When the Brits decided to 'decriminalize' cannabis in
Brixton for a 6-month test period, I thought that this was
a step foward. But upon further thinking, I'm now of the
opinion that this 'test' was designed to fail, thus giving
the anti's ammunition to prolong the war.

I think their plan goes something like this. We declare a
small area a test area 'decriminalised', to appease the
growing chorus of legalizers. What will happen is that
every drug dealer in the country will gravitate to this
small, enclosed area, resulting in turf wars, violence,
and increased presence of not just cannabis, but every
other illegal drug known to man, resulting in an
increase of arrests.

At the end of this experiment, the anti's will add up the
figures, and declare that this 'test' was a failure, which
they will trumpet throughout the world through the
media. "See, " they will say ," we gave it a shot, and this
is what happens. An increase in violence, murders,
theft across the board. This is what will happen the
world over if you legalize drugs. Is this what you want?
Case closed."

Maybe this is what Bill Bennent has in mind?

it wont happen ...98% of everybody knows that Bill Bennett has his own
challenges in life,,,,,the worst of which would include being a hypocrital
a#*hole.....and quite frankly,,,,his childrens book of "virtures",,,,,,
,,,,,,makes me want to do a tournament style power-barf.........

Here are some factors to consider:

(1) We know how we would implement "legalization;" what we don't know is how Bennett would do it. Would he simply declare a free-for-all? That would be a sure way to create false "proof" that "legalization doesn't work." No, if legalization were implemented, it would have to be done correctly. We would have to set up harm reduction measures first (needle exchanges, safe injection sites, information campaigns about the relative dangers of drugs and how to minimize dangers associated with certain drugs, etc.), and there would have to be a hierarchy of availability (cannabis products sold in limited quantities via Holland-style coffee shops; psychedelics sold by licensed distributors with information about what to expect and ways to reduce the danger of potential accidents; harder drugs regulated by physicians in a fashion similar to what is done in Switzerland, etc.). In other words, there are ways to make it work, and there are ways to make it fail. If they decided to "legalize" in one state, we'd have to find out what they mean by "legalize" and force them to do what works.

(2) We also need to look into what they will consider to be the most important aspects of the experiment to study. In other words, will they only look at use rates, and if so, for which drugs? Would they lump cannabis in with all the other drugs? If so, they will likely see an increase in drug use during the first 12-18 months, after which they will likely see a tapering off, followed by a slow, steady decline in overall drug use.* So, if they only give the experiment 18 months, they will likely be able to claim a "moral victory" for prohibition due to increased use and shut down legalization altogether.
No, to make such an experiment meaningful, they'd have to give it at least three years, if not five. And they'd have to assess more than just rates of usage. They'd have to look into overdose rates, crime rates, hospital admissions, etc. Lifetime use rates would have to be given the least attention in favor of past month rates, which more accurately describe the current drug using climate.

(3) Of course, just because Bennett said it does not mean that it will happen. So, the most important thing to remember about this statement is that we can't even come close to counting on it. It is interesting to consider the possibilities, but lets also keep our eyes on the prize, so to speak. What we really need is not a free for all in one state, but legalization and regulation for the whole planet. And no jail time, period.

Dan B

*Here is why it would taper off, then decrease: (a) after 12-18 months, the novelty will have worn off for the locals. Sure, there would be drug tourists, much like one finds in Holland, but use in the general community would fall drastically once the novelty wears off, (b) once the effects of hard drug use are more widely known due to no longer brushing it out of society's view, the allure of that scene will also likely diminish, and (c) separation of the hard and soft drug markets would further decrease the chances that people who want to buy cannabis or mushrooms would encounter people who also want to sell them cocaine or heroin.

...As to this article,,,it's now going to be that countries such as Thialand
are going to compete for the "drug war",funding and assistance from
the US and China...and we know what "drug war assistance" means..We
can use Colombia as an example...it's the perfect excuse to become
involved in the countrys military,which is an excellent shortcut to
dominating the target country,,,,combine this with the financial
carrot,and you can more or less take over a country,,with the approval
of the countrys government,and military......If it was a game of "Risk",
I think it would be cheating,,,,,,and this aint no game,,this is a world
dominance ploy at its most underhanded and devious levels....

The walls are-a tumblin' down...

This means one of two things: either Bennett is being disingenuous, or he really believes that 18 months of legalization would provide justification for continued prohibition.

Is he right? If they legalized drugs in just one state, would there be less crime, better health, more money, and more honest law enforcement?

He should have known the communist threat was a
tired excuse and wouldn't play in 1972.

The very man who gave us our modern War on Drugs
failed to realize its potential to justify overseas military
action.

If Nixon and Kissinger had only been shrewd enough to
beat the "For The Children" drum, they could have kept
their war and perhaps the presidency too.

Just the one area where Nixon wasn't ahead of his
time, I suppose.