Drug Legalization

[Jas]

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=2908621023073531157

A friend sent me the link to the following video. Any thoughts on the ideas presented?

Also, does anyone know if this is a regular program that's produced this, or was it a one-off?

[Rob Lister]

Powerful video. I'm also amased that this level of public domain video exists.

The part about the legal manufactor of new and better drugs was a powerful argument against legalizaton.

[Katana]

I also think that there is something to drugs being illegal that dissuades many people from using them-be it the legal ramifications or social stigma associated with breaking the law.

While I don't think that this is the solution, I would love to see the drug bosses' profits plummet.

[bignickel]

I watched a minute of this thing; does it get any better? It's rather sad that the the anti-illegalizers don't have this kind of funding.

Per usual: what evidence exists that ANYONE is not doing drugs because they are currently illegal? To wit: when Bush the first greatly ramped up the intensity of "the drug war" (prohibition), the price of cocaine went DOWN, not up.

I have not been provided any evidence that the numbers of people using would change all that much if the illegalization was finally ended (appropriate terminology, in that something is legal until it is made illegal, and the the cost to keep it illegal must be paid each year, with billions spent on interdiction, courts, and prisons; not to mention the millions lost due to families being broken up by the spouse being sent to prison, the spouse's non-work in prison, etc).

I really can't see much of a line seperating the legal 'vices' vs the current illegal ones, but it's no matter to me what adults do to their bodies in the privacy of their own home. All of this is academic really; the people will never give up their addiction to "the drug war". They need it too much.

[shecky]

The part about the legal manufactor of new and better drugs was a powerful argument against legalizaton.

How so? Wouldn't new and better recreational drugs be a good thing? Wouldn't drug manufacturers be in the best position to tailor drugs for maximum high at minimum of side effects? This is assuming, of course, they're willing to accept the liability.

It's a rather ridiculous video, sort of welfare state meets Constant Gardener by way of CSI. I find the dramatization a bit, well, dramatic. And rather conspiratorial.

[shecky]

I also think that there is something to drugs being illegal that dissuades many people from using them-be it the legal ramifications or social stigma associated with breaking the law.

I think paradoxically, there's also something about drugs being illegal that makes them more attractive. Particularly in a place like the US that has had a tendency to completely overstate the negative effects of drugs which runs contra to users' experience.

[LawnOven]

Why aren't drugs legal again?

I felt like I was watching a chapter of "left behind".

[schplurg]

I think paradoxically, there's also something about drugs being illegal that makes them more attractive. Particularly in a place like the US that has had a tendency to completely overstate the negative effects of drugs which runs contra to users' experience.I believe that if this is true, it is to a very small degree. Example: alcohol.

[andyandy]

Per usual: what evidence exists that ANYONE is not doing drugs because they are currently illegal? To wit: when Bush the first greatly ramped up the intensity of "the drug war" (prohibition), the price of cocaine went DOWN, not up.

I have not been provided any evidence that the numbers of people using would change all that much if the illegalization was finally ended (appropriate terminology, in that something is legal until it is made illegal, and the the cost to keep it illegal must be paid each year, with billions spent on interdiction, courts, and prisons; not to mention the millions lost due to families being broken up by the spouse being sent to prison, the spouse's non-work in prison, etc).


living in tokyo you should know better than most that of course legality can have an effect on supply. It is far easier for someone to buy say canabis in the UK than it is in Japan...as a direct result of social stigma and a incredibly harsh drug policy....

[The Atheist]

How many million people die annually from tobacco & alcohol consumption?

How many die from marijuana use?

Some drugs ought to be compulsory, never mind legal.

[NeilC]

How many million people die annually from tobacco & alcohol consumption?

How many die from marijuana use?

Some drugs ought to be compulsory, never mind legal.

Hmm let me take a stab at that. Do more people die from the drugs that are legal and therefore widespread in their usage?

Surely a perfect example of why legalisation of all drugs isn't a good idea?

[NeilC]

living in tokyo you should know better than most that of course legality can have an effect on supply. It is far easier for someone to buy say canabis in the UK than it is in Japan...as a direct result of social stigma and a incredibly harsh drug policy....

Yes obviously. How anyone can claim otherwise is beyond me.

And this from a confirmed cannabis smoker.

[Lonewulf]

How so? Wouldn't new and better recreational drugs be a good thing? Wouldn't drug manufacturers be in the best position to tailor drugs for maximum high at minimum of side effects? This is assuming, of course, they're willing to accept the liability.

Have, for instance, cigarette companies tailored cigarettes to be less harsh on a smoker's lungs? From what I know, many cigarette companies have instead made a relatively more lethal cocktail to heighten addiction to their product (though, yes, some cigarette companies did make "lighter" cigarettes).

I have some bad experiences with drugs. My grandfather died horribly of lung cancer thanks to cigarettes, my father was an abusive drunk, and I know at least a couple others that have greatly diminished mental states at a very young age (think sophomore high school) thanks to heavy drug use, and their futures are entirely gone thanks to these drugs they were addicted to.

While I support the legalization of marijuana, I am leery on the idea of legalization of all drugs, without care to short-term or long-term affects. And the argument that it's only the drug user's business is dead wrong. When a man drinks and drives, it's no longer just his problem; meanwhile, when a guy gets cranked up on PCP, goes on a trip, and decides to cause havoc, it's not just his problem. When a man's mental state puts others around him at risk, then it's no longer just his problem.

Laws aren't designed just to protect the individual, but to protect the individuals around the individual.

As for the claim that illegalization makes the product more attractive... while that could potentially be true, it is usually far more difficult to obtain an illegal item than a legal item.

[Mephisto]

I didn't see the video (it took too long to load), but I think I got the basic gist from reading everyone's remarks.

Personally, I think that legal drugs are far more dangerous than drugs like marijuana, peyote or psilocybin mushrooms. I don't think any deaths can be attributed to those three fairly natural drugs (meaning they don't require refinement of any type to use), yet look at the side-effects for any legal drug.

Prozac is rumored to cause terminal (pun intended) depression and has been blamed for murder and suicide. It's supposed to stifle depression.

Ambien, a leading sleep medication is causing users to sleep walk and EAT dangerous amounts of food.

Vioxx (a medication for arthritus sufferers) has caused premature heart-attacks and is responsible for a number of deaths.

The most abused drugs today (in the U.S. at least) are the pharmaceutical drugs Oxycotin and Percodan.

Meridia - a popular weight loss drug is currently under investigation by the FDA for dangerous side-effects

Fen Phen (another once popular weight loss drug) was pulled from the market for causing permanent heart damage (and some heart-attacks) for users.

I think it past time that Americans withdrew their support for the legal drug pushers that seem to doing long-term testing on people and instead do what Kennedy did in the early sixties - urge Americans to become more physicallly fit. There are no magic pills or potions, no pharmaceutical voodoo that will cure your ills without a price.

http://www.ryar.org/news/march-2005.html

[NeilC]

Errrrr right. And what does this have to do with the video you didn't bother to watch?

It might amaze you to learn that people taking many of these drugs have miserable lives without them.

My mum for instance wouldn't be best pleased if you outlawed her anti inflammatory drugs that allow her such luxeries are writing, driving and opening bottles etc. I'll suggest she stops whinging and being lazy and get's her arse around the running track if you want but I suspect the arthritis might be a problem.

[IllegalArgument]

I have no interest in drinking, smoking or drug use, but I do think the drug laws are crazy.

I think it would be better if a city tried Amsterdam model.

[Luke T.]

http://www.marijuanalibrary.org/NYT_addictive_080294.html

The Henningfield and Benowitz ratings might help for purposes of this conversation.

[Mephisto]

Errrrr right. And what does this have to do with the video you didn't bother to watch?

It might amaze you to learn that people taking many of these drugs have miserable lives without them.

My mum for instance wouldn't be best pleased if you outlawed her anti inflammatory drugs that allow her such luxeries are writing, driving and opening bottles etc. I'll suggest she stops whinging and being lazy and get's her arse around the running track if you want but I suspect the arthritis might be a problem.

Don't be ridiculous! I'm no spring chicken either and I take a multitude of phamaceutical drugs for everything from high blood pressure, depression and "mood-modification," so I sympathize with your mother completely.

What I meant was that, instead of pushing the fast food to the point that American obesity becomes a problem, we should be pushing health and exercise as a way of helping FUTURE GENERATIONS becoming more healthy and staying healthy longer and requiring less dependance on drugs with potentially lethal side-effects. :)

[Katana]

http://www.marijuanalibrary.org/NYT_addictive_080294.html

The Henningfield and Benowitz ratings might help for purposes of this conversation.

In April, seven chief executives of tobacco companies testified before a Congressional subcommittee that nicotine was not addictive. Experts in addiction, while disagreeing with that assessment, say that the definition of addiction is evolving, and that they can see how such a statement might be made.
So we can expect perjury charges against them to be coming soon, right?:rolleyes:

[NeilC]

Don't be ridiculous! I'm no spring chicken either and I take a multitude of phamaceutical drugs for everything from high blood pressure, depression and "mood-modification," so I sympathize with your mother completely.

What I meant was that, instead of pushing the fast food to the point that American obesity becomes a problem, we should be pushing health and exercise as a way of helping FUTURE GENERATIONS becoming more healthy and staying healthy longer and requiring less dependance on drugs with potentially lethal side-effects. :)

No need for sympathy for my mum. She is a bit of whinger if I'm honest. I was just pointing out the lack of relevance of your point.

Clearly promotion of health and exercise are a good thing. Just not sure what it has to do with legalising drugs.

[Luke T.]

So we can expect perjury charges against them to be coming soon, right?:rolleyes:

Yep (http://www.no-smoking.org/jan98/01-07-98-5.html).

Also:

The Washington Post reports that yesterday's government action is "indirectly ... part of the first criminal action brought by the department after a three-year investigation." While the "tobacco industry has long denied that it controls nicotine levels," the Post notes that "companies could be prosecuted for perjury or other charges if they made false statements about their activities to federal investigators." One senior government official said the court filing "ought to send a signal to the industry that the criminal inquiry is serious and that it is moving."

http://www.no-smoking.org/jan98/01-09-98-1.html

[Charlie Monoxide]

Legalization = Control ....

Charlie (nuff said) Monoxide

[Luke T.]

No one in America believed them. A Justice Department task force labored for years to see if it could prove that the tobacco executives had lied. An abundance of documents demonstrated the addictive and carcinogenic nature of tobacco. But because the executives expressed what they insisted was their personal belief, the Justice Department never brought a perjury indictment.

Link (http://www.mckeenelson.com/intranet/resources/levy_op-ed.pdf#search=%22tobacco%20indicted%20executives%2 0perjury%22)

[shecky]

Have, for instance, cigarette companies tailored cigarettes to be less harsh on a smoker's lungs? From what I know, many cigarette companies have instead made a relatively more lethal cocktail to heighten addiction to their product (though, yes, some cigarette companies did make "lighter" cigarettes).

Drug companies aren't very involved with cigarette production. I didn't suggest drug companies would be very involved with recreational drugs, Rob Lister did. He suggested drug companies would get involved, seemingly with nefarious motives. I suggest if they did, they'd have enough motivation to offer safer drugs.

I wonder, in a world of legal drug use, how much market there would be for new recreational pharmaceuticals from drug companies versus plain old (currently street) drugs?

I have some bad experiences with drugs. My grandfather died horribly of lung cancer thanks to cigarettes, my father was an abusive drunk, and I know at least a couple others that have greatly diminished mental states at a very young age (think sophomore high school) thanks to heavy drug use, and their futures are entirely gone thanks to these drugs they were addicted to.

Interesting that two of your examples are legal drugs. My personal experience with drugs, legal and illegal, has been good, with no addiction or no noticable long term effects.

While I support the legalization of marijuana, I am leery on the idea of legalization of all drugs, without care to short-term or long-term affects. And the argument that it's only the drug user's business is dead wrong. When a man drinks and drives, it's no longer just his problem; meanwhile, when a guy gets cranked up on PCP, goes on a trip, and decides to cause havoc, it's not just his problem. When a man's mental state puts others around him at risk, then it's no longer just his problem.

By your own example, this happens with currently legal drugs.

Laws aren't designed just to protect the individual, but to protect the individuals around the individual.

I'm very skeptical of laws designed to protect the individual from himself. I think laws should be designed to protect others and their property.

As for the claim that illegalization makes the product more attractive... while that could potentially be true, it is usually far more difficult to obtain an illegal item than a legal item.

Usually. However demand and competition has made availability of drugs a non issue. After decades, $$$ spend on the war on drugs, harsh sentencing, I can step out my door and buy any drug in less than 15 minutes. It's more difficult to buy prescription athlete's foot medicine than pot or coke in these parts. Probably other illegal drugs, too.

In the circles I've hung with, drug, alcohol and tobacco use had no particular overwhelming stigma despite legality issues. Addiction, on the other hand, does seem to be marginalized, even down to the chain smoker.

[Charlie Monoxide]

.... I can step out my door and buy any drug in less than 15 minutes. It's more difficult to buy prescription athlete's foot medicine than pot or coke in these parts. Probably other illegal drugs, too.
I wish ....

Charlie (stuck in a wasteland called Orlando) Monoxide

[Luke T.]

Addiction, on the other hand, does seem to be marginalized, even down to the chain smoker.

I would guess that the cigarette smoker who is not dependent on nicotine would be the exception, not the rule.

That is why I linked the Henningfield and Benowitz ratings. While nicotine has perhaps the highest dependence rate, it has the second lowest intoxication rate after caffeine. The next highest addictive drug is heroin, which also has a high intoxication rate, which is why heroin is a bigger personal and societal hazard than nicotine.

Heroin is two steps higher on the dependence scale than alcohol, but only one step lower on the intoxication scale. So to me, that means it also has a higher personal and societal risk than alcohol.

Marijuana, on the other hand, has the lowest dependence rate, and a much lower intoxication rate than alcohol. So unless smoking a marijuana cigarette makes your penis fall off instantly, there is no reason why it should be illegal.

[ponderingturtle]

Have, for instance, cigarette companies tailored cigarettes to be less harsh on a smoker's lungs? From what I know, many cigarette companies have instead made a relatively more lethal cocktail to heighten addiction to their product (though, yes, some cigarette companies did make "lighter" cigarettes).

Well they did change some of their processing techniques when they found it was resulting in a markably less safe product. Specificaly useing dirrect propane exaust was creating an anarobic enviroment and increasing some carcinogenic compounds. So in their drying rooms where makeing the product less safe.

You can also look at the precentage of wood alcohol in much of the bath tub gin durring prohibition compared to now and see that legalization did result in a much safer product with alcohol.

[ponderingturtle]

I would guess that the cigarette smoker who is not dependent on nicotine would be the exception, not the rule.

That is why I linked the Henningfield and Benowitz ratings. While nicotine has perhaps the highest dependence rate, it has the second lowest intoxication rate after caffeine. The next highest addictive drug is heroin, which also has a high intoxication rate, which is why heroin is a bigger personal and societal hazard than nicotine.

Heroin is two steps higher on the dependence scale than alcohol, but only one step lower on the intoxication scale. So to me, that means it also has a higher personal and societal risk than alcohol.

Marijuana, on the other hand, has the lowest dependence rate, and a much lower intoxication rate than alcohol. So unless smoking a marijuana cigarette makes your penis fall off instantly, there is no reason why it should be illegal.


You forget the reason why it was made illegal in the first place. It was popular with mexicans durring the depression along the boarder and to make room for good white people to get jobs they needed something to go after them for. It was that their prefered intoxicant was pot instead of alcohol.

You can trace any drug being made illegal to a minority group using the drug. The only notable exception was prohibition

[Lonewulf]

IInteresting that two of your examples are legal drugs. My personal experience with drugs, legal and illegal, has been good, with no addiction or no noticable long term effects.

That's good. Care to stand that up to scientific tests, and show me the results?

I don't take anecdotes as data.

By your own example, this happens with currently legal drugs.

And that validates what, exactly? "Because we mess up, we should mess up some more"? I'm more in the direction of making drugs legal and illegal based on scientific research, as well as common sense.

I'm against the status quo as much as you are... I just want to go more the direction of science instead of "all the drugs you want, free!"

I'm very skeptical of laws designed to protect the individual from himself. I think laws should be designed to protect others and their property.

Read it again. That's what I said.

The laws are in place to protect, say, me from that raving lunatic loaded up on PCP, or a child from his drug-abusing mother. Hence, it's not to protect the individual from himself, but other individuals from that individual.

Hell, if I had my way, alcohol would be made illegal again... my father might have killed my mother if he wasn't loaded up on the stuff, and certainly tried to kill himself enough.

But of course, we ALL know that the only victims are the poor drug-users who can't get their daily fix, right? Well, what about when the drinking age was lowered in the U.S.? Guess what? Driving accidents increased radically. They increased the drinking age once more, and less accidents! Wow! Amazing! I guess laws actually DO work sometimes... or, no, wait, they don't, you say.

Also, news flash: Just because the laws are mishandling the situation currently, doesn't mean that I think that status quo is hunky dory. I'd be first to admit that current medicinal change needs radical change, and that it isn't perfect. But that doesn't invalidate my argument.

[shecky]

That's good. Care to stand that up to scientific tests, and show me the results?

I don't take anecdotes as data.

Scientific tests for my personal experience? You can choose not to believe me if you wish.

And that validates what, exactly? "Because we mess up, we should mess up some more"? I'm more in the direction of making drugs legal and illegal based on scientific research, as well as common sense.

Point is illegality hasn't stopped anyone from intoxicating themselves. It's currently perfectly legal to be a drooling drunk, as it should be. Even if you are a royal pain in the ass to your family.

The war on drugs is a ridiculous failure no matter how you measure it. Drugs have not been eliminated. Addiction has not been eliminated. The only thing it's managed to do is create a large, profitable, violent and illegal trade and a bottomless money pit for our taxes, dwarfing the problems we have with actual addicts.

[Mephisto]

Legalization = Control ....

Charlie (nuff said) Monoxide

Hey, you forgot to complete the equation so it looks more enticing . . . ;)

Legalization = Control = TAXES! There you go, I can see the ad campaign now: SMOKE UP, AMERICA! YOUR HIGH PAYS FOR THE WAR! or maybe instead of Rosie the Riveter we could have Jane the Joint Roller, Mary the Munchie, Debbie Doobie or Bertha Blunt. ;)

We could put a luxury tax on things like Doritos (don't forget, Saddam likes 'em too), popcorn, Oreo cookies, ice cream and doughnuts and pay off the enormous deficit in no time. ;)

[Kaylee]

You forget the reason why it was made illegal in the first place. It was popular with mexicans durring the depression along the boarder and to make room for good white people to get jobs they needed something to go after them for. It was that their prefered intoxicant was pot instead of alcohol.

Also …

There is some belief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Anslinger)that Anslinger, DuPont petrochemical interests and William Randolph Hearst together created the highly sensational anti-marijuana campaign to eliminate hemp as an industrial competitor.

To make a long story short -- Anslinger was the country's first commissioner on drugs. (The agency was known as the FBN, Federal Bureau of Narcotics.) It was in his interest to not only take advantage of prejudice against Mexicans and blacks, but to also exaggerate any dangers from marijuana as a way of making his brand new agency more important in the political arena.

In 1937 DuPont had just patented a new process to make paper from wood pulp and Hearst's business empire included large holdings in timber. Both men were interested in eliminating hemp as a competitive source of paper.

Marijuana and hemp were made illegal in 1937.

[Darth Rotor]

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=2908621023073531157

A friend sent me the link to the following video. Any thoughts on the ideas presented?

Also, does anyone know if this is a regular program that's produced this, or was it a one-off?

Soma

DR

[Lonewulf]

Point is illegality hasn't stopped anyone from intoxicating themselves. It's currently perfectly legal to be a drooling drunk, as it should be. Even if you are a royal pain in the ass to your family.

In the U.S., there's still an age limit, as there should be.

When this age limit went down, accidents went up. When it went up, accidents went down. Cause and effect -- legislation has been shown to work for alcohol, at the very least.

[shecky]

In the U.S., there's still an age limit, as there should be.

OK. Have I argued otherwise?


When this age limit went down, accidents went up. When it went up, accidents went down. Cause and effect -- legislation has been shown to work for alcohol, at the very least.

I believe the same was true during Prohibition, only across the board. So at least some of the goals were met. At the same time, it created bigger problems than it fixed.

[UserGoogol]

I believe that if this is true, it is to a very small degree. Example: alcohol.

Teenagers and college students love beer.

Prozac is rumored to cause terminal (pun intended) depression and has been blamed for murder and suicide. It's supposed to stifle depression.

I've heard that that can be explained away by "A person who is too depressed to do anything takes Prozac and suddenly has the energy to go to the store and buy a gun."

[Charlie Monoxide]

Hey, you forgot to complete the equation so it looks more enticing . . . ;)

Legalization = Control = TAXES! There you go, I can see the ad campaign now: SMOKE UP, AMERICA! YOUR HIGH PAYS FOR THE WAR! or maybe instead of Rosie the Riveter we could have Jane the Joint Roller, Mary the Munchie, Debbie Doobie or Bertha Blunt. ;)

We could put a luxury tax on things like Doritos (don't forget, Saddam likes 'em too), popcorn, Oreo cookies, ice cream and doughnuts and pay off the enormous deficit in no time. ;)I hoped I was implying that. It seems that some people are under the notion that we can control something by passing laws. The "war on drugs" has been a massive failure. Other than throwing more money, technology, and policing/incarceration, there has never been a serious look at legalizing.

In the US, it's political suicide to advocate any lessening of the drug laws.

As a tax paying salary guy, it perturbs me that a large amount of untaxed money is flowing to criminal organization both local, national, and international.

It also perturbs me to watch sanctimonious Cops episodes when they bust users caught in police sting operations. Especially the part when the cop preaches to the busted user, playing up to the camera.

Charlie (free the pot 10,000,000) Monoxide

[ponderingturtle]

Read it again. That's what I said.

The laws are in place to protect, say, me from that raving lunatic loaded up on PCP, or a child from his drug-abusing mother. Hence, it's not to protect the individual from himself, but other individuals from that individual.


Exactly. Cocaine was made illegal to protect white women from "cocaine crazed negroes", and it serves the same purpose today.

[ponderingturtle]

Also …



To make a long story short -- Anslinger was the country's first commissioner on drugs. (The agency was known as the FBN, Federal Bureau of Narcotics.) It was in his interest to not only take advantage of prejudice against Mexicans and blacks, but to also exaggerate any dangers from marijuana as a way of making his brand new agency more important in the political arena.

In 1937 DuPont had just patented a new process to make paper from wood pulp and Hearst's business empire included large holdings in timber. Both men were interested in eliminating hemp as a competitive source of paper.

Marijuana and hemp were made illegal in 1937.

I was unaware of that angle on it as well.

[ponderingturtle]

Teenagers and college students love beer.



I've heard that that can be explained away by "A person who is too depressed to do anything takes Prozac and suddenly has the energy to go to the store and buy a gun."

Also even if you are not as depressed you still hold the same opinions of yourself or others. So persistance of thought patterns is an issue as well.

[YoPopa]

In the US, it's political suicide to advocate any lessening of the drug laws.One exception to "prove the rule" in this case is Congressman Ron Paul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul).

[Lonewulf]

Exactly. Cocaine was made illegal to protect white women from "cocaine crazed negroes", and it serves the same purpose today.

Surely if you're going to throw in racism, why not throw in the Cubans?

Cocaine did wonders for Scarface. :)

[Mephisto]

I've heard that that can be explained away by "A person who is too depressed to do anything takes Prozac and suddenly has the energy to go to the store and buy a gun."

I hadn't heard that, UserGoogol, but it does make a lot of sense.

I'm sure the appropriate actions will be taken when Prozac users suddenly have the energy to buy a gun and search for those they believe cause their depression. :)

[Mephisto]

I hoped I was implying that. It seems that some people are under the notion that we can control something by passing laws. The "war on drugs" has been a massive failure. Other than throwing more money, technology, and policing/incarceration, there has never been a serious look at legalizing.

In the US, it's political suicide to advocate any lessening of the drug laws.

As a tax paying salary guy, it perturbs me that a large amount of untaxed money is flowing to criminal organization both local, national, and international.

It also perturbs me to watch sanctimonious Cops episodes when they bust users caught in police sting operations. Especially the part when the cop preaches to the busted user, playing up to the camera.

Charlie (free the pot 10,000,000) Monoxide

I agree with you 100%, Charlie. The "war on drugs" has gone about as well as the "war on poverty," and the "war on terror." I amazes me that it never occurs to us NOT to declare war on anything - we might then win. :)

Here's a link to a site that pretty much tells it all:

In the early part of this century the moral majority tried the penal solution to the use of the drug alcohol; and fourteen years later that law was repealed. This lesson is being re-taught with horrible consequences. The War on Drugs: . . . .


1). Has reduced the U.S. industries of drug cultivation and manufacturing to a fraction of what they were in the 70s.

2). Billions of dollars now flow out of this country to purchase drugs at greatly inflated prices.

3). Approximately 1/2 of all organized crime’ s revenues come from drugs.

4). Drug profits turn ordinary citizens into criminals. People because of association, need, and drug usage have become involved in the drug trade, but whom are otherwise law abiding.

5). Increased enforcement has caused the replacement at the top of the non—violent middle-class entrepreneurial smugglers, dealers, and manufacturers with the more violent lower class participants. In the seventies those coming of good families dominated the top position in the United States drug business. By the 90’s that was no longer true.

6). During the 70s when enforcement was increased, smuggler began bring in huge quantities of cocaine, because measured in dollars it occupies one-hundredth the space of marijuana. With decreasing availability of pot and an increasing availability of cocaine, sales of cocaine, the far more pernicious drug, skyrocketed. Violence also rose as South American Cartels set up shop in this country."

http://skeptically.org/recdrugs/id9.html
____________

And another site discussing the economic problems:

Economic Consequences of the War on Drugs

Compiled by Anonymous, Drug Policy Alliance. 2002.

How much does the drug war cost American taxpayers?

$40 billion per year and climbing. In 2000, the National Drug Control budget exceeds $18 billion(1) and the states will spend upwards of $20 billion more.(2) This is a dramatic increase since 1980, when federal spending was roughly $1 billion and state spending just a few times that.(3) Between FY1991 and FY2000 more than $140 billion(4) has been spent at the federal level to curtail drug abuse, yet drugs remain cheap, easy to obtain and with higher purity levels than before the war on drugs was initiated.

What competes with the drug war for budget money?

Education. Because prisons and universities generally occupy the portion of a state's budget that is neither mandated by federal requirements nor driven by population, they often must "fight it out" for funding. As state governments sink millions into corrections to house America's exploding population of incarcerated drug law violators - now nearly 500,000 nationally(5) - education loses.

From 1987 to 1998 state spending on corrections increased by 30% while spending on higher education decreased by 18.2%.(6)
State prison budgets are growing twice as fast as spending on public colleges and universities.(7)

http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/factsheets/economiccons/fact_economic.cfm

[ponderingturtle]

Surely if you're going to throw in racism, why not throw in the Cubans?

Cocaine did wonders for Scarface. :)

No I am citeing the orrigion of the laws agenst cocaine. They started in the south, because cocaine was orrigionaly used there by black doc workers as a stimulant at work. Then they started to use it recreationaly in part because alcohol was illegal for blacks.

I am unware of any role that cubans or anyone else had orrigionaly had in making cocaine illegal.

[Lonewulf]

I am unware of any role that cubans or anyone else had orrigionaly had in making cocaine illegal.

Don't think they did, but I do know that Cubans and Cocaine became inseperable in public mind during the "War on Drugs".

[ponderingturtle]

Don't think they did, but I do know that Cubans and Cocaine became inseperable in public mind during the "War on Drugs".

That was declaired long after cocaine was made illegal on a national basis. So is a result not a cause of that.

[Katana]

I hadn't heard that, UserGoogol, but it does make a lot of sense.

I'm sure the appropriate actions will be taken when Prozac users suddenly have the energy to buy a gun and search for those they believe cause their depression. :)
Another potential confounder is the fact that really depressed people are more likely to take an anti-depressant (Prozac is the #1 prescribed in America) and to be suicidal. So is it correlation or causation?

[Lonewulf]

That was declaired long after cocaine was made illegal on a national basis. So is a result not a cause of that.

Well, I never said it was. I was just commenting randomly, really.

I would take issue if you are suggesting that the only reason cocaine is still banned is because of racism, however.

[ponderingturtle]

Well, I never said it was. I was just commenting randomly, really.

I would take issue if you are suggesting that the only reason cocaine is still banned is because of racism, however.

Oh of course not. Cocaine jumped the racial barrier years ago, now there could be arguements that legal distictions between cocaine and crack had a partialy a racial issue but that is not the point.

[AmateurScientist]

I hadn't heard that, UserGoogol, but it does make a lot of sense.

I'm sure the appropriate actions will be taken when Prozac users suddenly have the energy to buy a gun and search for those they believe cause their depression. :)

Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have known for years now that severely depressed patients are more likely to be at risk for suicide while they are coming out of a depression than they are while in one. This is precisely because of their increased energy level and improved ability to formulate and execute plans upon coming out of a severely depressed state. Although it may sound marginal to those who have never been in or seen anyone in a severely depressed state, it does take energy and the ability to plan and execute that plan in order to take one's life. Often, patients in a severely depressed state lack even that small degree of energy and ability to plan.

So, in effect, anything that improves a severely depressed person's condition of being severely depressed temporarily increases that person's risk of committing suicide for the brief period during which the person is making the transition from being severely depressed to feeling more "normal" and mentally healthy. Prozac isn't the proximate cause of anyone's suicide, and any cases or studies indicating otherwise are based on faulty reasoning or incomplete facts. The mental state that results from coming out of a severe depression is the cause of the increased risk.

AS

[Jas]

Personally, I think that legal drugs are far more dangerous than drugs like marijuana, peyote or psilocybin mushrooms. I don't think any deaths can be attributed to those three fairly natural drugs (meaning they don't require refinement of any type to use), yet look at the side-effects for any legal drug.

Actually, for someone who's mentally ill, ingesting any of those drugs is a disaster. Marijuana in particular has been indicated in schizophrenic episodes.

In the one psychiatric hospital my mother worked at (and this is anecdotal, but I believe that it's supported by the current literature), there was a section nicknamed, "the vegetable patch". I'll let you guess at to what state these people were in. The vast majority were there because of recreational drug use.

As well, recreational drugs haven't undergone the battery of tests that prescribed drugs are subject to, so I don't think that any of the lesser side effects are as well documented as we would like.

Prozac is rumored to cause terminal (pun intended) depression and has been blamed for murder and suicide. It's supposed to stifle depression.
[/url]

I noticed that AS answered this already, so I'll just second what he said. My mother worked as a psychiatric nurse for years (plus I've had a fair amount of experience with mental illness and treatment of), and it's commonly known that those at the highest risk for suicide are those coming out of depression.

It's kind of similar to some claims being made about Accutane possibly causing psychosis. The people most commonly prescribed the drug (male adolescents), are also the same groups where you most commonly see the onset of schizophrenia.

[Almo]

As long as alcohol and tobacco cigarettes are legal, the illegality of cannibis remains idiotic.

Alcohol is more deadly in OD situations, and cigarettes are more deadly in the long term.

[Wheezebucket]

I like my dealer and my prices. I'm not one to rock the boat.

Keep weed illegal.

[Lonewulf]

As long as alcohol and tobacco cigarettes are legal, the illegality of cannibis remains idiotic.

Alcohol is more deadly in OD situations, and cigarettes are more deadly in the long term.

See, this I agree with. I'm just much more leery about the stronger drugs.

[Charlie Monoxide]

One exception to "prove the rule" in this case is Congressman Ron Paul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul).He is a "rare bird". Also the governor of Arizona, Bill something or other, was also an advocate of legalization.

It'd be great if the religeous right would take up drug non-prohibition as a cause.

Charlie (praying to jeebus) Monoxide

[HeavyAaron]

I can step out my door and buy any drug in less than 15 minutes. It's more difficult to buy prescription athlete's foot medicine than pot or coke in these parts. Probably other illegal drugs, too.

I've often thought about this. Suppose I lost my mind and wanted to consume a drug. I haven't the foggiest idea where or how to obtain one. For people exactly like me, it makes no difference whether they are legal or not as there's a very negative appeal. However, for people somewhat like me, legalization could make a difference in so much as it would not only be available but available through known channels.

Aaron