Violence and illegal drugs!

[-Metablade-]

Note: I apologize to both Mike and Meta for taking Mike's original post another direction. However, if Meta doesn't have any objection, I'll leave his excellent post as a new topic. This is a topic close to my heart, since I knew so many who died or ended up in prison because of drugs. GEM

In my view, this is absolutely the way to go.
Legalizing drugs would;

1. Make the substances no longer "taboo" thereby demystifying and removing it from the "I do it just because someone says I cannot." category.

2. You would cripple local street gangs (although they might have to resort to escalation of other, perhaps violent criminal activity, however this would expose them to greater chances of capture.)

3. We could extract the other uses for these substances, i.e.,
In the case of Hemp, Food, paper, textiles, oil, medicine, etc.
I am certain to this well educated and esteemed panel that I do not have to go into the history of why this substance was outlawed in the first place.

4.One could argue that there may even be a downtrend in drug use if they were legalized. The fear for ending prohibition was that there would be rampant, drunken citizens which would cause a breakdown in society. As we can see, this was not the case.

5.Drug cartels would be crippled, and our South American neighbor's economy would skyrocket, and perhaps ours too. I have it on unverified authority that America's largest, untaxed crop is indeed Cannabis.
There would also perhaps also see a slowdown in illegal immigration as tunnels and other methods which the Drug Lords who smuggle goods and people employ would be obsolete.

Of course, at present, this is all hypothetical and I am by no means an expert on social engineering metrics.
However, it would appear that there must be some underlying method as to why drugs such as Cannabis, LSD, Cocaine, etc, are illegal, and yet Alcohol and Nicotine, (Some of the most destructive and addictive substances known to man,) are available at any corner market.
It is purely social objection? If so, what it is based upon?
Simply because we are told it is bad?
This would appear to be a subject of social programming on a scale which is appalling.

[TSDguy]

A lot of controlled substances are deadly very quickly. It would be bizarre to sell chemicals that instantly kill a small percentage of your customers.

Tobacco and alcohol companies kill off their customers as well, but usually only if you're addicted, in which case I'm not sure the tobacco or alcohol is really to blame.

I can definitely see an argument for legalizing pot or -- well anything they sell in Amsterdam. But legalizing crack probably isn't going to be a good public health plan.

[-Metablade-]

I'd like to reply by quoting your post if that is alright, but please know that I'm not arguing you directly, just the concepts, as I wish to respect you personally.

A lot of controlled substances are deadly very quickly. It would be bizarre to sell chemicals that instantly kill a small percentage of your customers.

The U.S. Government allows many kinds of deadly consumables of varying death inducing time-span ratios into the market for our and our children's enjoyment.
So clearly the Government cannot be relied upon to assess what is dangerous and what is not. I would even argue that the Government on many levels is doing a poor job of protecting the public safety in this regard even on simple levels. (And they think that the can prevent a pandemic?)

http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/theworld/topten.htm

Now I suppose one could argue that for every 100 products that do not get by, 1 does, and I agree that certainly crack is not on the same par as Draino per se, but perhaps you see my point; Ultimately, The Government has no business nor is capable to determine what is safe for human consumption, although they do a really good job of pretending that they do.
Here is some scary info:

http://tinyurl.com/7g6og

Perhaps the most scariest, is that when it comes to these sorts of issues, especially regarding food products, the FDA
deals with the issue from the standpoint of acceptable risk analysis, i.e., how many deaths are acceptable in any given product. Think about that the next time you go to the supermarket.

Anyhoo, more crack info:
http://www.cocaine.org/

Tobacco and alcohol companies kill off their customers as well, but usually only if you're addicted, in which case I'm not sure the tobacco or alcohol is really to blame.

The physical, mental and emotionally addictive qualities of both alcohol and Nicotine are well documented:

Tobacco:
http://www.drugabuse.gov/Infofacts/Tobacco.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/cigarette/nicotine.html

(By the way, as a former smoker myself, I can tell you, I didn't shove a rolled up bunch of leaves that was ON FIRE in my face for 20 years because it tasted good.)

Alcohol:
http://www.caas.brown.edu/
http://www.ichs.uaa.alaska.edu/caas/

I can definitely see an argument for legalizing pot or -- well anything they sell in Amsterdam. But legalizing crack probably isn't going to be a good public health plan.

They sell crack in Amsterdam as well. Thing is, it's not in as high demand due to interest. (I have not actually researched that statement, so it may be erroneous) however, I DO know that they have a lower rate of long-term use and addicts:

Good Reading:
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm
Overall scope:
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/internat.htm

In case anyone was curious, America is not "losing" the war on drugs, we simply lost the war on drugs. End of story.
Why?
My opinion;
Because Americans WANT drugs. Supply and demand.
If there were no demand, there would be no supply.
Cut the demand by making it as common as Coke (pun intended) and then REAL drug education can begin.
Treat the education on drugs like we treat education on Bug Spray:
I.e., This is the chemical substance, and this is how it interacts with other parts of your body, etc, NOT:
"This is your brain on drugs" (Egg with Frying pan)
De-socialize, De-criminalize, De-mystify.
Honest, in your face education, not myth and social taboos.

Will there be people who use drugs anyway?
Yes.
But surprise! Those who would, already do, regardless.
But by legalization of most currently controlled drug substances, the level of damage done by addiction is minimized down to the level of say, alcohol. There is no criminal support mechanism, (or this is minimized) because with legalization there is severe price reduction due to fair capitol competition, (minimizing crime based on Junkies getting huge sums of money for their daily "fix") There is reduction of organized crime activity for obvious reasons)
You tax it, make money from it, and increase overall awareness.
There's more to it, that should be enough for the moment.

[Bill Glasheen]

This is a tricky issue, IMO, with no clear good choices.

Tax these substances and make money on them? Sure, you could do that. But then guess what? You get government addicted to the taxes. We get all warm and fuzzy about reducing the rate of smoking in this country until the government squawks about the loss of revenue from all the sin taxes on tobacco and such. You create this runaway government machine in need of revenue to employ staffs and keep doing all the "good" things government does, and then they look for that money elsewhere the second someone comes up with a medication that cures addiction. And in case you are wondering, that research is indeed being done today.

There are degrees of addiction, and there are degrees of availability of various substances. Right now kids can start smoking at an early age. We know that if you start smoking before the age of 19, your chances of kicking the habit are pretty slim. Legalization is never pure legalization. We limit the age kids can drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, drive, and have sex with adults. One way or another you are restricting these activities because you know from the evidence that it is a good thing for society and for individuals in that society to do so.

Just how much do we free the restrictions? Would I get to shoot the bastard that got my kid high? Do you honestly think we can stop kids from getting at this stuff? As it is, we can't stop them from drinking and having sex.

Do a little bit of research on how quickly and permanently methamphetamine can alter an adult's brain on many, many levels. Then see how much more profound those effects are on the developing brain of a child. And anybody with a bathtub, some common chemicals, and some pseudoephedrine can make the stuff. Where do we draw the line?

I'm against getting government addicted to controlled substances via taxation. The less government the better as far as I am concerned. And I am fine with legalizing any number of substances, so long as the government makes it legal for me to take "justice" in my own hands once some bastard starts feeding the junk to my kids. Why? Because government has failed in the past to control this, and you can bet your life savings that they will fail even more miserably if availability and "respectability" are increased. And I promise you, folks won't like my brand of justice...



And it is my prerogative - and my duty - to raise my kids in a manner that suits me and their best interests.

So... Any takers?

It's never as simple as any side wants to make it.

- Bill

[benzocaine]

Before my son entered the world I agreed with much of what Meta blade argues.

Now, I just can't stand the though of him screwing up his life through being an addict.

There is no easy answer as I see it.

[IJ]

Why are drugs illegal?

Well, instead of the way it used to be (substance got due process, in the sense that someone had to write a specific law or amendment in the case of alcohol, get it to pass Congress like any other law), we now have a system wherein someone decides they don't like a substance, and wham, they have authority as the DEA to make it inaccessible.

Pot is a great example. Bad for your lungs but unable to overdose; no dependence; some amotivational syndrome but compare this danger to all the people I see with heart and lung disease from tobacco and liver disease or trauma from alcohol.

It is now schedule 1, the most tightly restricted, because someone with power in washington had it out for pot.

Ecstacy is another example... there's clear dangers but many come from it being adulterated these days... the government data was very thin and SOME was based on a completely different chemical when the drug was totally banned. People who'd used safely for a long time were astounded and PO'd.

FYI, drugs and especially pot are / were viewed as counterculture / left. That has a lot to do with the timing of the removal of legslative control of these substances and its handing over to a new agency created by a republican administration.

Incidentally, Plan B, an estrogen preparation that can prevent pregnancy after rape, condom failure, or poorly planned unprotected sex, is hung up in the FDA which doesn't want it to get over the counter status. The reason is political and stems from the ideology of our current President and his administration who are influencing this supposedly independent and objective agency charged with making decisions that affect our nation's health.

Disclaimer: I've never been intoxicated by any substance, but I have an obvious libertarian bent when it comes to people exercising control over our access to potentially useful (however user defines) chemicals.... I'm torn over really awful drugs like crack and heroin, but interception is a joke.

[benzocaine]

Granted many have "toked"a little weed here or there. Probably about 85% of those reading this. But pot is known as a gateway drug. People try it like it, and some say "well that wasn't so baaaaad...hmmmm... I betcha cocaine feels reel good too ". Next thing you know they are robbing there own mother to pay for a 20 piece off Accushenett Avenue in New Bedford.

This is what happened to most of my buddies who I hung with as a teenager. One died in his sleep at 25 years.. massive coronary . Another made the papers couple years ago... high speed chase, busted with an "8 ball" of coke. Another is a 34 year old now who lives with mommy in her basement

Losers all.

I got lucky. When I was 20 I had a car accident and fractured some vertebrae. It gave me about a half a year to contemplate my "friends" who couldn't come visit me in the hospital (well the one who is dead now did at least) and what type of person I really wanted to be. Re Learningto walk was quite a life altering experience for me. Maybe it was all part of the grand scheme:?:

I figured out that drugs and alcohol have no place in a successful life. But yeah... there are pleanty of sucsessful pot heads

[-Metablade-]

The National Center On Addiction And Substance Abuse at Columbia University reports the following;

The whole report is located here:
http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/gen008.htm

Deaths in the United States in a typical year:

* Tobacco kills about 400,000
* Alcohol kills about 80,000
* Workplace accidents kill 60,000
* Automobiles kill 40,000
* Cocaine kills about 2,500
* Heroin kills about 2,000
* Aspirin kills about 2,000
* Marijuana kills 0

There has never been a recorded death due to marijuana at any time in US history.

All illegal drugs combined kill under 20,000 per year, or a small percent of the number killed by alcohol and tobacco.

Tobacco kills more people each year than all of the people killed by all of the illegal drugs in the last one hundred years

The Califano Report

Drug Prisoners

* 1,360,000 Drug Prisoners in America
* 1.7 million Americans are incarcerated in prisons or jails, more per capita than any other nation.
* Nearly 80% of all prisoners in America are for drug related offenses.
* Ten million people have been arrested for marijuana since 1965.



Anheuser-Busch, brewers of Budweiser, hair-test employees to be sure that they are not using any drugs less dangerous than the one they make.

America has only 5% of the world population but consumes 60% of ALL illegal drugs produced in the world.

There are 47 million school age kids in America, currently over 27 million of them try drugs and alcohol each year.


In December 1997 a long-awaited report by the World Health Organization (WHO) of the United Nations about marijuana came out, the first in 15 years.

A scandal erupted when the British science magazine New Scientist in its February 1998 issue exposed the suppression of a chapter in the document.

In the censored chapter the authors, three leading addiction researchers, compare the dangers of marijuana, as documented by science, against those of the legal drugs alcohol and nicotine and illegal opiates.

In dry, factual language they point out that where risks exist these are actually more serious for these two legal drugs.

They exposed the double standards that are being applied in the drug debate, and according to an insider quoted by New Scientist some WHO officials went nuts.

Two WHO bureaucrats opposed to the report were WHO-head Nakajima (retired in June 1998) and narcotics division head Dr. Yoshida.

The conclusion of the New Scientist on the whole issue of marijuana is that legalization is not a question of if but when.

***************************

So I ask you, what's the War on Drugs in America really about?
Piss poor education
Myths, lies, corruption, and just plain 'Ol typical American ignorance if you ask me.
Seems to me that if you we are really concerned about public health, then Tobacco and Alcohol need to be made illegal.

[benzocaine]

Meta blade,

Ever here about the posotive results obtained from a glass of wine or a beer a day?

[-Metablade-]

I apologize, but I am afraid that I am not certain of the point. (are you being sardonic, as I mostly am or were you agreeing with me?)

Is it to elude that statistics are can often be biased? (This would be true, so it's important to examine as many sources as possible. For ease of read, I only included one source.)

If you refer to POP science, or pseudo-science, yes, this can also be a culprit of poor dissemination of facts.
Incidentally, a humorous example of how pop science works, especially in the realm of health products is this:

(Taken from "The Hackers Diet")

http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/e4/

First, a legitimate researcher publishes a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that claims, heavily hedged and based on largely statistical evidence, to demonstrate a connection between a certain dietary component and some aspect of health, for example, a particular kind of fibre and serum cholesterol levels. That night, the evening news trumpets, “Researchers at the University of Sausalito have discovered a connection between peach fuzz and heart disease. In a study of 100 peach pickers and packers…”. Before you know it, the Sunday supplement's bulging with recipes for peach pie with fuzzy crust.

Meanwhile, the advertising engine is coming up to speed. Full page ads sponsored by the Georgia Peach Association proclaim, “Look for ‘Fresh Georgia Peaches’ on the bag. And remember, only Georgia peaches have 25% more fuzz”. Oat-this and oat-that breakfast cereals begin to vanish from the supermarket, displaced by the arrival of Peachies, Fuzz-chex, and Teenage Mutant Fuzzy Ninja Turtles. Soon, the whole supermarket looks like it's been sprayed with minoxodil. Whole grain cookies enriched with peach fuzz. Fuzz-tab supplements. Fuzzy toothpaste. “Fizzy fuzz” peach champagne.

Now everybody else tries to jump on the bandwagon. The Soybean Institute launches a new promotion to remind people that soybeans are the “hairy legume.” Cheesemakers remind consumers “Cheese—so good for you it grows its own fuzz in the fridge.” “The Fuzzy Way To Health,” “Dr. Harry's Fuzz Diet,” and “The Plantation Peach-Fuzz Cookbook” contend for space in the bookstore window, and their authors make the rounds of the talk shows.

The silliness builds to a crescendo of absurdity, around which time the medical journals start to publish papers such as “Peach Fuzz: No More Effective Than Sawdust” and “No Fuzz-Cholesterol Link In Rats.” As the wave begins to recede, another article is published, “Possible Correlation Between Sesame Seed In Diet and Immune System Performance.” And away we go again.

[Bill Glasheen]

Indeed. People who consume one alcoholic drink a day live longer than people who drink more, or don't drink at all. That cannot be said of any drug (such as cannibis) that you are advocating to legalize.

I don't argue with everything you are saying here, Metablade. You are making some very good points. There are some very good arguments for legalizing - or at least decriminalizing - marijuana.

BUT... You are giving a very biased story here.

What I will argue comes from a person who has read the science, used to smoke (I quit) used to drink (I rarely do now because I'm always the driver) and used to smoke pot like most of the college kids of my generation. So this isn't coming from where the moon doesn't shine (or from the moonshine... ).

First...

* Tobacco kills about 400,000
* Alcohol kills about 80,000
* Workplace accidents kill 60,000
* Automobiles kill 40,000
* Cocaine kills about 2,500
* Heroin kills about 2,000
* Aspirin kills about 2,000
* Marijuana kills 0

There has never been a recorded death due to marijuana at any time in US history.

Alright, I need to call BS here. You know what this reminds me of? It reminds me of the CEOs of the major tobacco companies testifying in front of Congress that tobacco wasn't addictive, and that there was no proof of the negative health effects.

Let's get real.

Marijuana smoke - puff for puff - is MUCH more toxic than tobacco. The only reason people aren't suffering from COPD sooner and dieing of that and lung cancer faster is because you generally don't smoke as much. But I will bet you my retirement money that there's quite a few people out there pushing daiseys from a case of lung cancer induced by years of smoking pot. It has the same cancer-producing organic compounds in the smoke as any other organic material you would burn and then intentionally inhale. When you think about it, it's kind of a stupid thing to do, inhaling smoke like that.

Driving while high on pot is dangerous. More than a few people I'm sure have died from DUI due to pot.

Pot - and any other substance that alters your thinking and judgement - is a dangerous thing in the hands of teenagers who already have major issues with judgement. More than a few teens have been the victim of rape while high. And rape exposes them to all the typical STDs such as HIV (which can kill you), HPV (which causes cervical cancer which can kill you), gonorrhea (which can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease which can kill a woman or make her sterile), and pregnancy (which increases your risk of death). And lets not forget that men lose a little judgement which can lead to unprotected sex which can expose them as well to these same STDs and life issues.

Pot lowers the testosterone level. It even has been shown to induce gynecomastia in heavy users. The last thing we need in this country is a population with less drive. We're already starting to get our a$$es kicked by India and China, where they are most happy to work harder for less.

THC is a fat soluble compound. Consequently it doesn't leave your system for about a month. This causes all sorts of issues, such as making it impossible for a LEO or an employer to determine exactly when you smoked that last reefer. One certainly shouldn't be driving while high, nor should one be working while high - especially where human lives are at stake.

Pot also induces munchies. And we already have a major obesity epidemic in this country, leading to thousands of premature deaths. Do we really need another reason to eat junk food? Maybe for cancer patients, but otherwise...

There are other issues associated with smoking pot... but... uh.... er.... well...

I forgot!

- Bill

[IJ]

Certainly pot has killed--and it IS bad for your lungs. but I was thinking of the documented case where a high railway worker sent two trains into each other. The widower gave an impassioned plea not to toke on his public service ad.

As a gateway drug, I cal BS. Then ethanol is the great gateway right? Besides, what does this tell us besides people who use one drug use another? Does this show that 1) THC would make a nonsmoker START or more importantly 2) can THC interdiction reduce substance use? I doubt it.

More later....

[benzocaine]

As a gateway drug, I cal BS. Then ethanol is the great gateway right? Besides, what does this tell us besides people who use one drug use another? Does this show that 1) THC would make a nonsmoker START or more importantly 2) can THC interdiction reduce substance use? I doubt it.

Ian- on Pot

Call it BS if it makes you happy Ian, that Marrijuanna is a gateway drug.

Calling a drug a gateway drug doesn't mean it absolutely leads to others, but makes people more likely and willing to use other different drugs. There are pleanty of folks who do no other drug but pot. THat would make pot what drug abuse specialists call "drug of choice".

Also, keeping pot illegal may never reduce it's use,but if it is ever legal, I can think of a lot of people who would hole up and stay baked all day.... I mean hey.. why not??? There would be no more "dry times" where there wasn't any around. You could also shopfor it and go to the lowest priced dealer, and buy in bulk. Right now most people who smoke it only know a few people who sell it.

[IJ]

"Calling a drug a gateway drug doesn't mean it absolutely leads to others, but makes people more likely and willing to use other different drugs."

That's precisely what I'm disputing. We don't know this. We know a lot of people who use pot go on to use other drugs. Well, we don't know if they wouldn't have used those same drugs--perhaps EARLIER--if THC was unavailable or even never existed. And if we follow that logic, almost EVERYONE who's used any "drugs" has also taken:

1) Caffeine
2) ethanol
3) tobacco

And do we see anyone arguing that these three gateway drugs should be made schedule one narcotics, unavailable to anyone under any circumstances, including dying AIDS and cancer patients who, rather than operating heavy machinery, worry about maintaining their weight by eating rather than having nausea and anorexia all day? No.

The reason is, we're working backwards from the law to the justification. "Hmmm what good might this law do?" You can almost always think of something. If the speed limit was 45, we could argue it would substantially reduce fatalities and gas consumption and we'd be right, but that's only one side.

It's better to start with some goals, and look at each substance independently and decide whether it'll pass muster or not. And I believe--despite all the great warnings Bill put out about THC and its smoke, amotivational syndrome, and possible immune/ testicular effects--there are plenty of health risks associated with drugs we're happy to see legal, and there is no standard that would keep ethanol and tobacco legal and pot illegal.

Want to say pot intoxicates you? Fine, so does alcohol.

Want to say pot is bad for your lungs? Fine, alcohol is bad for your brain and liver, tobacco is bad for your lungs, heart, and the rest of you, and besides, you can eat your pot.

I'm not advocating drug use--as mentioned above, I've never been intoxicated by any substance and I've never used an illegal drug and don't plan to start. I just don't see a compelling reason for the government to restrict our access to pot

[benzocaine]

Great argument that the three legal drugs you mentioned could be gateway drugs too. I agree, they probably are gateway drugs.

But maybee you are missing something there. Just because 2 of those three you listed are known for there deleterious effects, doesn't mean we say.. "oh... well they're bad........ lets just legalize everything since we already have some bad stuff being consumed anyways''. No sir, sorry. Two wrongs do not make a wright.

As for medical THC, well, I actually believe that should be the ecxeption. If someone is in 3rd or 2nd stage cancer, why not?
Oxycontin or morphine can't be any better for them. Of course we have our glaucoma patients too.

But I'm confused. Isn't medical THC available? I thought it was called Marinol.