Crack Babies: Not a big problem after all

[Puppycow]

The Epidemic That Wasn’t (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/health/27coca.html?8dpc)

Cocaine is undoubtedly bad for the fetus. But experts say its effects are less severe than those of alcohol and are comparable to those of tobacco — two legal substances that are used much more often by pregnant women, despite health warnings.

Surveys by the Department of Health and Human Services in 2006 and 2007 found that 5.2 percent of pregnant women reported using any illicit drug, compared with 11.6 percent for alcohol and 16.4 percent for tobacco.

So, um, why do need to have a War on Drugs again?

[quixotecoyote]

The Epidemic That Wasn’t (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/health/27coca.html?8dpc)



So, um, why do need to have a War on Drugs again?

Wouldn't this line of argument need to look at percent of each drug user that uses while pregnant?

[Puppycow]

Wouldn't this line of argument need to look at percent of each drug user that uses while pregnant?

You mean the article or what I wrote?

[Roboramma]

Surveys by the Department of Health and Human Services in 2006 and 2007 found that 5.2 percent of pregnant women reported using any illicit drug, compared with 11.6 percent for alcohol and 16.4 percent for tobacco.

Do we expect that women using illicit drugs while pregnant tend to report doing so as often as those who consume alcohol or tobacco?

[luchog]

Do we expect that women using illicit drugs while pregnant tend to report doing so as often as those who consume alcohol or tobacco?

That depends on the context of reporting. But even if it was underreported by 50%, it's still below the reported use of either alcohol or tobacco; both of which are also likely underreported to a lesser degree.

[Puppycow]

That depends on the context of reporting. But even if it was underreported by 50%, it's still below the reported use of either alcohol or tobacco; both of which are also likely underreported to a lesser degree.

The rate of self-reporting seems less relevant to me.
The important fact is that the harmful effects of crack (on babies) are less severe than those of alchohol and comparable to those of tobacco.

So, what remains to justify the vastly different legal statuses of these drugs?

[applecorped]

I wasn't a crack baby but I was a pot teen and sadly it still is not recognized as the tragedy it wasn't.

[Roboramma]

The rate of self-reporting seems less relevant to me.
The important fact is that the harmful effects of crack (on babies) are less severe than those of alchohol and comparable to those of tobacco.

So, what remains to justify the vastly different legal statuses of these drugs?

Well there's also the issue of addictiveness: that is, is it more difficult for pregnant crack users to stop using because of their pregnancy?
The rates cited above don't tell us this, because we don't know what percentage of the population uses crack.

So, if 5.2 percent of the population at large use illicit drugs, and 5.2 percent of pregnant women continue using, that's not a good thing.
I don't suggest that the number for the population at large is 5.2 percent, but I would suggest that it's lower than for alcohol or tobacco.

I agree with your other point, mind you (about the affects on the babies), but if the tendancy to continue using in pregnancy is higher by a great enough degree, that's still very troubling. (Not that I know it is, only that it may be).

[Zeuzzz]

So, um, why do need to have a War on Drugs again?


Maybe something to do with the nearly $30 billion dollar annual funds they recieve to fight the war on drugs. Or maybe they just want people to go to work, maybe its a wothwhile investment. Maybe not.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BbfuTv6ZJ8I

[Puppycow]

I'm not sure that there's any objective way to measure addictiveness.

Here (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/addictiv.htm) is an estimate by "experts"

Relative Addictiveness of Various Substances

In Health, Nov/Dec 1990

"To rank today's commonly used drugs by their addictiveness, we asked experts to consider two questions: How easy is it to get hooked on these substances and how hard is it to stop using them? Although a person's vulnerability to drug also depends on individual traits -- physiology, psychology, and social and economic pressures -- these rankings reflect only the addictive potential inherent in the drug. The numbers below are relative rankings, based on the experts' scores for each substance:

100 Nicotine
99 Ice, Glass (Methamphetamine smoked)
98 Crack
93 Crystal Meth (Methamphetamine injected)
85 Valium (Diazepam)
83 Quaalude (Methaqualone)
82 Seconal (Secobarbital)
81 Alcohol
80 Heroin
78 Crank (Amphetamine taken nasally)
72 Cocaine
68 Caffeine
57 PCP (Phencyclidine)
21 Marijuana
20 Ecstasy (MDMA)
18 Psilocybin Mushrooms
18 LSD
18 Mescaline

Research by John Hastings
Relative rankings are definite, numbers given are (+/-)1%

[Puppycow]

Maybe something to do with the nearly $30 billion dollar annual funds they recieve to fight the war on drugs. Or maybe they just want people to go to work, maybe its a wothwhile investment. Maybe not.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BbfuTv6ZJ8I

That and the fact that large majorities still favor keeping drugs (other than alcohol and tobacco) illegal.

http://www.pollingreport.com/drugs.htm

(I'd like to see a new poll though. The most recent one is 2002.)
Legalizing marijuana would be the lowest-hanging fruit, and at last check, 59% opposed that, while only 34% favored it. It does seem to be moving slowly in the direction of support for legalization, though. In '86 only 18% favored it and 78% opposed.

[rjh01]

If they legalized some illegal drugs then a huge % of the crime industry would be out of a job.
- police
- lawyers
- politicians
- prison industry
- criminals

There would still be crime, but at a reduced rate. You can find information on the Internet e.g. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/44417.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/switzerland-drugs-heroin

[ponderingturtle]

So, what remains to justify the vastly different legal statuses of these drugs?

Well one would seem to be the degree of harm and how addiction effects people. But what is your evidence that crack babies were ever a serious justification behind making cocaine illegal?

As long as the public supports them being illegal they will be.

[NewtonTrino]

This is a tyranny of the majority. The feds truly don't have the authority to fight this illegal war. Legal dispensaries in California are still being raided by the feds. What a crock of you know what.

[Professor Yaffle]

Nobody seems to have mentioned that there is no evidence that very low levels of alcohol do any harm at all to the foetus. So looking at percentages of pregnant women who use each substance is no use at all unless you look at the level of use.

[ponderingturtle]

This is a tyranny of the majority. The feds truly don't have the authority to fight this illegal war. Legal dispensaries in California are still being raided by the feds. What a crock of you know what.

You can say that about anything.

"Income Tax is the Tyranny of the Majority"

If you want anarchy just advocate that.

Arguements about how the war on drugs is ineffective at the what it intends is a better arguement than that it is tyranny.

[ponderingturtle]

Nobody seems to have mentioned that there is no evidence that very low levels of alcohol do any harm at all to the foetus. So looking at percentages of pregnant women who use each substance is no use at all unless you look at the level of use.

Well my understanding is that alcohol is significant because it very easily crosses through the membrane between the fetus and the mother. The larger more complex chemicals in cocaine and other drugs don't cross this membrane as readily.

[Professor Yaffle]

Well my understanding is that alcohol is significant because it very easily crosses through the membrane between the fetus and the mother. The larger more complex chemicals in cocaine and other drugs don't cross this membrane as readily.

In the Uk the advice to drink no alcohol was only introduce because it was felt that the advice to drink only small amounts was confusing.

Pregnant women and those trying for a baby should avoid alcohol completely, according to new government advice.

It replaces existing advice that one to two units such as a couple of glasses of wine per week is acceptable.
The change follows concern from some sectors that there is no safe amount of alcohol that mothers-to-be can drink. While heavy alcohol consumption during pregnancy is known to be damaging to the unborn child, the effects of more moderate intake are less clear.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists says there is no evidence that a couple of units once or twice a week will do any harm to the baby.

The Department of Health said the revision was not based on new scientific evidence but was needed to help ensure that women did not underestimate the risks to their baby.
It now says pregnant women or women trying to conceive should abstain from alcohol. If they do choose to drink, to minimise the risk to the baby, they should not drink more than one to two units of alcohol once or twice a week and should not get drunk.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6687761.stm

[luchog]

So, what remains to justify the vastly different legal statuses of these drugs?
A handful of very powerful people with lots of money and big sticks; and a whole lot of common people too ignorant or afraid to challenge them.

[luchog]

Arguements about how the war on drugs is ineffective at the what it intends is a better arguement than that it is tyranny.
Not really, because the simple counter-argument is that "we just need to put more time/money/effort into it to make it more effective". That's exactly how we got to the horrible place that we are now.

A better argument is to show the actual harm and social costs resulting from drug use, versus that resulting directly from prohibition enforcement. By all rational, scientific measurements the former is absolutely and relatively negligible, while the latter ranges from serious to horrific. The problem is that too many people have a grossly overexaggerated image of the former, resulting from decades of emotionalist and pseudo-scientific propaganda, and no real understanding of the latter.

[NobbyNobbs]

A handful of very powerful people with lots of money and big sticks; and a whole lot of common people too ignorant or afraid to challenge them.

You seem to be neither ignorant nor afraid to challenge them. What actions have you taken, other than posting here?

[godless dave]

Funny the New York Times is running this now. This is very old news.

[ponderingturtle]

In the Uk the advice to drink no alcohol was only introduce because it was felt that the advice to drink only small amounts was confusing.

Well that is similar to how radiation warnings are devised. You can assume that there needs to be some threashold before the effect starts, or that it is continous. In radation there is not good evidence to tell if there is a threshold in millirads that is safe or if any exposure is dangerous. They use the assumption that any exposure is danerous and that it functions in a linear fashion to be on the safe side.

There might be small effects that happen, but ones that are hard to measure. Or not.

Now if the effect is not measureable you can say it is not significant and thus can be ignored, but that doesn't mean that there isn't one.

The point does stand that it is not impossible that the so called drug addicted babies are not really.

[ponderingturtle]

A handful of very powerful people with lots of money and big sticks; and a whole lot of common people too ignorant or afraid to challenge them.

I wouldn't say that. There are enough voters that would not vote for someone who wanted to reform drug laws because they could be painted as being weak on crime, that you can not say it is a handful of powerful people.

It might have started that way, but most of the country does not want to legalize marijuana at this time.

[ponderingturtle]

Not really, because the simple counter-argument is that "we just need to put more time/money/effort into it to make it more effective". That's exactly how we got to the horrible place that we are now.

A better argument is to show the actual harm and social costs resulting from drug use, versus that resulting directly from prohibition enforcement. By all rational, scientific measurements the former is absolutely and relatively negligible, while the latter ranges from serious to horrific. The problem is that too many people have a grossly overexaggerated image of the former, resulting from decades of emotionalist and pseudo-scientific propaganda, and no real understanding of the latter.

I am not sure how this differs from what I was advocating. If you say that the goal of criminalizing drugs and such was to reduce the negative impact they have on soceity, and then look to see if that negative impact has been reduced and compare it to the negative impact of the program, you can dirrectly see how effective the program is.

As to people who think "well this much of X has a harmful effect, but what about 2X ammount" well some woo can not be stamped out in any area.

[luchog]

You seem to be neither ignorant nor afraid to challenge them. What actions have you taken, other than posting here?

Campaigning for initiatives and attempting to help educated others whenever I have the opportunity; as well as suppoting organizations like NORML. I also vote for candidates who support reforming drug laws (who are almost exclusively libertarian, since neither of the Big 2 want things to change).

Unfortunately, unlike the prohibitionists, I don't have millions of dollars (tax dollars mostly) to spend on televised "public service announcements" and public-school-based disinformation campaigns; two extremely powerful venues that reformers are legally barred from.

[luchog]

I wouldn't say that. There are enough voters that would not vote for someone who wanted to reform drug laws because they could be painted as being weak on crime, that you can not say it is a handful of powerful people.

It might have started that way, but most of the country does not want to legalize marijuana at this time.
That's only because they believe drug use directly causes crime, thanks to decades of government and prohibitionist propaganda using various drugs as a scapegoat for much more complex social problems. The vast majority of people are too ignorant to challenge what are often clearly false or self-contradictory claims; and too afraid of the drug boogyman created by the propagandists to apply the sort of critical, skeptical thinking necessary to improve their ignorance.

Propagandists have managed to link "drug legalization" with "soft on crime" through the use of emotionalist tactics and assertions supported with pseudoscience and junk science, so it's very difficult for any candidate for public office to be one without being seen as the other. People who do understand the real science and are able to take a dispassionate, rational view of the issue typically support legalization; and there are a lot more than you might think. They just can't bring themselves to vote for the sorts of (admittedly often very looney) candidates who would consider legalization.

As to people who think "well this much of X has a harmful effect, but what about 2X ammount" well some woo can not be stamped out in any area.

And we just can't seem to stop electing woos.