What’s So Bad About Casual Drug Use?

Most people who try cocaine don't go on to become addicts

  • Share
  • Read Later
Getty Images

So Representative Trey Radel, the Republican from Florida, a self-styled “conservative voice” in Congress, has pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of cocaine possession. And Toronto’s city council has stripped Mayor Rob Ford of much of his power after it came out that he had smoked crack (never mind that Ford’s well-known drunken antics were not cause for such censure).

Rather than arguing whether such figures are hypocrites (Radel voted in favor of mandatory drug testing for food-stamp beneficiaries) or debating how they should attempt damage control (he’s also pledged to enter a substance-abuse program after paying a fine and receiving a year’s probation), let’s ask a more basic question: What’s so scandalous about casual drug use?

Yes, some substances are illegal (though as the case of marijuana shows, this status is subject to change). But absent other indicators of dangerous and antisocial behavior — like driving while intoxicated — why should snorting coke be treated any differently than, say, drinking a beer?

(MORE: 8 Things We Won’t Miss When Pot Is Legal Everywhere)

Prohibitionists typically deny the very possibility of responsible or voluntary use of currently illegal substances. They argue that drugs such as coke, heroin, ecstasy, methamphetamine and even marijuana are verboten precisely because they simply can’t be used casually. Any use either already constitutes abuse or quickly leads to it. “Drugs are not dangerous because they are illegal,” former drug czar William Bennett and former Health, Education and Welfare Secretary Joseph Califano wrote in a 2011 Wall Street Journal op-ed, “they are illegal because they are dangerous.”

Nearly 50% of people have tried an illegal drug at least once, yet most don’t repeat the experience. With cocaine, most who have tried it not only don’t go on to became addicts under even the most expansive possible definition of the term, they don’t even go on to become regular users.

According to the latest National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 14.5% of Americans ages 12 and older have tried cocaine at least once, but just 1.8% report using the drug recreationally in the past year. And just 0.6% have used it in the past 30 days, which would seem to be the minimal definition of a casual user.

The same pattern is true for heroin, which is typically talked about as magically addictive. Fear of the drug is surely one of the reasons why just 1.8% of Americans have ever tried it at all. But only 0.3% report using it in the past year and just 0.1% in the past month. That pattern simply shouldn’t be possible if these drugs were as addictive as commonly thought.

In the early 1970s, researcher Lee N. Robins led a study commissioned by the Department of Defense that followed tens of thousands of Vietnam War veterans as they returned to the U.S. Use of narcotics and heroin was rampant among soldiers stationed in Southeast Asia, with as many 20% showing signs of addiction. Yet during the first year back, “only 5% of those who had been addicted in Vietnam were addicted in the U.S.” and “at three years, only 12% of those addicted in Vietnam had been addicted at any time in the three years since return, and for those readdicted, the addiction had usually been very brief.” It wasn’t for lack of access to junk, either: half of the returning addicts said they’d tried heroin at least once since arriving back home.

As my Reason colleague Jacob Sullum has documented, such take-it-or-leave-it findings are common in drug research. In his 2004 book Saying Yes and other places, he’s detailed work in which researchers find a surprising range among heroin users, including a study that concluded, “It seems possible for young people from a number of different backgrounds, family patterns and educational abilities to use heroin occasionally without becoming addicted.”

It’s also true that regular drug users can often function quite well. Sigmund Freud used cocaine habitually for years, and his first major scientific publication was about the wonders of the drug (he eventually forsook it). Another pioneering late 19th and early 20th century man of medicine, William Halsted, was dependent on cocaine and morphine during an illustrious career that revolutionized and modernized surgical techniques.

None of this is a brief for snorting cocaine, shooting heroin or smoking marijuana (a substance that 58% of Americans think should be legal for recreational use) any more than it is a plea for drinking single-malt whiskey or pinot noir.

But in an age in which we are expected to use legal drugs (like beer) and prescription medications (Adderall) responsibly, it’s time to extend that same notion to currently illegal substances whose effects and properties are widely misunderstood. Indeed, the effects of coke, heroin and the rest are a mystery partly because their outlaw status makes it difficult both to research them and have honest discussions about them.

(MORE: Give Rob Ford Rehab, Not Ridicule)

Radel has announced that he’ll be taking a leave of absence from Congress while he enters rehab. Perhaps he does need to sober up — that’s really for him and his family to decide — but it’s far from clear that his problem is particular to cocaine or illegal drugs. Indeed, in announcing his plans, he didn’t blame cocaine for his troubles but “the disease of alcoholism,” which he says led him to make really bad decisions. And alcohol, after all, is perfectly legal.

161 comments
mescott
mescott

I'm a 38 year old husband and father of 2 young kids. I do not regularly take drugs. Oh but wait, yes I drink beer 3 or 4 days a week. But the illegal type? Not regularly. I have smoked weed, but don't enjoy it and usually pass on the joint. I have done cocaine in the past, and may even do it again I imagine, when I am in that situation, just because it is so common. But I do NOT wake up and want a beer, or want a line of coke, or want to smoke a joint. Yes, guilt sometimes comes the next day, but not for long, because really, it is life and as long as you know you are being the person you want to be, then you put it down to another life experience.

Yes, I understand there are addicts out there and they DO want something all the time, but I really question the whole notion of the moral crusade against casual drug use. I really do not think it is helping in any way at all. Addictive personalities are part of our world and probably always will be. It is not the availability of drugs, it is their condition that they need treated. There will always be something available to addicts.

I am not condoning drug ABUSE which I know can cause misery for those addicted and their families. I have seen more people suffer from alcohol than any 'hard' drug (and I am pretty knowledgeable what is going on out there due to personal experience).


The problem is that the current stance and attitudes is not working. Almost everyone laughs at alcohol excess, celebrities (and your partying friends) do coke and we all know it, buddy likes to smoke a joint. Lets face facts, for most of us it does not define our life. For most of us it adds to our experience of life.


Drug abuse is not the same as casual drug use.

RickYanas
RickYanas

What an adult of legal age does to themselves as long as they cause no harm to others or do it on the job is nobody's business. All these drugs were once legal for hundreds of years and nobody complained. Hearst got marijuana made illegal in the 1930's during the great depression by tying it to the illegal immigrants posting articles and cartoons in all his newspapers and magazines by saying most crime was committed by stoned Mexicans and worse yet were raping and brutalizing white women. We all know that is nonsense, or we should. The war on drugs is the greatest hoax over pulled on the American people. It hasn't stopped anyone from doing anything. It hasn't even managed to slow it down. All it has done was to enforce peoples racism.  Allow the rich and powerful to wage war on the poor and make jobs for the sheep to garner votes while putting tax dollars in their bank accounts. Our prisons and jails are over crowded by more than half by non violent offenders, who have done nothing to anybody but themselves. Wake up fools and quit letting others tell you what you can do or think. We are a nation formed by free thinkers who believed in the freedom of choice and the individual and should be allowed to do as we want as long as we do not interfere with, or harm others.    

Duncan_20903
Duncan_20903

I’ve heard that there are people who abuse their own naughty parts! What kind of society would we have if that were legal?!? There would be people doing that when they’re driving! Their cars would be bouncing up and down like those hydraulic hot rods that are driven by our Country's unregistered guests! I don’t want to see people playing with their privates in public places either!  It makes people go blind! I've known lots of blind people and every one of them abused their own naughty parts before they went blind! If we legalize that then we would have to let people marry their hands for crying out loud! Ooooh, I’m so excited! I asked for my hand in marriage today and it said yes! ’nuff said!
 

Duncan_20903
Duncan_20903

I really hope that the mindless prohibitionists, particularly the ones so obsessed that they use sock puppets to further their irrational and delusional insistence that our society continue to embrace the proven, epic failure of the idiocy which we call the war on (some) drugs will find some way to rationally deal with the fact that people have seen through the facade and we're just not going to be continuing this stupidity much longer. We've let the prohibitionists borrow and squander over $1 trillion with a T on these failed public policies and we're flat broke.


But guys, there is some really good news, if you support the continued embrace of proven failure you've been played for chumps by professional confidence men. The hysterical rhetoric that you've been regurgitating in this column has no basis in reality. So all of the horrors you envision in that hollow spot where most people keep their brain aren't going to happen. Of course you've got to consider that you might have a fatal conniption fit as a result of not making the truth a welcome visitor in your home. There are lots of Countries which you would be more comfortable and we really don't need any of the enemies of freedom. So please, give serious thought to emigration and if you decide that's what you're going to do please don't let the door hit your rear end on the way out. We don't need people who would steal our birthright to liberty that we're all promised as Americans so just pound sand. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

------------------------------

Let's play "Ask the Prohibitionist!"

Q) How many prohibitionists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A) None. Changing the bulb would be surrender. With enough effort and borrowed money we can make the old one work the way it’s supposed to.

DrRachitaNarsaria
DrRachitaNarsaria

The fact that such few people have tried and used the drug in the past year or month is because of the very illegal notion and contant negative publicity that the drug gets...not because its not addictive silly! Had they not been going so rampant about the side effects of these notorious drugs, then who knows you would have been breathing into a drugalayzer saturday night driving back home to check your blood cocaine levels, and worse....might have been killed yet by one such crazed snorter!. who maybe just did it for the first time today! 


The-Evil-One
The-Evil-One

It is imperative that those mind altering substances currently outlawed remain outlawed. Every law provides discretion to the agencies of law and order, they can look intensively for breaches in some places while practically ignoring others. When the law is against normal human behaviour such as using mind altering substances the number of breaches exceeds the laws ability to detect more than a tiny fraction of them and in this case the enforcement can be skewed to focus on hated racial or  economic minorities without the skew being noticed.  Blacks and whites of the respectable class use drugs at nearly the same rate, but imprisonment of blacks occurs at ten times the rate of white imprisonment.

The drug laws provide the only effective arm of ethnic hygiene policy, the only remaining means of excluding the descendants of the slaves wrongly freed in that most egregious excess of political correctness the abolition of slavery, from the Amrican dream of upward social mobility.  

Examine the timing of the introduction  and the intensification up of the drug laws and one sees that they constitute  a counter-attack against the successes of the '60s civil rights movement.  Nothing is as effective at keeping a black person down and in his correct place as a felony drug conviction that makes him unemployable, strips him of the right to vote and all government help for education and housing.  Those who defend the US against charges of anti-Negro racism lack awareness of the drug laws and their racially skewed enforcement.

billgriggs4
billgriggs4

Holy crap, this bumblebee woman hasn't had a very good time on this board today. Her posts are rather confusing and don't really tell us what her positions are, but it seems people have been pretty harsh on her. 

So, just to stir it up, I'll say I am 100% for prohibition of some drugs. I think it's crazy to lock somebody up for using an unapproved party substance, and that it is insane to leave people with felony convictions for simple possession of unapproved intoxicants for personal use, but call me crazy but I don't want people selling heroin and meth at the corner store.  I am a lawyer who has handled thousands of pounds worth of drug cases and just about every other kind of criminal case, drug related or not.  I know that heroin is almost nonexistent in my town and I'd prefer that it stayed that way. If we sell it from shops in town though to anybody who wants it, most people would leave it alone because they aren't that stupid, but some would mess with just for the heck of it and before you know it we'd have a bunch of heroin addicts causing us problems when we really had none before.

Prohibition does actually work to varying degrees depending upon how popular a substance is in an area. Meth is pretty common in my area, but to get it odds are you're going to have to deal with shady people and you're going to pay a lot and you're not going to know what the heck you're getting.  This has to deter some curious people who might want to see what the big deal is but not enough to have to deal with tweakers. 

Weed should be legal and regulated like alcohol.  The black market for illegal drugs is mostly a black market for marijuana. That's what most illegal drug producers are producing, what most smugglers are smuggling, what most dealers are dealing and what most illegal drug users are using. When we legalize weed it will take millions and millions of participants out of the black market for illegal drugs, which I would argue would probably reduce hard drug use because far fewer will ever even come into contact with these substances. Marijuana is everywhere.  The cat is out of the bag and there is no putting it back in. It's cheaper than beer on a per use basis for the most part and easy for anyone to find around the country, and there are so many sources you don't really have to deal with shady people to get it. And while it may not be harmless, it's not like alcohol that is behind most of the violent crime we deal with in the criminal justice system, nor is it like meth or heroin and so on that are behind so many of the thefts and forgeries and check kiting and that type of thing we see in our courts from addicts who will do darned near anything when they're desperate for a fix. Most pot related crime wouldn't exist if marijuana was legal. It's not harmless, but it's not such a threat that it makes any sense at all to continue with this failed prohibition that doesn't stop a darned thing but costs us a fortune and causes every problem caused by our failed prohibition of alcohol and more. 

Not that I care if somebody plays around with a little cocaine or something, but if it were up to me we would not allow the hard stuff to be sold legally to just any adult who wants it. We might try things like heroin maintenance programs in areas where we have a lot of heroin addicts that can't seem to kick the stuff.  That could actually cut out a lot of crime and take core business away from drug dealers.  Drug possession would be decriminalized, but in the system we would be trying to identify problem drug users and addicts and would compel some into treatment. I was a public defender for years. I've dealt with hard drug addicts more than I ever wanted to and a lot of these people are more than just a nuisance, they're a menace. We don't do enough to help mentally ill people in the system and we keep dealing with same ones over and over again and it's the same with hard drug addicts.  In fact there's quite a bit of overlap between the two, and the system is just wholly inadequate when it comes to these people.  They fall through the cracks, or we just lock them up over and over again which is both inhumane and expensive and it doesn't do us a lick of good. 

These are my opinions, and people from either the rabid drug warrior camp or the anti-prohibitionist zealot extremist camp might disagree with me. That's fine. And MalcolmKyle, if you want to call me a terrible person and harass me like you've done with Bumblebee here, I raise my middle finger in salute to you. 

KevinHunt
KevinHunt

New Hampshire prison official calls to ‘legalize, control, regulate, tax’ marijuana

The head of one jail in New Hampshire said on Monday that his experience in the prison system had made him sure that it was time to legalize marijuana.

“If we legalize, control, regulate, tax in the same way that we do for alcohol, we put the illegal drug dealer out of business.”

The 20-year veteran of law enforcement pointed out that it costs about $32,000 to keep each non-violent drug offender incarcerated every year.

“The fact is policies like mandatory minimum sentencing, drug war issues have meant that the United States has had to build over 900 jail beds every two weeks for the last 20 years"

Van Winkler observed that both Washington and Colorado had legalized marijuana and “guess what? The sky is not falling.”


MalcolmKyle
MalcolmKyle

PRISONS FOR PROFIT FOR PROHIBITION:

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, over 2.3 million Americans were behind bars in 2009, additionally nearly 7 million people -- that is, 3.1% of the US population, or 1 in 32 Americans -- were under supervision of the correctional system. By contrast, China, which has a population four times that of the United States, has the second-highest number of inmates worldwide, at 1.5 million.

Here's a transcript of a 2008 PBS special:

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/419/transcript.html

Though the average citizen does not know it, they very likely invest in the Prison-Industrial-Complex through the purchase of stock in the more than 2000 mutual funds in operation, as these derive at least some of their profits from inmate labor or prison construction. Companies such as Disney, General Electric, American Express, TWA, and Microsoft all make a portion of their profits from this industry

http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/The_Corporate_Prison__The_Prod_of_Crime_and_the_Sale_of_Discipline.pdf

The following link will show you the very close relationship between Prohibition and the Prison-Industrial-Complex:

http://www.hermes-press.com/prisons_drugs.htm

Sadomoralist, prison-for-profit prohibitionists don't care! They don't care that, historically, the prohibition of any mind altering substance has never succeeded. They don't care that America has the highest percentage of it's citizens incarcerated of any country in the history of the planet. They don't care about spawning far worse conditions than those they claim to be alleviating. These despotic imbeciles are actually quite happy to create as much mayhem as possible. After all, it's what fills their prisons and gets them elected.

Here's what the UK Economist Magazine thinks of us: "Never in the civilised world have so many been locked up for so little"http://www.economist.com/node/16636027

bumblebee
bumblebee

"You are a prohibitionist, which makes you co-responsible for the more than 60,000 Mexicans murdered due to YOUR Drug War during the last 8 years alone."

This is something you said about me. First of all you do not know me (thankfully because it's pretty obvious that I would not be able to stand you in my life). And, despite my exhaustive attempts to help you understand my opinion on the matter which you refuse to even try to understand because it is different, but not against yours, you continue to remain ignorant of everything I am saying to you. I have never been part of the drug war, nor have I ever been in support of it. Everything that it stands for, and everything that results from it is negative. I also do not think that every outcome of legalization will be positive. Somehow, in some crazy person's mind somewhere, this makes me a prohibitionist interested in controlling everyone and keeping all drugs illegal and dangerous for people even though one of the things that I am most concerned about it the harm that these drugs cause people.

YOU ARE IGNORANT. If I don't completely agree with you, then I'm automatically completely against you and responsible for killing Mexicans? Get a life first of all. Next, try to understand the fact that the world is beautiful because we are all different. If no one ever had a different idea or opinion on anything where would we be? You have wonderful facts about your favorite topic of prohibition, but obviously no life skills in understanding or listening.

If anyone in this argument is responsible for causing direct pain to others, it is you.

MalcolmKyle
MalcolmKyle

We have a lady on here posting under the name "Bumblebee" she clams she doesn't support prohibition but continues to write in such a fashion that it's very obvious that she damn well does. Here is just one of her statements;

"I am not in favor of drug use unless it is the last resort for medical purposes."

Of course, most, at present, illegal drugs are already used for medical purposes. 

Methamphetamine is FDA approved and prescribed to children over the age of six. 

Kindly check their website:

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm088582.pdf

Heroin (diamorphine) is also even given to children for medicinal reasons.

http://www.bmj.com/content/322/7281/261.abstract

Why is this person commenting on a subject she clearly knows nothing about?

timtiminhouston
timtiminhouston

This whole idea that the government has a right to force me to see a doctor to get permission to put something in me is offensive to reason. Controlling what goes into my mouth is as important as having control over what comes out of my mouth. I am free or I am not.  If I cannot control my body or there is no freedom.  Let's not mince words here, I am not debating this.  

Guess what? I don't give anyone the power to decide if I am free or not. I forcefully take freedom, and I do as I will no matter what powers there be. I am a power unto myself; I am an individual. I already chose free will. 

NatWalsh
NatWalsh

I think rather than continually making substance abuse a policing issue, it'd be better suited as a healthcare one. Let's stop this billion dollar "drug war" & fund that into better education, and resources for addicts. It's simply insulting to our intelligence to state that we shouldn't do something simply because it is illegal, in my opinion. And either way, I rather regular users go to their local drugstore for a safe substance & clean needles rather than the latter. I think prohibition, and jailing addicts has been proven time and time again to not be an affective way of treating this issue.

ZacTalbott
ZacTalbott

We're learning more and more that addiction has more to do with genetics than just about anything else - including the substance. As someone in recovery from opioid (prescription pain pills & heroin) use, and an advocate for individuals in medication assisted recovery, it's interesting that about 10% of individuals that have tried heroin are currently using it... That goes hand in hand with all the research on genetics surrounding alcohol and opioid use and addiction. About 10% of people in opioid pain management tend to develop an addiction (it's important to distinguish between physical dependence and addiction)... About 10% of people who socially drink end up developing a form of alcoholism... And it's interesting here that the same is true for heroin.  We would be much better served by focusing on education and prevention - and effective, evidence-based treatments for those already struggling with addiction. The War on Drugs is a total failure. Prohibition needs to end. It's a failed approach to drug "policy," and it desperately needs reform.

MalcolmKyle
MalcolmKyle

Prohibitionism is intensely, rabidly, frantically, frenetically, hysterically anti-truth, anti-freedom, anti-public-health, anti-public-safety and anti-economy.

An important feature of prohibitionism—which it closely shares with fascism—is totalitarianism. That means a police-state apparatus—widespread surveillance, arbitrary imprisonment or even murder of political opponents, mass-incarceration, torture, etc.

Like despicable, playground bullies, prohibitionists are vicious one moment, then full of self-pity the next. They whine and whinge like lying, spoiled brats, claiming they just want to “save the little children,” but the moment they feel it safe to do so, they use brute force and savage brutality against those they claim to be defending.

Prohibitionists actually believe they can transcend human nature and produce a better world. They allow only one doctrine, an impossible-to-obtain drug-free world. All forms of dissent, be they common-sense, scientific, constitutional or democratic, are simply ignored, and their proponents vehemently persecuted.

During alcohol prohibition, from 1919 to 1933, all profits went to enrich thugs and criminals. While battling over turf, young men died on inner-city streets. Corruption in law enforcement and the judiciary went clean off the scale. A fortune was wasted on enforcement that could have been far more wisely allocated. On top of the budget-busting prosecution and incarceration costs, billions in taxes were lost. Finally, in 1929, the economy collapsed. Does that sound familiar?

KelleyDavis
KelleyDavis

I am not interested in a politicians sex scandals or drug use.  I am interested in there voting record and there platform. This culture war crap is a distraction. No one cares! 

bumblebee
bumblebee

@RickYanas @Duncan_20903 @MalcolmKyle @ntgreene @MikeParent @NormanGooding @billgriggs4 @KenvinHunt @Heisenburg Maybe this well help some of you in this conversation understand where my concern comes from and why I refuse to be quiet about it no matter how many people attack me, try to tell me what I should believe and what I do believe, put words in my mouth, completely disrespect me, and generally represent nothing positive or understanding about how to disagree compassionately. 

My point is coming from a place of concern for, not ignorance or misunderstanding of, the facts and science behind drug use. While also attempting to bring attention to effects that can be hidden, misunderstood and misrepresented by only looking at percentages and graphs. As another person has stated very well in this conversation, you can, in fact, be against drug use in general, while at the same time being against prohibition based on the negative effects these laws have had on so many people. This is my position on the matter. I thought it was quite clear from the beginning, but after being bullied by so many people, I understand that my responses have become confusing and hard to make sense of.

I am at a loss for how to better explain myself, so I am going to use a scenario that I understand will probably never happen. I also feel the need to express the fact that I do not think that we need the government to survive and thrive (which means that I am ultimately against prohibition if I don't have much faith in the system all together). I am making these statements because there are some people in this conversation so incapable of being decent and understanding in general, that I feel it necessary in order to hopefully avoid being made a fool of based on false accusations and misunderstanding (either by an honest misunderstanding or purposeful ignorance).

Imagine for a moment that the entire government falls apart and is no longer functioning any longer. Imagine that this has happened on a global scale and that we, as human beings, have a lot of choices to make for ourselves about how we want to live. There are no longer any laws, police, judges, politicians, or giant owners of corporations. In fact, money in general has become mostly unimportant and useless. What we have to do is figure out how to survive together. My question here is this: with no government and no one telling you what's wrong or right, what kind of person will you decide to be? What kind of people will you want around you and those you love? I know I would not want people around me who were more interested in their freedom to make bad choices than their responsibility to make thoughtful, considerate ones.

I don't remember who, but there was someone in this conversation who was explaining that he takes his freedom and Liberty for himself, regardless of what law imposes on him. In my opinion, we should be more concerned with things such as treating others with respect and understanding, making choices that take into account people other than yourself, and an interest in wanting to be and do things that benefit and protect instead of alienate, harm and ignore. When I express ideas that to not take science, facts, and laws into account, I am not suggesting that they don't have a place or importance in the world. I am bringing attention to the possibility that other parts and pieces of this argument and subject may be of more general importance than we take into consideration. Namely, the laissez fair and ignorant attitude about drug use in this country, and the real fear that people are more concerned with their own freedom than the health and wellbeing of other living things (people, as well as everything we affect, which, at last count, was most everything). Obviously I am not mentioning every effect that drugs can have on people because I expect that people in this conversation have an intelligence level high enough to use reason and understanding to see the general point that I am attempting to make here. (Also, I have spoken of most of the things that worry me in previous comments and I do not wish to continue repeating myself as others have done in this conversation.) 

I also encourage everyone to try and look at the numbers behind percentages and statistics while engaging with scientific dialogue. The reason for this is that it is far easier to accept dangerous behavior when you learn that (for example) only 5% of people in this country use illegal drugs. Here is my point, when you take that 5% and change it into the number of people that tiny number represents you learn that 15,700,000 people use illegal drugs out of (rounding up to) about 314 million people in this country.

bumblebee
bumblebee

@Duncan_20903 This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Not to mention that it has nothing sane to do with this argument.

bumblebee
bumblebee

@billgriggs4 I want to thank you.

I understand fully that my argument is confusing, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth listening to. I think it would have been better understood had someone refrained from completely attacking me and posting pieces of my comments out of context to make his argument look stronger based on incorrect assumptions.

I would love to clear up anything that I have said in this conversation to anyone who treats me decently.

EddieDaBlade
EddieDaBlade

@billgriggs4 Well said. Alcohol and tobacco  should be available by prescription only as they meet the standards for a "dangerous drug".


bumblebee
bumblebee

@MalcolmKyle You say the same thing in every post as if no one is intelligent enough to be able to understand you're position. Your attitude, and other's who have attitudes similar to yours, create huge problems in every aspect of life (not just prohibition vs. legalization). What makes you think you're so right? But most of all, HOW DARE YOU put words in MY mouth, attempt to portray my argument as something it is not, and tell me that I'm not aware enough/intelligent enough/WHATEVER enough, to understand my own position on this, or any other topic. I think you need to work on general kindness and understanding before you talk to anyone else about anything.

Heisenburg
Heisenburg

@bumblebee Let's just stick with the natural things that the good Lord gave us here, like marijuana. There has not been one recorded or known death from marijuana alone, and it is MUCH safer than tobacco OR alcohol. Magic mushrooms are natural too, however that's a topic for another day.

MalcolmKyle
MalcolmKyle

@bumblebee

"I am not in favor of drug use unless it is the last resort for medical purposes."

Those were your words. Would you like to retract them? If not then the rest of us have no choice but to regard you as a dangerous prohibitionist. 

BTW. FDA approved Prescription drugs kill some 200,000 Americans, including children, every year.

* An estimated 770,000 people are either injured or die each year in hospitals from adverse drug events (ADEs), defined as an injury that has resulted from medical intervention and is related to a drug.

* The number of deaths from drug poisonings in the U.S. has increased sixfold since 1980.

* Fully 40% of these deaths, in 2008, involved the use of prescription opioid pain relievers, such as codeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, morphine, and oxycodone. The same figure for 1999 was 25%.

* In 2008, drugs like oxycodone and hydrocodone (these are the main ingredients in Oxycontin and Vicodin) landed 305,885 Americans in emergency rooms. This is more than double the figure for 2004, 144,644. Source: Samsha and the CDC, 2010

* Overdose deaths involving oxycodone, hydrocodone, and synthetic narcotics such as fentanyl and propoxyphene now exceed deaths from heroin and cocaine combined. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

bumblebee
bumblebee

@MalcolmKyle You are the one who doesn't understand. You claim to understand pretty much everything about prohibition, which I'm sure you just think you do, but really don't. Do not address me to other people, deal with your own argument. Of course, taken out of context, you could make it look like I said many things that I did not.

For everyone else with a functioning human brain, what is meant by my statement "I am not in favor of drug use unless it is a last resort for medical purposes" is this: I was speaking about how I am not in favor of prohibition, not complete drug legalization (for many reasons you can read about for yourself in my previous comments).

You will just stop at nothing to attempt to make me look unintelligent, when one of the most unintelligent (and not to mention childish) things to do is ignore someone and continue ranting about things that aren't true in order to benefit your argument which, by the way, has probably been made ten times in this one conversation.

Just because methamphetamine can be legally prescribed to children over the age of six doesn't mean I have to agree with the idea or attitude toward drugs in this society. I can't say it more clearly. You do not understand me and you never will. This is quite obvious to me, and probably to every other intelligent human with an open mind and willingness to attempt understanding.

bumblebee
bumblebee

@KelleyDavis People having differing opinions is how we figure things out. It's how we change our minds and understand each other better. I would argue that conversations like this are way more important than politicians or anything to do with them in general...

bumblebee
bumblebee

@RickYanas @Duncan_20903 @MalcolmKyle @ntgreene @MikeParent @NormanGooding @billgriggs4 @Heisenburg To address the statement of the individual above: "We are a nation formed by free thinkers who believed in the freedom of choice and the individual and should be allowed to do as we want as long as we do not interfere with, or harm others." Doing drugs that affect your state of reality almost NEVER fails to "interfere with, or harm others". I hope that we can all think of examples proving this point such as mothers who use these drugs while pregnant (either knowing that they are pregnant or not), parents who use drugs, children who use drugs and lose their lives or sanity, adults without children of a legal age who use drugs and harm others while intoxicated (I am and have always been also referring to legal substances as well as illegal)...the list goes on and on. Again, if you wish to use percentages against my argument, let me use one in favor of mine to prove a point: (and, let's say, since most statistics are at least a little off, that these numbers aren't exact but probably close) "At least 106,000 people die each year from drugs which are properly prescribed and properly administered. More than two million suffer serious side effects. Illegal drugs, including cocaine and heroin, are responsible for an estimated 10,000-20,000 American deaths per year." Tell me, is that too many people effected for you to be alright with? Based on data from the L.A. Times in 2011, drug deaths now outnumber traffic fatalities in the United States.

<http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/17/local/la-me-drugs-epidemic-20110918>

Now, tell me what will happen if now illegal drugs are legalized? We already abuse "safe," "legal," and "accepted" drugs in this country. What in hell makes anyone think that other drugs will be any different? Aside from marijuana, which I am not opposed to legalizing, all drugs have been proven to be dangerous in one way or another. Your FREEDOM TO MAKE BAD CHOICES could be exercised in many different ways that positively, instead of negatively effect many more people than you are even aware of effecting either directly or indirectly.

Lastly, I can see how some of you would read the last part of my comment here and forget everything I have previously said and continue calling me a terrible, pathologically unreasonable, Mexican murdering supporter of prohibition. So, let me state again, and for the last time, what concerns me most is the attitude surrounding drugs, not whether they are prohibited or legalized. Prohibit them or legalize them, my position remains the same because the drugs and the attitude surrounding them do not change with laws. Anyone assuming that I am in any way unconcerned with the harm caused by prohibition are simply misunderstanding me (once again). Think about what you do based on factors that take life, other than just your own, into account. Maybe then, we can START fixing some of the problems in this country and society, because as far as I can see, we are screwing up almost everything.

Duncan_20903
Duncan_20903

@bumblebee LOL, it's intended to denigrate the laughably absurd arguments made by ignorant prohibitionists. It's called parody: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parody

It's no surprise that you can't see yourself in that reflection. But rest assured that we're not laughing with you, we're laughing at you. The best part of the process of re-legalization of cannabis is watching people like yourself marginalized to irrelevance.

Toodles!

bumblebee
bumblebee

@Duncan_20903 @DrRachitaNarsaria Yes, and thanks to people supporting the complete legalization of all drugs, we can all now make our decisions. What would we have all done without you?

billgriggs4
billgriggs4

@EddieDaBlade @billgriggs4 Thanks, Eddie. While I agree that alcohol and tobacco are dangerous drugs, I think it would be a bad idea to make them prescription drugs.  That's pretty close to a ban and both are too popular to ban.  We tried banning alcohol before and that turned out to be a disaster for us.  Marijuana is too popular to ban as well, and not that much of a threat.  It needs to be legal and regulated similar to alcohol.

bumblebee
bumblebee

@Heisenburg @bumblebee Something like this is how I feel we should move forward positively. Though I am not attempting to impose anything on anyone, or control anyone's choices or freedom (therefore making me the opposite of a prohibitionist). I agree with your opinion because it makes logical, sustainable, safe, intelligent and moral sense. What I am suggesting is that we re-think our attitudes on drugs, not impose stricter laws and enforcement. Because I know what this has done and is still doing to people.

bumblebee
bumblebee

@MalcolmKyle @bumblebee No I am not retracting my statement, and this does not make me a prohibitionist because you have taken the statement out of context as I have stated before. I am aware that drugs, legal and illegal kill people. Do you realize that the drugs that kill people most often are those that are legal and easily accessed? What, tell me, will happen more often if every illegal drug today is made legal? This is why I am not in support of complete legalization, since as stated a million times before, I do not agree with the attitude about drugs in this country that you are so successfully supporting. What I mean by this, which should be easily understood is this: my grandfather just had a hip replacement and if he were not able to take the drugs he was given by his doctor, he would be in a lot of pain, and probably lose his life. Do I think that whoever wants to take the drug whenever they want just to not feel anything? No I do not. This, in my mind is not morally sound in any way. You are juts further proving my point by telling me how dangerous legal drugs are. They're legal, people have easy access to them. Legalizing or prohibiting doesn't change the fact that these are drugs. No drugs are completely safe. But if we make all drugs legal without question, these drugs will not only remain what they are (dangerous and reality altering), but they will be accessible to an even wider range of people. 

You sound like an idiot. You keep repeating my statement, which is still out of context and completely ignores all my previous comments. This, I assumed, was a generally understood mechanism of conversation. The things previously stated are taken into account when reading and attempting to understand the new point of conversation. However, I should have realized that you do not understand this due to the fact that you repeat yourself, almost word for word, in every single comment.

What you think about me is of no consequence. I know what I believe and I know it isn't what you seem to think I believe. You are wonderful at being an inconsiderate and ignorant human being. :)

MalcolmKyle
MalcolmKyle

@bumblebee @MalcolmKyle

Did you not say the following?

"I am not in favor of drug use unless it is the last resort for medical purposes."

I've presented you with a fairly dissected view of the underbelly of prohibition. I have supplied you with ample evidence to show that it is needlessly and shamelessly costing lives, destroying families, and has become a scourge on the soul of society. During the past 40 years alone, prohibition has caused the arrest of 45 million citizens, made the United States the world’s largest jailer, and destroyed impoverished communities at home and abroad. Yet, drugs are cheaper, purer, and more available today than ever—What is it you don't understand about abject failure?



timtiminhouston
timtiminhouston

@MalcolmKyle I can't let you be the only one speaking truth to power. This should be the final straw for Americans, we should all start demanding an end to unending taxation and property seizures to support the drug war and the urban jobs program known as the Private Prison industry. This is a leach industry and is destroying our nation.

bumblebee
bumblebee

@Duncan_20903 Well good, because I'm not against legalizing marijuana. I don't see myself in that reflection because it's not what I believe in. It amazes me that all of the idiots on here still refuse to understand that.

bumblebee
bumblebee

@Duncan_20903 What TRUTH are you referring to? I invite you to remember that TRUTH is extremely relative and, therefore, my truth may be very different (AND JUST AS IMPORTANT AND WORTH HEARING) as yours. Even Liberty and freedom are understood differently by different people. Part of what I believe my freedom to be, is the ability to speak my mind without getting words shoved down my throat, attacked by evil people and belittled based on things I do not support or believe no mater how many times I explain myself.

Also, HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT I HAVE A "PATHOLOGICAL INABILITY TO REASON??" You sir, are a horrible and evil human being. You and MalcolmKyle have a PATHOLOGICAL INABILITY FOR COMPASSION AND UNDERSTANDING. In fact, you two would be wonderful friends. You could sit around on the computer all day beating your point to death and being mean to girls who's opinions you ignored, and instead put words in their mouths and proceed to harass and attack them based on something that isn't even real.

For your information, no matter how many times you people say that I am being dishonest and supporting violence and death, I AM TELLING THE TRUTH AND WOULD NEVER/HAVE NEVER SUPPORTED ANY KIND OF VIOLENCE THAT YOU SUGGEST I SUPPORT and if my truth bothers you, kindly FIND SOMEONE THAT ACTUALLY DESERVES THIS TO TAKE OUT YOUR IGNORANT BEHAVIOR ON. No matter how many times you say these things to and about me, it doesn't make them TRUE.

If you met me and talked to me about this with an open, understanding and compassionate heart you would not be saying these things. You perfectly represent and define yet another huge problem with this society.

Duncan_20903
Duncan_20903

@bumblebee if you can't even stick to the truth why in the world would anyone consider your opinion seriously? There's no one arguing for the "complete re-legalization of all drugs." Why is it that you think it's OK to be so dishonest? The fact that such nonsense can even come out of your brain demonstrates that you have a pathological inability to reason. 

The choice is not binary, that we either continue to embrace the proven failure of absolute prohibition or we're going to be forced to allow the sales reps from the heroin factory to set up promotional displays to hand out free samples in the lobbies of elementary schools. Either extreme is equally stupid. There's a very broad space between those extremes and somewhere in there is a place which actually works in the interests of everyone. For example the Swiss have had great success with their limited legalization of heroin which is called the Heroin Assisted Treatment program. That started as a trial program in 1994. In 2008 the Swiss voted by an overwhelming margin to make it permanent. Swiss junkies are provided pure heroin at taxpayer expense in controlled settings.

BTW, that isn't "Needle Park" which the Swiss tried and abandoned as failure. But the Swiss aren't as stupid as American prohibitionists so they didn't return to the equally proven failure of absolute prohibition. While the number of American junkies increases there's been a steady decline in the number of Swiss junkies. While your favored policies cause American junkies to die from fatal overdoses there hasn't been a fatal overdose in Switzerland in this century. While American property crime perpetrated by junkies continues unabated the Swiss have enjoyed a significant decline.

 Your precious failure of public policy is killing people, increasing the crime rate and strips Americans of their birthright of essential liberty. What is truly astounding is that you can even fantasize that your demand that we continue to embrace proven failure is somehow moral. It is not, it's cruel, inhuman and self defeating. Is it really impossible for you to be honest about this issue?

http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_154996_EN_Heroin%20Insight.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin-assisted_treatment

You might have a valid argument if what you think would be the result of the proven, epic failure of public policy which we call the war on (some) drugs were the actual results. But you can not make something true by insisting that it is. In this argument it is you who is truly selfish and immoral.


bumblebee
bumblebee

@EricStrauss @bumblebee @MalcolmKyle It is not "undeniably true". Has it happened here yet? No. So you cannot prove that...As I have said, I am interested in a solution that takes both sides into account (and just for the record, even though I have said this a hundred times, I am ALL FOR the legalization of marijuana). What I am most concerned about is how the drugs effect people in general. Say, for instance, that no drug ever killed anyone, but had the same effects on people when they took them. My opinion on the matter would remain the same. I don't think prohibition is the best way (because of all the violence and death that it has been proven to cause). But I am also not for completely legalizing all drugs because I can't imagine a meth store (or whatever example you want to use here) on the corner of my street, or any other street for that matter. Again, the reason I feel this way is based on the way that this, and other drugs like it, affect people mentally. They are removed from reality, and having a society (which already has a terrifying attitude toward drug use, both prescription and street drugs, legal and illegal, dangerous and safe) where people can freely abuse chemically created drugs meant to change their understanding of reality does not seem to me, in any sane or ethical way, to be the best decision for anyone involved either directly or indirectly.

EricStrauss
EricStrauss

@bumblebee @MalcolmKyle But, OK.  Drugs are bad.  Fine.  And let's say that more people will die from drugs if legalized.  A fair conclusion.  But you aren't factoring the harms of prohibition into your impact calculus.  Once you weigh those harms, legalization is clearly preferable, in that it causes fewer harms and deaths than prohibition.  It's a pretty straightforward idea, and undeniably true.

MalcolmKyle
MalcolmKyle

@bumblebee @MalcolmKyle

I shall repeat it until you address it accordingly.

Here it is again: "I am not in favor of drug use unless it is the last resort for medical purposes."

You deny being a prohibitionist. So please explain why wishing to prohibit drug use that does not fall into the category of "the last resort for medical purposes" does not make you one?





bumblebee
bumblebee

@MalcolmKyle @bumblebee You can repeat this statement out of context as many times as you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you are being insanely obsessive about prohibition and get some weird pleasure out of continually misunderstanding my comments and beliefs. This statement is part of my personal and moral beliefs about drug use in general that I hold for MYSELF. You, and others will understand this if you read my comment and explanation behind this statement instead of listening to this crazy person without the ability to open his mind to new ideas, or different ideas for that matter. If anyone is in the way of the progression of society, it is people like this. As I said, although this is my personal belief about drug use, I do not attempt, and would never attempt to impose it on anyone else (by means of prohibition or other things). Have fun being horrible.

MalcolmKyle
MalcolmKyle

@bumblebee @MalcolmKyle

Here's your statement again:

"I am not in favor of drug use unless it is the last resort for medical purposes."

You are a prohibitionist, which makes you co-responsible for the more than 60,000 Mexicans murdered due to YOUR Drug War during the last 8 years alone. That mega violence is heading our way fast. Re-legalizing/regulating any, if not all, of the prohibited/easily-accessible street drugs is the only practical way to cut off the enormous flow of cash that is feeding terrorism, gangsterism and "off the scale" government corruption. This is about protecting ourselves and our families.

Thought you were going.


MalcolmKyle
MalcolmKyle

@bumblebee @MalcolmKyle

As you are an unashamed supporter of the longest, most costly, and most futile war in human history, you won't be missed by anybody here. The prejudices and fears that you exhibit bear scant relation to reality. As a self-appointed hypocritical moralist, you have aligned yourself with terrorists, criminals and all the other scum of the earth—such as political demagogues, corrupt government agencies, fear-mongering, soulless media moguls, and all other forces of ignorance and arrogance.

How is it even possible that you fail to understand that prohibition—just like it's counter-part of the 1920s—has created massive amounts of destruction to all aspects of our society?

How can you not desire a saner policy, one that's based on facts rather than reefer madness?

And how dare you refuse to help undo the massive amount of damage caused by this dangerous and failed policy?

bumblebee
bumblebee

@MalcolmKyle @bumblebee You are too horrible of a human being for me to acknowledge, thank you though. Goodbye. I took psychology, too, and understand what this phenomenon is. It's not what I'm doing since what you think I'm saying is not what I'm saying. You are too closed minded for me to care enough to explain myself to AGAIN.

MalcolmKyle
MalcolmKyle

@bumblebee @MalcolmKyle

It was your statement, was it not? here it is again: 

"I am not in favor of drug use unless it is the last resort for medical purposes."

Bumblelady, I know you're never ever going to be able to take that small step into reality, not even once prohibition has been finally banished to the annuls of history. You are clearly the type of person who forms and then clings to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This is a mental phenomenon known as "motivated reasoning" --Rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, you actually seek out information that (in your mind at least) confirms what you already believe. Thankfully, such an erroneous modus operandi is easily spotted by others who are in possession of the normal ability to see through your cognitive dissonance of elaborate and spurious rationalizations.

BTW. the ignorant thoughts and stigmatic feelings you're experiencing operate through a primal, deep seated reaction in the brain that forms the basis for many superstitions. (see: The Science of Superstition, Bruce M. Hood, 2010).

bumblebee
bumblebee

@MalcolmKyle @bumblebee I just responded to this. Go read it and stop talking to me about these things I said that aren't true. or what was meant in any way. I understand prohibition, and now that you have thrown tons of articles at me about it, I understand it even better. My position remains the same, and your ignorance of it remains unchanged. I am through speaking with you.

AdamKh
AdamKh

@MikeParent @bumblebee @KelleyDavis 

marijuana is dangerous. you know some facts and some deductions as to what makes sense, but you are missing some of the big pieces of the puzzle.

marijuana is not as addictive or dangerous as other drugs. but it would be very wrong to think it has no negative effects on human body and brain. you mentioned most people experiment with drugs few times and then stop. may I ask what good comes out of it? some of the drugs you mentioned can alter your brain after even 1 or 2 times. it's best to be illegal. I even think it's best to keep marijuana illegal. the reason is not that it is too dangerous. the reason is that if they legalize it, its use will skyrocket. imagine a nation of people on pot. also people would then wanna go after harder drugs. we should be thinking about making smoking illegal all together not make drugs legal.

bumblebee
bumblebee

@MikeParent @bumblebee @KelleyDavis AGAIN, please feel free to attempt to find anything in any of my comments that suggests to you that I do not want to legalize marijuana. If you find some legitimate reason for your assumption that I do, in fact, believe in keeping marijuana prohibited, I invite you to continue preaching to me about weed. Otherwise, it would be WONDERFUL if EVERYONE would LEAVE ME ALONE about topics that make no sense to argue with me about. If you wish to preach about marijuana legalization, go find someone who believes otherwise. MY ISSUE IS WITH HARD DRUGS THAT ARE ACTUALLY DANGEROUS (physically, emotionally, socially, etc). Or is it impossible to accept the legalization of marijuana without also accepting the legalization of all other drugs on the planet? Thanks.

Selmak
Selmak

@MalcolmKyle @bumblebee  Malcom, I've seen your commentary on many articles related to drug policy.  I agree with pretty much everything you have to say and you are definitely on the right side of the prohibition argument.  That said, I don't think that you are being entirely fair to Bumblebee. She has simply stated that she's against drug use.  A person can be against prohibition and still be against drug use, wouldn't you agree?  Ridding ourselves of prohibition will reduce a lot of the harm caused by drugs, as evidenced by Portugal's experiment for example.  We can legalize and still discourage drug use through education and warnings, just as we have done with tobacco to great success.  We can't expect every American to be pro drug use, that would be absurd.  But we can expect everyone to approach the issue from a place of logic.  Bumblebee has said repeatedly that she's against prohibition.  We will need the anti-drug zealots to join her in her opposition to prohibition if we are ever to succeed.  

MikeParent
MikeParent

@bumblebee @MikeParent @KelleyDavis    Wonderful, as a retired Police Officer I believe I have a good amount of "Life experience".;  Here are some facts. 
Lie #1 Gateway Drug.
FACT Marijuana is NOT a Gateway Drug. Here's a 12 Yr Univ Study that says so;.
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=97496
Media overview; http://www.pitt.edu/~ugr/Hrych2.pdf


Lie #2 Marijuana is very addictive and dangerous.
FACT Marijuana is less addictive and less harmful than Caffeine, let alone Alcohol and Tobacco; (3 Scientific Studies)
BTW, Dr Henningfield is a former NIDA Staffer;.
Addictiveness of Marijuana - ProCon.org.
http://www.procon.org/view.background-resource.php?resourceID=1492

Lie #'s 3 & 4, Marijuana has no Medicinal Use and is Dangerous.

FACT In 1988, DEA Administrative Judge Francis Young wrote in his ruling
"Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of
the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any
measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within a
supervised routine of medical care."
http://www.ccguide.org/young88.php

FACT For good measure, the CDC reported Med Marijuana doesn't increase teen use.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57456999-10391704/medical-marijua...
wont-boost-teen-pot-use-study-finds/”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2011/10/16/california-medical-association-wants-marijuana-legalized/

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2013/01/11/top-10-cannabis-studies-the-government-wished-it-had-never-funded/

"Narcotics police are an enormous, corrupt international bureaucracy ... and now fund a coterie of researchers who provide them with 'scientific support' ... fanatics who distort the legitimate research of others. ... The anti-marijuana campaign is a cancerous tissue of lies, undermining law enforcement, aggravating the drug problem, depriving the sick of needed help, and suckering well-intentioned conservatives and countless frightened parents."
-- William F. Buckley,
Commentary in The National Review, April 29, 1983, p. 495

Dr Tashkin wrote: "We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3358713/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3080871/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538401/

http://www.projectcensored.org/22-us-government-repressed-marijuana-tumor-research/

http://www.marijuana.com/threads/the-higher-your-education-level-the-more-likely-you-are-to-smoke-pot.307901/

Rand Paul Upsets Marijuana Activists by Saying the Drug Is 'Not ...
www.usnews.com › News › Washington Whispers?
by Steven Nelson -  The Duke University (New Zealand) study, the one which claimed that ... to a long-term drop in IQ, has since been utterly rebuked by a new paper ...

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hangovers/DS00649/DSECTION=symptoms

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/11/nation/na-marijuana-ama11  AMA/Change

MalcolmKyle
MalcolmKyle

@bumblebee @MalcolmKyle @MikeParent @KelleyDavis

I repeat, you just said: "I am not in favor of drug use unless it is the last resort for medical purposes."

This, lady, makes you a full blown prohibitionist!

Reports that show Prohibition has failed: 

http://idpc.net/publications/failure-regime-selected-publications

The Global Commission on Drug Policy:

http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/Documents.aspx

Reports that show alternative approaches of decriminalization and regulation are working:

http://idpc.net/publications/alternative-strategies-selected-publications

What we can learn from The Portuguese Decriminalization of All Illicit Drugs:

http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/6/999.abstract



MalcolmKyle
MalcolmKyle

@bumblebee @MikeParent @KelleyDavis

If you want to base policy on experience then here is Julien Codman's testimony, who was a member of the Massachusetts bar, given before the Senate Hearings of 1926:.

"we will produce additional evidence on this point, that it is not appropriate legislation to enforce the eighteenth amendment; that it has done incredible harm instead of good; that as a temperance measure it has been a pitiable failure; that it has failed to prevent drinking; that it has failed to decrease crime; that, as a matter of fact, it has increased both; that it has promoted bootlegging and smuggling to an extent never known before"

"We believe that the time has come for definite action, but it is impossible to lay before Congress any one bill which, while clearly within the provisions of the Constitution, will be a panacea for the evils that the Volstead Act has caused. We must not be vain enough to believe, as the prohibitionists do, that the age-old question of the regulation of alcohol can be settled forever by the passage of a single law. With the experience of the Volstead law as a warning, it behooves us to proceed with caution, one step at a time, to climb out of the legislative well into which we have been pushed."

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/HISTORY/e1920/senj1926/codman.htm