad situation is a bad strategy. If something doesn't work, try something else. I simply can't see, however, that your conclusion would feasibly bring about the desired effect.

As soon as I saw this thread I thought to myself "oh this is going to get messy" and I was right. The topic of legalization/decriminalization is no different than a regious debate; the war on drugs is just another crusade.

As individuals we hold the right to decide our own faith, just as we hold the right to do what we decide with our minds and bodies. I'm not saying doing crack cocaine is a healthy decision, nor is worshiping satan, but who has the right to say that I can't?

The war on drugs is a complete, absolute failure.

First they lied to us, made up bogus stories about what marijuana and mushrooms (two of the 'softer' drugs) would fry our braincells and turn us into raving lunatics. The baby boomers disproved this theory. So they adopted a new strategy, shifting towards telling the truths (as well as still telling many mistruths). That still didn't work.

So educating (and miseducating) the public didn't work. What about drug control? Nope, that doesn't work either. Next time you see someone smoking a joint, make sure to point out to them that it's illegal and they can be imprisioned or fined (depending on your location). Watch as they laugh in your face.

By "controling" drugs the government has lost control of drugs. Take alcohol and cigarettes into consideration. What happened during the prohibition of alcohol? What would happen if they decided tomorrow that possession of tobacco was no different than marijuana? Think about it.

Did you know that cocaine is worth more per gram than gold? It's not that it's hard to produce, it's the fact that the government(s) try to control it, thus creating it's value.

So strip away the laws, make it a substance that is actually being controled (like alcohol and tobacco). Now who's making this money, not the cartels, but the government. Now they can have a greater degree of control over when its sold, how its sold, who its sold to, and how much it's sold for. Sure you'll still have people brewing up meth in their kitchen, people growing pot in their basements, but how is that different than those of us who make wine or beer? Those are the people who are buying guns to protect their crop. How many hidden breweries are there around here? How many secret tobacco farms are there? I sure dont hear about any of them. Why? Because they don't control the market, the government does.

So what is the perfect solution to this timeless debate? Well that's quite simple, there isn't.

Stoners will be stoners.
Catholics will be catholics.
Geeks will be geeks.

Why are the stoners being punished when the geeks are taking over the world?

Stoners will be stoners.
Catholics will be catholics.
Geeks will be geeks.

Why are the stoners being punished when the geeks are taking over the world?
Because of the Catholics? :confused: :p :D