This pub is f/k/a the British Medical Journal. They're addressing a worldwide audience of physicians and health-care professionals. It seems a bit narrowminded to interpret their suggestions in a US-only context.
There's plenty of evidence supporting the position of this editorial. Various nations have tried some form of decriminalization. The effects have been generally positive in places like Portugal, Switzerland, and the Netherlands.
But, of course, if drug users are the face of sentient evil, then decriminalizing the drugs is the same as failing to resist evil. This is why selling the idea in the US is very difficult. We've been taught for generations that drug users are inherently evil, and treating them is, at best, a waste of time.
US physicians have enough trouble with the federal government as it is. The US government has a century-long history of making the professional lives of dissenting physicians very difficult indeed. It's unreasonable to expect many of them to embrace this cause with public speech.
Here in Massachusetts USA, the voters recently chose to end the prohibition on cannabis (following the lead of Colorado and Washington state). The Roman Catholic church (Boston diocese) chose to compel their clergy to speak against this initiative from their pulpits on the Sunday before election. (Huh! I thought electioneering from the pulpit was prohibited. I guess not for the RCs.) I know a couple of law-enforcement leaders who privately supported the end of prohibition, but didn't dare speak publicly.
The end of prohibition has to come from voters in the US. Physicians can't do it: the government can revoke their licenses. Legislatures can't do it; they're much too beholden to the military-industrial complex that fights the war on drugs. Religious leaders can't do it: to declare that certain behaviors aren't evil erodes their worldly authority, which comes mostly from the ability to condemn "those" people, whoever they are.
It's reassuring that policy can change due to voter interest in spite of the resistance of career politicians - it demonstrates that American democracy has yet to fail absolutely.
Perhaps the focus of people interested in new policies should be directed at state reform rather than federal? Ballot propositions seem to have been rather effective recently, and they encourage the education of constituents rather than the few legislators currently in power who may have conflicts of interest.
Then nationwide reform no longer has the excuse of "that wouldn't work in America!", and people impacted significantly at least have the option of moving to those states (i.e. MA and CA for gay marriage a few years ago).
Yes, for sure. Here in MA we did pioneer state support for marriage equality, and we also pioneered individual-mandate health insurance (now known as Obamacare).
There's plenty of evidence supporting the position of this editorial. Various nations have tried some form of decriminalization. The effects have been generally positive in places like Portugal, Switzerland, and the Netherlands.
It may be time for some of these nations to propose, and sign off on, an alternative to the 1951 anti-drug treaty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_... Maybe physicians can lead the way in some nations.
But, of course, if drug users are the face of sentient evil, then decriminalizing the drugs is the same as failing to resist evil. This is why selling the idea in the US is very difficult. We've been taught for generations that drug users are inherently evil, and treating them is, at best, a waste of time.
US physicians have enough trouble with the federal government as it is. The US government has a century-long history of making the professional lives of dissenting physicians very difficult indeed. It's unreasonable to expect many of them to embrace this cause with public speech.
Here in Massachusetts USA, the voters recently chose to end the prohibition on cannabis (following the lead of Colorado and Washington state). The Roman Catholic church (Boston diocese) chose to compel their clergy to speak against this initiative from their pulpits on the Sunday before election. (Huh! I thought electioneering from the pulpit was prohibited. I guess not for the RCs.) I know a couple of law-enforcement leaders who privately supported the end of prohibition, but didn't dare speak publicly.
The end of prohibition has to come from voters in the US. Physicians can't do it: the government can revoke their licenses. Legislatures can't do it; they're much too beholden to the military-industrial complex that fights the war on drugs. Religious leaders can't do it: to declare that certain behaviors aren't evil erodes their worldly authority, which comes mostly from the ability to condemn "those" people, whoever they are.
It will take a generation, or more.