an interesting statistic to me would be if you could get a number from lets say rehab centers and find the ratio of under 21 drug addicts to under 21 alcoholics vs. the ratio of over 21 drug addicts to over 21 alcoholics. that would at least give a starting ground to whether its logical that regulating drug use at least works in keeping it out of the hands of teens.
There was a study done that compared drug usage rates in Amsterdam to those in San Francisco. Adult usage of mar1juana was statistically the same in both cities, but teen usage in Amsterdam was half what it is in San Francisco. Is that good enough? Another interesting study showed that teens report that it is easier to access illegal drugs than alcohol.
I believe that. My bro (18) ALWAYS has weed but can't score alcohol hardly at all. He said it is much more difficult to get booze.
Seems the administration made Mexico an offer they couldn't refuse. Mexico's Fox balks at signing drug law http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/05/03/mexico.drugs.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest
That's a big step to take because many perceive decriminalization as a compromise. You're right though. A radical solution like this can't be enacted half assed. I don't think the public can accept this in the abstract when their gut instincts scream how bad an idea this sounds on the surface. Maybe the next step for the regulation front is to find approaches that sell the concept for our society: a political two-step that shifts the theory into practicable goals.
Actually quite the opposite. If these drugs actually did cause death due to overdose, last thing they would do is trumpet it in attemp to ban these drugs. If they proved overdose was a serious danger, it would be more sensible to leave things the way they were and have the Mex/chinese/blacks keep overdosing and killing themselves. So you see, not having statistics on overdose death expains nothing other then the possibility of ommision.
Why does this not surprise me. The US wants to control the world and Bush can just jerk the chain of his lap dog Fox. We need to stay out of other country's business.
This was the point I tried to make yesterday. If you're pandering to people's racist views, the last thing you want to do is try to sway them towards a decision that effectively protects the targets of their hatred. I still take issue with this one point (overdoses not really occuring until these drugs became illegal). From the mid 1800's when cocaine was first isolated until the time it was banned in the states as a narcotic mortality rates were much higher, and the general populace.....as well as practicing physicians.....would not have been as well educated to even look for the signs of a death OD. Heck, I'd be curious to know when the first ability to even test for cocaine in the blood stream came about. I think the anti-tobacco crowd uses some of the same faulty logic in claiming that lung cancer didn't really take off until the advent of cigarettes (even though people were smoking tobacco centuries prior). I certainly believe they are correct, but I don't think they thought it all the way through when they reached their conclusion. The point they don't mention (or didn't think of) is that doctors weren't as readily able to diagnose lung cancer as well as they can today. Most people who got lung cancer way back when died and were buried. There was no inquisition, no autopsy, and not many questions. People died, and the living moved on. So of course older records will show many fewer lung cancer deaths. That being said, I will reiterate that I concede the point about illegality creating underground markets where the consumer doesn't always know what he's gonna get. Therefore, I can see some correlation between legality and overdoses (where I first stated there were none.). Andy, I don't agree with everything you espouse......though on several points we might be closer than I've let on. That being said, I laud your passion on the subject.
I would like to make a similar point along these lines. Cocaine was first extracted from coca leaf in the 1860's. Up until the mid 1880's it was mostly available in solution in preparations, such as Vin Mariani wine. Before this point the only way to get cocaine was chewing a leaf. Even once it was isolated it was almost always consumed in small quantities orally as part of a dilute solution. Not soon after the widespread use of powder in the 1880's states began to exercise strong control over it, and by the 1900's just about every state in the US had some sort of control measures in place. The window for cocaine powder was very narrow. It was even narrower for Heroin, which was introduced right around 1900 and was outlawed by the Harrison Act in 1914. Meth and most synthetic drugs weren't made until the 1920's and 1930's and were as far as I know all outlawed within 10 years of a growth in recreational use. The argument that overdoses didn't happen until drugs were outlawed so we should eliminate outlawing drugs is like saying that the fear of global nuclear holocaust was much more common after the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was introduced in 1957 so we should discard this treaty to eliminate the threat of nuclear holocaust. The two situations are not comparable, because until right around when we could isolate these drugs they were not available in purity, and the idea of their recreational use was not well articulated and understood in the public mind.
You seem very passionate about this subject, and I admire that. I think that it would be pointless for us to argue about the matter, we will simply not come to any sort of agreement. But I would like to point out a couple of things from your post. You can't say for sure that I'm "wrong" in what I believe. You can't say that you "know for a fact" that your ideas would work. You may think that, but you don't know for sure what would happen should these drugs be legalized in America. I also question the validity of your statement that the "vast majority of drug users" are free from negative consequences. You can cite statistics, but again I doubt the validity of those statitstics which involve people volunteering information about comitting crimes. (I'm assuming that's how that works, feel free to correct me.) Your theories also assume that if the government legalizes these drugs, that the black market will disappear. Is it also a possibility that the black market will continue to exist by undercutting the legitimate market? Maybe focusing on market inefficiencies like children not being able to legally purchase these substances? As for your comment about heroin and cocaine being the "two most addictive substances there are", that is blatantly wrong. What is addiction? Can you define it? I've also researched and taken classes on drugs and addiction, and the fact is that blanket statements like these are part of the problem.
Andy - You seem interested in this subject, so I want to recommend some reading for you. Helen Keane's "What's Wrong With Addiction?" is a fantastic read.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3839770.html May 4, 2006, 1:03PM Fox backs off drug decriminalization bill Associated Press MEXICO CITY — U.S. officials welcomed Mexican President Vicente Fox's decision not to sign a drug decriminalization bill that some had warned could result in "drug tourism" in this country and increased availability of narcotics in American border communities. Fox said Wednesday he was sending the bill back to Congress for changes, just one day after his office had said he would sign into law the measure, which would have dropped criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of mar1juana, cocaine, heroin and other drugs. The president will ask for corrections "to make it absolutely clear in our country, the possession of drugs and their consumption are, and will continue to be, a criminal offense." The White House applauded Fox's decision. Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said U.S. officials had expressed concerns about decriminalizing drugs. "We welcome the steps that are being taken by President Fox," McClellan said today. San Diego, Calif., Mayor Jerry Sanders, who had said earlier he was "appalled" by the bill because it could increase drug availability north of the border, also said he was pleased by Fox's decision. "I'm glad that he's listened to the many voices opposing the bill and made changes that will make good enforcement and not legalize drugs," Sanders said. "We have been a partner with Mexico in fighting against illegal drugs, and this will only help in the long-term in that relationship." San Diego is a short drive from the border town of Tijuana, Mexico. Earlier Wednesday, U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Judith Bryan said that U.S. officials had "urged Mexican representatives to review the legislation urgently, to avoid the perception that drug use would be tolerated in Mexico, and to prevent drug tourism." That was apparently a reference to concern that the measure could increase drug use by border visitors and U.S. students who flock to Mexico on vacation. Bryan said the U.S. government wants Mexico "to ensure that all persons found in possession of any quantity of illegal drugs be prosecuted or be sent into mandatory drug treatment programs." Fox's statement did not mention the U.S. criticism, but did acknowledge that the bill had been controversial. "With sensitivity toward the opinions expressed by various sectors of society, the administration has decided to suggest changes to the content of the bill," the statement said. On Tuesday, Fox's spokesman had called the bill "an advance" and pledged the president would sign it. Congress has adjourned for the summer, and when it comes back, it will have new members following the July 2 elections, which also make Fox a lame duck. However, Sen. Jorge Zermeno, of Fox's conservative National Action Party — a supporter of the bill — said he thought Congress would be open to changing the legislation to delete a clause that extends to all "consumers" the exemption from prosecution that was originally meant to cover only recognized drug addicts. "The word 'consumer' can be eliminated so that the only exemption clause would be for drug addicts," Zermeno told The Associated Press. "There's still time to get this through." The bill contained many points that experts said were positive. It empowered state and local police — not just federal officers — to go after drug dealers, stiffened some penalties and closed loopholes that dealers had long used to escape prosecution. But Mexico's top police official, Eduardo Medina Mora said legislators had changed Fox's original proposal by inserting a controversial table laying out maximum amounts of drugs considered for "personal use." Current Mexican law allows judges to drop charges if suspects can prove they are addicts and the quantity they were caught with is small enough to be considered "for personal use," or if they are first-time offenders. The new bill would have allowed "consumers" as well as addicts to have drugs, and delineated specific allowable quantities, which do not appear in the current law. Under the law, consumers could have legally possessed up to 25 milligrams of heroin, 5 grams of mar1juana (about one-fifth of an ounce, or about four joints), or 0.5 grams of cocaine — the equivalent of about four "lines," or half the standard street-sale quantity.
we should totally get our politicians off starbucks and hook them up with a few bumps of coke. That should "wake them up."
My take. Legalize it, Regulate it, and tax it. People are going to do what they want to do either way. We should facilitate within bounds because we already sell some of the most addictive substances legally (nicotine, and caffeine) and just as potentially dangerous, alcohol to the masses. Big business is to blame since they are in bed with politicians and the so called "god fearing" politicans can't just up and change the law.
Jon Stewart did a funny sketch on this last night...Basically the illegals that come from Mexico are off-set by the American's that will go to Mexico for the recreational drug use...
To be honest, though I do support making all drugs legal, I would do it a lot more slowly than you might think from my discussions. I would start with mar1juana, and even then it would only be to drop it from the federal drug schedules so that the states could decide for themselves how to deal with pot. That way, states where they currently have medical mar1juana laws could set up distribution without fear of the federal raids that have been done in California over and over. States that want to allow people to have their own stash in their house like Alaska now allows for will be able to write their regulations in ways that make sense to the citizens of that state. Finally, states that want to regulate and tax it would be able to experiment with that model and we would be able to get some reliable numbers on usage rates, health consequences, and the effects of regulation on teenage use. Other drugs I would do more slowly, mostly because I think we would see a dramatic decrease in their use after mar1juana starts being sold by legitimate businesspeople. Pot is a gateway drug because drug dealers sell it and they would rather that you buy heroin, cocaine, or meth because the profit margins are higher and there is more repeat business. I would agree that our views are far closer than you might suspect. I can't help but be passionate about this. The war on drugs is the single greatest injustice of our time and history will look on its repeal the same way it does on the repeal of the Volstead Act.
