Roseanne is WRONG, of course.

Sometimes, instead, those rich people are using the very same illegal drugs.

And there's a whole lot of "poor people" getting free/subsidized prescription drugs commonly used for recreation.

I have the best critics in the world!

One day soon, someone will articulate this basic point: that the #1 cause of inescapable poverty in the USA is drugs (and alcohol); either by poor people themselves or in the case of poor children, their parents. This is especially true in the ghetto. What good is spending trillions in helping the poor when they take what time and funds they have and partake in bacchanalian binges of heroin, etc. Can you imagine how different our public schools would be without the scourge of drugs? The poor in the USA have a unique situation; they are so well off, their main hazards are drugs (done with their abundant free time), food (the poor are 6 times more likely to be obese than the non-poor), sexual irresponsibility (again, with all their free time and the means provided for the care of their children), and boredom (thus causing them to do drugs).

TOH

TOH,

There is nothing objective about your analysis. You obviously have not studied why people take drugs. There is quite a bit of research on it. And the research says it has nothing to do with boredom.

For instance:

The NIDA says addiction is a genetic disease: Addiction Is A Genetic Disease

PTSD and the Endocannabinoid System

And Heroin users are abused kids.

If you are really sincere about doing something about drug and alcohol use: end all wars and stop child abuse.

In the mean time I suggest letting those who need the drugs get them legally. i.e. at the lowest cost possible.

Of course if you prefer price supports for criminals and terrorists you will love: The Drug War is a Socialist Enterprise by Milton Friedman.

And of course if you are a racist and in to history you will love this speech, Drug War History, given to a gathering of judges in California. Also given to a gathering of FBI agents at a different date.

And if you want to do something about rampant promicuity you might like:Demographics

I always love the ignorant masquerading as the knowledgeable. It allows me to give vent to my vast store of sarcasm.

Come again soon y'all heah.

Dear Simon,

"Come again soon y'all heah."

Now THAT is the kind of sarcasm, I can believe in!

Yours in perpetual ignorance,
Penny

Simon,
How many times have you interviewed drug addicts and their families in hospital wards, emergency rooms and intensive care units? You sound like so many ivory tower intellectual fools who read papers written by other intellectual fools.

I've cared for hundreds of alcohol and drug-addicted young people, many of whom bottomed out with life-threatening medical complications. None of them had a "genetic disease." In every case nearly all of their family members abhor drug and alcohol abuse and are not abusers themselves.

My father was an alcoholic - the only one on that side of my family. He learned to drink hard during World War II as a combat army grunt, and in the post-war years during which he had unending nightmares - no need to invoke some genetic cause. I entered dad into an inpatient alcohol rehab program at a Veteran's Hospital - no gene therapy involved. Once dad made it through withdrawal, i.e.: once he got the monkey off his back, he was so relieved and never went back to the bottle. One of my maternal uncles is a drug and alcohol abuser - the only one on that side of my family.

Only intellectual fools believe that drug abuse is completely explained genetically. Drug abuse is a mostly a moral failure - a form of self-centered and self-destructive narcissism. Eventually of course, medical problems ensue, including physical and emotional addiction, depression and psychosis; as well as purely medical complications such as cerebral atrophy, cirrhosis, endocarditis, HIV, Hepatitis, etc. etc.

Drugs and alcohol must be kept out of the hands of children - period - and if that means restricting access to adults, so be it. Your right to self-destructive behavior is trumped by the right of children to a life free from access to drugs and alcohol.

http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/streetdrugs.html

http://www.schizophrenia.com/research/cannabis.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s777336.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,291043,00.html

Simon,
How many times have you interviewed drug addicts and their families in hospital wards, emergency rooms and intensive care units? You sound like so many ivory tower intellectual fools who read papers written by other intellectual fools.

I've cared for hundreds of alcohol and drug-addicted young people, many of whom bottomed out with life-threatening medical complications. None of them had a "genetic disease." In every case nearly all of their family members abhor drug and alcohol abuse and are not abusers themselves.

My father was an alcoholic - the only one on that side of my family. He learned to drink hard during World War II as a combat army grunt, and in the post-war years during which he had unending nightmares - no need to invoke some genetic cause. I entered dad into an inpatient alcohol rehab program at a Veteran's Hospital - no gene therapy involved. Once dad made it through withdrawal, i.e.: once he got the monkey off his back, he was so relieved and never went back to the bottle. One of my maternal uncles is a drug and alcohol abuser - the only one on that side of my family.

Only intellectual fools believe that drug abuse is completely explained genetically. Drug abuse is a mostly a moral failure - a form of self-centered and self-destructive narcissism. Eventually of course, medical problems ensue, including physical and emotional addiction, depression and psychosis; as well as purely medical complications such as cerebral atrophy, cirrhosis, endocarditis, HIV, Hepatitis, etc. etc.

Drugs and alcohol must be kept out of the hands of children - period - and if that means restricting access to adults, so be it. Your right to self-destructive behavior is trumped by the right of children to a life free from access to drugs and alcohol.

http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/streetdrugs.html

http://www.schizophrenia.com/research/cannabis.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s777336.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,291043,00.html

Simon,
How many times have you interviewed drug addicts and their families in hospital wards, emergency rooms and intensive care units? You sound like so many ivory tower intellectual fools who read papers written by other intellectual fools.

I've cared for hundreds of alcohol and drug-addicted young people, many of whom bottomed out with life-threatening medical complications. None of them had a "genetic disease." In every case nearly all of their family members abhor drug and alcohol abuse and are not abusers themselves.

My father was an alcoholic - the only one on that side of my family. He learned to drink hard during World War II as a combat army grunt, and in the post-war years during which he had unending nightmares - no need to invoke some genetic cause. I entered dad into an inpatient alcohol rehab program at a Veteran's Hospital - no gene therapy involved. Once dad made it through withdrawal, i.e.: once he got the monkey off his back, he was so relieved and never went back to the bottle. One of my maternal uncles is a drug and alcohol abuser - the only one on that side of my family.

Only intellectual fools believe that drug abuse is completely explained genetically. Drug abuse is a mostly a moral failure - a form of self-centered and self-destructive narcissism. Eventually of course, medical problems ensue, including physical and emotional addiction, depression and psychosis; as well as purely medical complications such as cerebral atrophy, cirrhosis, endocarditis, HIV, Hepatitis, etc. etc.

Drugs and alcohol must be kept out of the hands of children - period - and if that means restricting access to adults, so be it. Your right to self-destructive behavior is trumped by the right of children to a life free from access to drugs and alcohol.

http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/streetdrugs.html

http://www.schizophrenia.com/research/cannabis.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s777336.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,291043,00.html

...Witnessed by millions on drugs bought at the grocery stores and gas stations.

Ronald,

I have had an experience with a psychological intake nurse (for a friend) at a local hospital in the last year. The nurse asked a lot of questions about drug use. Then as an aside she said to me - "Don't worry. Drug use by folks with psychological problems is self medication".

Now when illegal drugs are easier for kids to get than beer - I'd say that prohibition is doing the opposite of what is claimed. So why do you want to make it so easy for kids to get illegal drugs? You got something against kids?

As to genetics - you are obviously not up on the literature. Another expert with no expertise.

Drug use is a two factor problem. One is genetics - the other is an initiator. If the NIDA was honest they would call it trauma. As far as they are willing to go is to call it "environmental factors". Not once in their exposition did the NIDA say anything about moral failure.

Now why do people quit drugs after the passage of time? Read this:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2006/04/ptsd-and-endocannabinoid-system.html

And follow the link to the research done at the Max Planck Institute. Heck - since I'm a nice guy I'll provide the link:

http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2002/news0217.htm

Genetics and trauma. And the response decays over time. No moral failings involved. The research was done on mice.

Did I mention that the illegal drugs (esp heroin and marijuana) are easier on the body than the currently legal substitutes - alcohol and tobacco.

It is really unfortunate that so many of he so called "experts" are ignorant of the latest information. You can even give them links to it and they prefer to rely on their outdated information rather than get up to speed on the latest findings.

As I like to say: "You can lead an ass to water..."

But y'all come back now y'heah and parade your ignorance any time. I love easy pickins.

Ronald,

Let me add that my town is not a big one: we have a population of 150,000.

If the information has reached the hinterlands it must be pretty wide spread.

Amazing you haven't heard of it.

And nice links BTW. However, correlation isn't causation. It does not determine cause and effect. However, I have provided studies which do determine cause and effect.

If people are self medicating you would expect correlations to be higher.

BTW did you know tobacco use causes schizophrenia?

Schizophrenia and Tobacco

At least if we accept your faulty logic.

And Ronald,

The moral failing is yours. A failure to get educated and a lack of compassion.

But that is totally normal for the people who claim drug use is a moral failing. It is a very common trap our moral "superiors" fall in to.

As I recall there was a guy a while back (quite popular among some segments of the population) who warned against that very trap.

You are both correct. Substance abuse does have a genetic component that predisposes the abuser to addictive behavior. However, that predisposition must be activated by a psychological need to escape reality, thereby making the use of mood-altering substances attractive. Finally, the substances must be sought out and taken, and the result must be satisfactory for the psychological need in order for the predisposition to begin driving behavior.

Three strikes and you're out. Last I heard, about 2% of the population had a genetic predisposition to addictive behavior. Indulging in reality escape is a moral failing.

Remember, I am an expert, so don't try this at home.

Substitute obsessing for indulging. Recreational use is not germane to this discussion.

Why yes Chris,

Punish the traumatized. That is a very good idea.

Of course if the traumatized get their medicine from the medical cartel then everything is jake.

You see the illegal drug cartel is evil and the legal drug cartel is good. The distinction is obvious.

Where you get your brain receptor fillers from makes all the difference in the world.

Round Pegs In Round Holes

And you know a person ought not be allowed to make such decisions on their own. Government in cahoots with the medical cartel is the only valid route for making such decisions. If you just decide on your own a lot of middlemen will get cut out of the deal. And that would be very bad.

Our DNA is the source code for human life, and in that respect it has a certain level of control over all aspects of our lives; on this point there is no disagreement. The problem here is the complexity of it all, and the fact that our life experiences, i.e.: our family, schooling, religion, and environment in general also has a huge effect on our decisions in life and our successes and failures.

The functioning of our genetic engine is so enormously complex, and multiply that by the interactions between genetic transcription and translation, and genetic self-regulation through auto-RNA interference by "junk DNA" through its corresponding micro RNA. Multiply this mind-boggling complexity by the interactions of second messenger hormones back onto the nucleus in cellular physiology. Multiply this essentially infinite level of biological complexity by the essentially infinite level of complexity of our neuro-anatomy and neuro-physiology, and you have the greatest achievement of our universe - you have the individual - a human being made in the image of God. Our genetic makeup and our minds and hearts give us the power of free will. We can choose good or evil, life or death; and these are moral choices which supersede our underlying genetic makeup.

To say that choosing to use self-destructive drugs is a genetic disease is tantamount to saying that bank robbing and murder is a genetic disease; or that mass-murder in gulags and prison camps is a genetic disease; or that anti-Semitism and the holocaust was the result of a genetic disease. Once you go down this path you reduce evil to a genetic disease; and I suppose that may be your ultimate aim in this discussion.

Ronald,

The receptor fillers are only self destructive if you don't buy them from the medical cartel. Otherwise they are life saving and helpful.

You see unless the witch doctor has blessed your receptor fillers you are subject to the evil contagion of filling the receptors without the witch doctors permission. Which is obviously bad.

Only the blessing of the witch doctor can save us from evil.

But not to worry. You can use alcohol and tobacco without the witch doctor's permission. And people should be satisfied with that.

And Ronald I get your point. Relieving your own pain without the witch doctor's permission is just like murder. The parallels are so obvious. It is a wonder everybody doesn't see them.

Simon,
Cell surface receptor fillers, i.e.: drugs, are both good and bad. Morphine can relieve the pain and suffering of those suffering from terminal cancer, but morphine and similar narcotics can also destroy the life of a young person who becomes addicted. Surely this concept is not too radical or complex for you.

What is it with your silly references to witch doctors? Do you have doctor-envy? Is it also possible that your level of medical knowledge is too small? After all, size (knowledge base) matters.

Anon,

I get your point. If you have chronic pain which leads to chronic drug use (referred in common parlance as addiction) the government should hound you until you are willing to shut up and suffer. Or at the very least you should be willing to make do with what the government allows - alcohol and tobacco.

Because otherwise you will be branded an addict which is the worst possible thing.

Of course food addicts and air addicts and water addicts will be exempt because everybody does it.

There are only two ways out for the addicts. Give up your vile habits or go see the witch doctor from the witch doctor's cartel for relief. There you will find plenty of compassion - if you can afford it.

And I also get that you favor the funding of criminals and terrorist from the arbitrage on plant materials. Because it is the right thing to do.

I'm glad to see so many commenters here who love criminals and terrorists and hate those who self medicate for chronic pain. You will never find more shining examples of true morality anywhere.

How do I attract such moral people to this blog? It is a gift.

Witch doctor envy? Why no. Witch doctors had a whole bag of psychoactive medicine tricks.

And how does a modern doctor deal with the problems of psychological dysfunction? "Here, try some of this for a few weeks and let me know if it helps. If not there are some other things we can try".

Now explain to me how the medical doctor's judgment differs from the witch doctors judgment? Or the individual's judgment.

Lots of people try opiates vs the number who become chronic users.

Or think of all those "I tried pot and didn't like it" folks.

If the effect of drugs is as universal as some claim why wouldn't every one like it? Why for opiates is it only about 1 in 10 who try them become long term users?

Why doesn't everyone who tries alcohol become an alcoholic?

Simon,
Chronic pain comes in a large number of varieties and causes, and in a large range of severity. Not all pain requires narcotic or other mind-altering medication; to prescribe such medications for every day ordinary types of aches and pains is malpractice on the doctor's part, and foolishness on the part of a patient.

There is nothing wrong with governmental control of these potentially life-threatening drugs through physician prescription, and by prosecuting physicians who dish 'em out like candy; or for the government to outlaw such drugs on the black market. As for criminals and terrorists, I'm for putting them out of business by force - in order to protect children who can't protect themselves.

If adults will abuse and kill themselves with marijuana, narcotics, crank and cocaine, what about the children? I get your point - to hell with the children.

By the way, drug addiction is real, and it has caused more death and misery than you can possibly imagine; and your cavalier attitude toward this is disgusting to me, particularly since I have to deal with the human misery on a regular basis. You as an individual may be able to control your habit without harming yourself or anyone else, but I'm afraid there are many others, especially children, who can't handle these substances in any other way than self-destruction.

BTW - that was me up there - I forgot to sign in.

Simon,
There is a direct correlation between marijuana use and schizophrenia in teenagers, and yet you have stated with such self-assured certainty that there is no causation. Where have you obtained such certainty of knowledge on this point? Who is the witch doctor here?

http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/streetdrugs.html

There is nothing wrong with governmental control of these potentially life-threatening drugs through physician prescription,

Of course not. Then tell me why alcohol and tobacco are legal. Or why you can buy a killer dose of aspirin over the counter.

Or why marijuana which has never killed any one by overdose in its 5,000 year history is illegal.

Or why water which is deadly in large quantities (electrolyte imbalance) is freely available from every water fountain in the country.

I'd like to make sense of your point of view - people can't be trusted - but you don't seem to be consistent.

And you know maybe we should outlaw guns. And knives. And sharp pencils. And rocks. And big sticks. And table lamps. And fire place pokers. Heck - fire and electricity are known hazards and yet killer doses of electricity are freely available from your wall socket. And candles are sold in every city in America.

I don't get it. Why drugs and not all the other dangers? Don't you care that people could hurt themselves or others? Why are you so insensitive?

When I was 2 years old I almost killed myself by sticking a diaper pin in an electrical socket. Shouldn't doctors be in charge of electrical supplies to prevent such hazards? And what about the proliferation of swimming pools and 5 gallon buckets?

Why are 5 gallon buckets even on the market?

====

BTW did you ever notice that the current price of a bag of 90% pure heroin is $4. Less than a six pack of beer.

And that street dealers do not check for ID the way liquor stores do.

So why do you favor a policy that makes it easier for kids to get dangerous drugs than it is for them to get beer? Do you hate kids that much? What is wrong with you?

What are the merchants of death paying you for your support?

I suspect that the people who pretend to hate illegal drugs are secretly in cahoots with the illegal drug merchants. Not that I would think that you would ever admit it. In fact the first thing I expect from you is a vociferous denial. Which would just prove my point.

But how could you be in favor of a system that makes illegal drugs so available to our children and then pretend you are against the easy availability of drugs to kids?

That is the oldest trick in the books. But you don't fool me.

Simon: "So why do you favor a policy that makes it easier for kids to get dangerous drugs than it is for them to get beer? Do you hate kids that much?"

I don't favor a policy that makes it easier for kids to get dangerous drugs than it is for them to get beer. Kids should be protected from them both.

I have two teenagers at home, and I love them; and I teach them about the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse. I told them about the young patient I'm now caring for who overdosed on drugs. This patient, as so many others have done, vomited during the comatose state and aspirated vomit into the lungs. This patient then went into ARDS and has a 40% chance of death; my job is to try like hell to keep her in the 60% category.

So far my kids seem to believe what I say; because I tell them the truth, and I teach by example as well. I haven't had to teach them about the dangers of salt, water and 5 gallon buckets; but I'll give them the warning as soon as I get home; in fact I'll leave the hospital right now because you've really got me worried now.

Simon: "I suspect that the people who pretend to hate illegal drugs are secretly in cahoots with the illegal drug merchants. Not that I would think that you would ever admit it."

That is a truly disgusting statement. You must have a psychopathology of some sort deep down in there. I feel sorry for you, but not sorry enough to challenge your self-assured delusions. You better go smoke some pot now - that'll make everything better for you.

Simon,
I let my teenage son occasionally drink a beer or a glass of wine at home - along with me. I never drink more than two, and I never let him have more than one. My teenage daughter sometimes takes a sip of wine from my glass, or my wife's glass - no big deal - but we always teach her to only drink one or two glasses when she becomes legal - same for our son. We're not prudes, but we're all too aware of the risks to young people from drugs and alcohol.

I didn't even mention teenage deaths related to drugs and alcohol - that alone is reason enough to keep them at the foot of the cross. Funny, even though I worked four years in a level 1 Trauma Center at our University Hospital, I didn't run across any amputees or quadriplegics who were the victims of car crashes related to salt. Imagine that - just a fluke I'm sure.

Correction:
I didn't even mention teenage deaths from car crashes related to drugs and alcohol...

Ronald,

You know very well that teenagers can't get alcohol. It is prohibited.

Why you talkin crazy?

You know Simon, we don't disagree on everything. I'm a conservative libertarian, and I believe dearly - even religiously - in the sacredness of human liberty. We are created with life, liberty, and with creative minds and bodies to pursue happiness; but, alas, our freedom carries some responsibilities - especially to the children of next generation.

I really like the way Spock would raise his hand, separating the third and fourth fingers in a "V", as he says a farewell to his friends: "live long and prosper." Simon, I would change that farewell to: "live long, live free and prosper."

Well tell me then. How is having a shooting war in some neighborhoods being responsible to the next generation?

How is financing MS13 being responsible?

How is making heroin easier to get than beer being responsible?

How is financing terrorist being responsible?

The way I see it is we can have a drug problem or we can have a drug + crime problem.

Why are you opting for the latter? It doesn't sound like any libertarian thought I have ever heard of.

Simon,
We need to be shooting the bad guys in MS13 - that's my idea for a shooting war in some neighborhoods - that would be responsible action for the next generation; and shame on those who make heroin easier to get than beer - but don't pin that on me; and let's have a real war on terrorists and their damned drugs.

I'm not being irresponsible, and to hell with those that are placing drugs into the hands of children - I detest them - I hate their evil.

Ronald,

It is American policy to place those drugs in the hands of children. It is one of the functions of prohibition. It was one of the reasons for the agitation against alcohol prohibition. You do know your history don't you? Well evidently not.

BTW we already have a war in some American neighborhoods. It is going well. Lots of adults getting killed and quite a few children. I think if we can increase the intensity of the war we can get more adults and children killed. And that would be a good thing, no? It is one of the reasons for the gun control agitation. You do want your guns taken away in the name of gun violence like any good libertarian? Of course you do. How could you be a libertarian otherwise?

You sir are either stupid or insane.

You favor a policy that makes dealing drugs to children inevitable and that causes the agitation for gun control and wastes tens of billions of dollars a year to no purpose other than financing criminals (it ain't stopping drugs). And yet deep thinker that you are you say redoubling the efforts will make a difference. I suppose you are right. More children dead in the cross fire. Not your kind though so why worry, eh?

Well. We have been doubling and redoubling the efforts since the 1970s. Are things any better?

BTW see my latest:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/12/a_hearty_appeti.html

The evil is the government policy. Of course I wouldn't expect you to get that. You are easily bamboozled. Especially for a so called libertarian.

And Ronald,

Do you know what they call a dead drug dealer in some neighborhoods?

A Job Opening

Do you know what they call a jailed drug dealer in some neighborhoods?

Another Job Opening

The only way to beat it is to legalize. Because there are way more job seekers than jobs.

I don't believe the drug war is unwinnable and that legalization is therefore the best option. I believe there is corruption in government at very high levels, especially judges; and that is what spoils what should be a winnable effort against the bad guys. I have to believe there are drug-related kickbacks of some sort for too many in government - same old story of human corruption. It will take courage and sacrifice to defeat corruption in government - and that will be a prerequisite for winning the battle against the youth-destroying drug lords. Legalization is simply cowardice and capitulation.

I won't stoop to calling you stupid or insane, just wrong; but I respect your passion. If you wish to keep drugs out of the hands of children and teenagers then at least we agree on the ultimate goal which is to help the children avoid self-destruction - to help those who can't, at this stage of their lives, prevent great harm to themselves. Your idea of legalization, in my opinion, will increase the use of mind-altering drugs in children and lead to more misery and death.

Simon,
Here's a well-written essay on drug abuse, conservatism and libertarianism. I'm both conservative (classical liberal) and libertarian - a hybrid - so I suspect we agree on some things. I believe human liberty is as divine as human life and human creativity; but with human liberty also comes responsibility. We can't escape our responsibility to the young, even if it means curbing some of our freedom. My freedom ends where the right to life, liberty and creative pursuit of happiness of others begins, and most especially the life and wellbeing of children and teens.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=0C21ACBA-E181-4BD2-AEAE-344C80F3663E

Live long, live free and prosper - as long as your freedom and creativity of life does not trample on the equal rights of others.

“No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.” Thomas Jefferson

Ronald,

Of course the drug war is winable. It is just that in 94 years of trying no one has yet figured out how.

But I know how. We let police do anything they want with or without evidence - shoot drug suspects on sight and enter homes without warrants or probable cause.

That would be a start any way. If that doesn't work we can set up camps in the desert and make sure the people do something useful until they die. Arbeit Macht Frei.

With about 15 million drug users in America it will only take about 4 years at 10,000 a day to round them all up. Then we work them to death. I figure that in about 10 years or less our drug problem will be over.

That will be the way to finally solve our drug problem and clean up the country.

And BTW there is no state as conservative as a police state.

I figure we can get rid of illegal aliens and eliminate out of wedlock births this way too.

I figure if we reform (through work) about 1/2 the population we can get a truly moral country. Heaven on earth at last.

====

So tell me what right do you have to tell people what they can and can't ingest, smoke, drink, eat, etc. ?

Who made you God? And if you think some one made you God are you sure you weren't anointed by the Devil Pretending to be God? It happens a lot you know.

The Devil is always looking for some one to do his work in the name of God. I think you would be perfect for the job.

Of course there is corruption at high levels. It is what prohibitions do.

Why would you expected anything else?

"The Latin American drug cartels have stretched their tentacles much deeper into our lives than most people believe. It's possible they are calling the shots at all levels of government." - William Colby, former CIA Director, 1995

Say did they ever teach you about how alcohol prohibition corrupted the nation? Nah. They don't teach that any more. Or else you slept through it.

And I will repeat: you are either stupid or insane to believe that you can get anything other that what we are getting from prohibition.

Wasn't alcohol prohibition enough of a lesson for you? Well, evidently not.

The Mexican government is totally corrupted. And the last stop for the war is America.

I predicted this 30 years ago. People told me I was insane. Well what do you know. Just one more border to cross. I hope you will be satisfied with the results. A totally corrupted government and an escalating war in the streets.

It will be worth it though to make sure kids can get drugs easier than beer and that a lot of kids get killed in the crossfire, eh?

The government will bring true morality to America at last. Hallelujah. Praise the Lord.

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

Clive Staples "CS" Lewis

Evidently you are no CS Lewis fan. Pity.

Who in the hell is calling for a police state where "police do anything they want with or without evidence - shoot drug suspects on sight and enter homes without warrants or probable cause." You're a nut if you think American conservatives are this evil; and I suspect you this represents a projection of your own pathologic and tyrannical impulses. I also suspect you just run for cover by using innuendo, crass sarcasm and hyperbole in your rhetoric.

I agree that alcohol prohibition was stupid, but the biological effects of narcotics, marijuana, and cocaine are much more powerful, i.e.: more addictive and destructive; especially on the developing brains of children and teenagers - an obvious fact that you wish to deny or conceal.

Your comments about God are disgusting. Maybe it is you who would play god with the lives of innocent children and teens.

I've read nearly every book written by C.S. Lewis, and I love the quote. Protecting children and fighting drug pushers and murderers is not being an omnipotent moral busybody. You won't find C.S. Lewis on your side of this argument. C.S. Lewis used Turkish Delight as an addictive temptation for Edmund in "The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe;" and we know from history that during the nineteenth century Middle-Easterners sometimes added hashish to Turkish Delight which was then exported to England.

Of course youer experience with narcotics makes your unfounded assertions so.

So let us review:

The most addictive drug known to man: tobacco. The most psychoactive commonly used drug known to man: alcohol.

Study Finds Alcohol and Tobacco More Harmful than Marijuana, LSD, or Ecstasy (Revisited)

Marijuana & Heroin vs Alcohol & Tobacco

The results of yet another study that pits illegal drugs, such as marijuana and Ecstasy, against alcohol and tobacco is in, and gee, what a surprise- the drugs are winning. Stoners begin couchside debate with the choir.

The British study, headed by Professor David Nutt of Britain's Bristol University, had been working to re-classify those substances deemed harmful according to their damage causing potential. Unfortunately, alcohol and tobacco ranked among the top ten.

"The current drug system is ill thought-out and arbitrary. The exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from the Misuse of Drugs Act is, from a scientific perspective, arbitrary," said Nutt.

Three factors were used to determine the harm associated with each drug: the physical harm to the user, the drug's potential for addiction, and the impact on society of drug use.

My dear friend: as usual you don't know anything about the subject you claim expertise on. We have been at this some days now with plenty of opportunity for you to educate yourself and yet you revel in your ignorance.

And tell me: if the harms of drugs such as cannabis, heroin, and cocaine are so obvious why were they over the counter medicines from before the founding of the Republic until the Harrison Narcotics act of 1914?

And who was agitating for making these drugs illegal? The same people who brought you alcohol prohibition. Just that provenance alone should give any thinking person pause.

You sir are not thinking. You just spout slogans. You are a victim of propaganda.

Fortunately the word is getting out and the propaganda is losing its effectiveness. 'Bout time.

"Addiction to such legal substances as alcohol and tobacco may constitute problems more severe in their adverse consequences than addiction to such illegal drugs as cocaine, heroin or marijuana."

- The White House [ONDCP] ordered report from the National Research Council, Informing America's Policy on Illegal Drugs: What We Don't Know Keeps Hurting Us, 2001

An excerpt:

The national commission summarized its urgent call for research in the following words (National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, 1973:367-370):

Throughout this report, we have pointed out numerous gaps in knowledge about the causes, consequences and control of drug-using behavior. While research cannot answer all of the questions, much more information is urgently needed, not only to develop more rational policy for the future, but also to implement effectively the policies we now have.

Even a partial listing of the unanswered questions is startling. We do not know: why people choose to use drugs in spite of criminal laws against use and obvious dangers of dependence and disruption; why some individuals who use drugs with high dependence liability become dependent and others do not;....

May I suggest looking at the National Research Council Report? So you can get some facts as opposed to the propaganda you typically spout? You resistance to actual study of the matter makes you look like a fool.

===

But tell you what. I'd love to hear your proposal for eliminating commerce and trade in illegal drugs. In 1914 1.8% of the population used heroin (some chronically most occasionally). After 90+ years of prohibition with ever more draconian laws 1.8% of the population uses heroin. How do you propose to do better without a police state?

BTW to counter your ignorance here is a page that addresses your superstitions with facts.

Drug War Distortions

Let me start with #1 -

Distortion 1: If drugs were legalized there would be an explosion of drug use.

Incorrect. The available research, as affirmed by a recent Federal analysis of drug policy, indicates there would be little if any increase in use.

From 1972 to 1978, eleven states decriminalized marijuana possession (covering one-third of the US population) and 33 other states reduced punishment to probation with record erased after six months to one year. Yet, after 1978 marijuana use steadily declined for over a decade. Decriminalization did not increase marijuana use.

[National Research Council, "Informing America's Policy On Illegal Drugs: What We Don't Know Keeps Hurting Us" (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001), pp. 192-193.]

===

The Netherlands decriminalized possession and allowed small scale sales of marijuana beginning in 1976. Yet, marijuana use in Holland is half the rate of use in the USA. It is also lower than the United Kingdom which had continued to treat possession as a crime. The UK is now moving toward decriminalization.

[Center for Drug Research, "Licit and Illicit Drug Use in The Netherlands 1997" (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands: CEDRO, 1999; Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, "Drug Policy in the Netherlands: Progress Report Sept. 1997-Sept. 1999 (The Hague, The Netherlands: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, Nov. 1999); US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse 1998, 1999, and 2000 (Washington, DC: SAMHSA).

===

According to the Center for Drug Research in its report Licit and Illicit Drug Use in The Netherlands 1997, past-year cannabis use in The Netherlands is estimated at 4.5% for the entire population; past-month use is 2.5%. In the United States, according to NIDA's National Household Survey on Drug Abuse for 2000, past-year cannabis use is 8.3% of the US population 12 and older, and past-month use is 4.8%.]

==

If there is an increase in the reported rate of drug use after the end of prohibition, it may be due to an increased willingness to admit to being a drug user. Currently, such an admission means admitting to breaking the law, which social scientists point out discourages honesty.

[National Research Council, "Informing America's Policy On Illegal Drugs" (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001): "It is widely thought that nonresponse and inaccurate response may cause surveys such as the NHSDA and MTF to underestimate the prevalence of drug use in the surveyed populations (Caspar, 1992)." (p. 93)]

Will the medicine damage my liver?

No. Opioids occur naturally in the body, and are not harmful to any organ system. They can be taken safely for a lifetime, if necessary. Anti-inflammatory nonopioid medications, on the other hand, kill 16,500 patients each year through bleeding from the stomach, and are toxic to the liver and kidneys.

Frank B. Fisher, MD

http://www.csdp.org/news/news/debunkingmyths.htm

Compare opiates to alcohol or tobacco.

You are being lied to my friend. You ought to ask yourself why.

Simon,
I'm not arguing that alcohol and tobacco aren't harmful drugs, of course they are; but so are marajuana, cocaine and narcotics. I've worked in emergency rooms, intensive care units and in private practice for many years, and I've seen the sad results of abuse too many times - and I continue to see it and care for the poor souls when they overdose and when they suffer the pathological effects of chronic abuse.

You suffer from a little knowledge on this subject, and that makes you dangerous. Your references are either out of date, or they are websites with little credibility. It is you who are being lied to and have swallowed propaganda. It is you who needs remedial education.

"Marijuana is the most frequently used illicit drug in the United States. Its use is on the rise [4], especially among junior high and high school students. Among adults in the United States, the prevalence of use has stayed relatively steady at 4 percent since the early 1990s. However, the prevalence of marijuana abuse and dependence (as defined by DSM-IV [5]) has increased significantly [6]. Data from a survey of over 40,000 US adults found the 12 month prevalence of marijuana abuse and dependence to be 1.1 and 0.3 percent respectively; risk factors for abuse and dependence included being male, Native American, widowed/separated/divorced, and living in the West [7]. There was a strong association between Axis I and II disorders and abuse or dependence on marijuana. The "gateway" theory of development of drug abuse describes sequential stages of progression in drug involvement from adolescence into adulthood, starting with legal drugs such as alcohol or cigarettes, followed by marijuana, illicit drugs other than marijuana, and abuse of prescription drugs [8]. As an example, in a cross-sectional survey of 311 monozygotic and dizygotic same-sex twin pairs who were discordant for early cannabis use, those who used cannabis by age 17 had odds of other drug use or alcohol dependence that were 2.1 to 5.2 times higher than their twin who did not use cannabis [9]. The authors hypothesized that this may represent a causal effect, but an alternative hypothesis is that similar genetic and environmental risk factors lead both to the use of marijuana and to the later use of other substances [10]. The gateway theory is also supported by a study of boys who transitioned from licit alcohol and tobacco use, to illicit marijuana use between the ages of 10 to 22 years [11]. The gateway sequence is not absolute, as 22 percent of boys who used marijuana had no prior history of licit drug use. A study of school-age children in Spain identified specific factors associated with onset of marijuana consumption: use of alcohol and tobacco, antisocial behavior, low academic performance, and leisure time patterns [12]. This study supports the gateway theory, although it does not eliminate the possible existence of a common factor underlying initiation of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. Whether the association is causal (ie, whether marijuana is a "gateway" drug [13]) or reflects shared risk factors, marijuana use appears to be the best predictor of later use of "harder drugs" like cocaine [14] or heroin. Marijuana use also predicts later ecstasy use [15]."

Michael F. Weaver, MD
UpToDate.com

More remedial education for Simon:

"Signs of chronic marijuana use include reduction in activities and relationships not associated with the drug, and impairment in cognitive skills...Chronic marijuana use may result in multiple health problems. Marijuana is not smoked with filters, unlike most tobacco cigarettes. The amount of particulate matter that irritates the mucous membrane lining of the upper airway and enters the lungs is increased compared to tobacco smoking. Marijuana smoke contains nearly four times as much tar and 50 percent more carcinogens than tobacco [33]...Marijuana smokers probably are at increased risk for lung cancer, although the magnitude of risk has not been well quantified [38,39]. The absolute risk of lung cancer that a given individual accrues likely depends upon the magnitude and duration of drug use, the amount of adulterants coingested, and whether exposure to concomitant carcinogens (such as tobacco smoke) is present [40]...In men, marijuana causes decreased serum testosterone levels, sperm count, and sperm motility [48]. This may lead to decreased libido, impotence, and gynecomastia. An increased risk of infertility may result from changes in semen characteristics seen with marijuana smoking [49]...The association between tobacco smoking and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been established [54]. Short-term marijuana administration is associated with bronchodilation [54]. Longterm smoking is associated with many symptoms of obstructive pulmonary disease...The association between chronic marijuana exposure and cognitive dysfunction has been extensively studied but with varying results. A syndrome formerly known as the "amotivational syndrome," now called the "chronic cannabis syndrome," has been described in which chronic heavy users with cognitive impairment have a reduced ability to establish or attain goals in life, resulting in jobs that require less cognitive challenge or technological acuity [20].

A biologic basis for chronic cannabis syndrome was suggested by a study of cerebral blood perfusion, comparing intracranial doppler sonography between chronic marijuana users (n = 54) and nonusers (n = 18). Subjects were studied over 30 days of abstinence in an inpatient research unit; chronic marijuana use resulted in increased cerebrovascular resistance in heavy users, which persisted over a 30 day abstinence period [60]...There is evidence that marijuana use may increase the risk of schizophrenia [70,71] and depression [72,73]. Multiple prospective studies have demonstrated an increased risk of psychosis or psychotic symptoms with marijuana use (odds ratios ranging from 1.77 to 10.9), and several have also shown a dose-response relationship [71,74]."

Michael F. Weaver, MD
UptoDate.com

Simon's reference: From 1972 to 1978, eleven states decriminalized marijuana possession (covering one-third of the US population) and 33 other states reduced punishment to probation with record erased after six months to one year. Yet, after 1978 marijuana use steadily declined for over a decade. Decriminalization did not increase marijuana use. [National Research Council, "Informing America's Policy On Illegal Drugs: What We Don't Know Keeps Hurting Us" (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001), pp. 192-193.]

Current information:
"Marijuana is the illicit drug most commonly used by children and adolescents in the United States [2,3]. The use of marijuana by adolescents is monitored by several surveillance programs, including the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) and the Monitoring the Future Study, both of which monitor drug use among national samples of high school students [2,3]. Marijuana use among adolescents peaked in 1979, when 60 percent of high school seniors reported use at some point in their lives, 50 percent reported use in the past year, and 10 percent reported daily use [4]. Marijuana use declined through the 1980s to a nadir in 1992, after which it began to increase (show figure 1) [2]. In 2007, 38 percent of students reported having used marijuana at some point in their lives, and 20 percent were current users (used at least once in the 30 days before the survey) [3]."

Prem Shulka, MD
UptoDate.com

So, 10% of adolescents used marijuana regularly in 1979 and 20% in 2007. Decriminalization has doubled the number of adolescents using this dangerous mind-damaging drug. Your information is out of date, and it is wrong. Simon, you are disseminating incorrect information, and you have drawn wrong conclusions. It is you who are ignorant on this subject; and I suspect it may relate to the chronic neuropathologic effects of marijuana smoking.

“Marijuana is the illicit drug most commonly used by children and adolescents in the United States [2,113]. The average age of first marijuana use in the United States is 14 years [16]. Among adolescents who try marijuana, an estimated one-third will use it regularly for some time period, and 9 percent will develop dependence [17,18]. Marijuana is considered to be one of the main "gateway" drugs, leading to the use of more lethal substances such as amphetamines, cocaine, and heroin [108].”

“The association between chronic marijuana exposure and cognitive dysfunction has been studied extensively but with varying results. Smoking marijuana more than once every six weeks for longer than two years has been reported to result in poor concentration and weak analytic skills [71]. A syndrome formerly known as the "amotivational syndrome," now called the "chronic cannabis syndrome," has been described in which chronic heavy users with cognitive impairment have a reduced ability to establish or attain goals in life, resulting in attainment of jobs that require less cognitive challenge or technological acuity [72]… Data are mounting to suggest that marijuana use increases the risk of developing schizophrenia [77,78] and depression [79,80]. As an example, in a cohort study of 1601 students 14 to 15 years of age who were followed for seven years, a dose-effect relationship was found between marijuana use and anxiety or depression [80]. Daily use in young women was associated with an over five-fold increase in the odds of reporting depression and anxiety after adjustment for intercurrent use of other substances (odds ratio 5.6, 95% CI 2.6-12).”

Prem Shulka, MD
UptoDate.com

Simon, you are religious in your adherence to self-serving falsehoods; cling to your ignorance like a medieval priest.

“Chronic pain is a progressive disease of the nervous system, caused by failure of the body’s internal pain control systems.” Frank B. Fisher, MD
http://www.csdp.org/news/news/debunkingmyths.htm

Wrong, pain is a symptom of disease, such as malignancy, which may involve nearly any organ or body system - not just the nervous system. Who the hell is this Dr. Fisher?

“Opioids occur naturally in the body, and are not harmful to any organ system. They can be taken safely for a lifetime, if necessary.” Frank B. Fisher, MD

Wrong, while endorphins - the naturally-occurring opoids in our brains, are not harmful; exogenous opiates such as heroin, morphine, Demerol, codeine, etc. are very dangerous because they can cause respiratory depression, cardiac arrest, brain damage or death with acute overdoses, and they often result in addiction with chronic use. Of course if you suffer from cancer or bedridden, then addiction becomes an irrelevant side issue.

Will I become dependent? You may. Dependence means that if opioids are abruptly discontinued you will have a physical withdrawal reaction, similar to having the flu. This reaction can be prevented by gradually tapering off the medication. Dependence is a physical phenomenon, not a sign of addiction. Frank B. Fisher, MD

Wrong, narcotic withdrawal is a major medical problem, and Dr. Fisher glosses over the reality that “gradually tapering off the medication” is the fly in the ointment. People, especially children and teens, simply can’t stop taking narcotics – they’re hooked.
“Withdrawal symptoms occur in stages, depending upon the time of the last dose:
• Three to four hours after last dose — Drug craving, anxiety, fear of withdrawal
• 8 to 14 hours after last dose — Anxiety, restlessness, insomnia, yawning, rhinorrhea, lacrimation, diaphoresis, stomach cramps, and mydriasis
• One to three days after last dose — Tremor, muscle spasms, vomiting, diarrhea, hypertension, tachycardia, fever, chills, piloerection, and rarely, seizures”
Prem Shulka, MD
UptoDate.com

“Opiate medications are very effective for the treatment of acute and chronic pain, but also have the potential to be abused. Heroin abuse in the United States (US) has remained at high levels since the mid 1990s, with over 100,000 new users annually [1]… Overdose can occur at any time with any opioid. It is more likely to occur with heroin than prescription opioids because the amount of actual heroin in drugs bought on the street varies from dealer to dealer and day to day, and because of the high lipid solubility of heroin. (See "Opioid intoxication in adults").

Tolerance and physical dependence occur after one to two weeks of daily use, resulting in a withdrawal syndrome after abrupt cessation.
• Heroin addiction is associated with increased mortality. In one study, the mortality rate of 115 untreated subjects with heroin addiction was 63 times that expected for a non-using group of the same age and sex distribution, and higher than a group of former heroin users in methadone maintenance programs [18].
• Contaminated drugs and inadequate sterile technique with injection drug use leads to localized and systemic infections (eg, cellulitis, localized abscess at the injection site, endocarditis, osteomyelitis).
• Intravenous drug use with shared needles or syringes is associated with an increased risk of infection with a blood-borne pathogen, such as HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C.
• Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection may also occur in those who abuse heroin but do not inject it. Transmission has been associated with tattooing [19] and sharing of straws for intranasal insufflation [20,21].
• Substance abusers, especially heroin users, engage in drugged driving and have higher rates of motor vehicle colisions [22]; those arrested for drugged driving have significantly increased rates of all-cause mortality [23]. However, patients maintained on either methadone or buprenorphine do not have significant alterations in tasks related to driving performance when not using illicit drugs [24].
• Most impoverished street-level heroin users need to engage in some illegal behavior (ie, shoplifting, burglary, prostitution) to obtain money with which to purchase heroin.

Michael F. Weaver, MD
John A. Hopper, MD
UptoDatecom

Well yeah.

An overdose of alcohol can kill you. Or an overdose of cigarettes. Or an overdose of aspirin. Or an overdose of water.

Taken in appropriate doses opiates are not harmful. And unlike alcohol do not damage organs from chronic but somewhat immoderate use.

BTW the range from intoxicated dose .1% BAC to deadly .4% to .5% BAC for alcohol would put in in the prescription only category if it was properly classified. There is one very dangerous drug.

For pot there is no known overdose number. It is currently estimated that the range from intoxicated to overdose is 40,000 to 1. Safer than aspirin where the range is about 50 or 100 to 1.

Before heroin and marijuana were illegal heroin was suggested as a safer alcohol substitute and marijuana as a safer tobacco substitute.

BTW for water the therapeutic dose 8 oz is 1/32nd the lethal dose of 256 oz (2 gallons). And you know due to people wanting clean urine for drug tests through dilution a few times a year there are water overdoses.

I guess it is one way to get rid of the pot users or at least getting them to switch to heroin which is metabolized much faster.

Simon,
You are a smart guy, but you get all hung up in some of your theories which don't actually correspond to what is happening on the streets and in the emergency rooms and intensive care units. Your theories are of an elitist sort and not of a practical sort, and they appear to be self-serving.

People are simply not harming themselves with salt or water as you imply; but people are dying from street drug overdoses every day, and young lives are destroyed by addiction continually - as we type.

You said that there is "no known overdose number" for marijuana; but this statement simply reveals your lack of medical knowledge.

"The onset of acute marijuana intoxication is within minutes when smoked and the effects last for three to four hours [5].

Physiologic signs of acute intoxication include:
Tachycardia
Elevated blood pressure
Elevated respiratory rate
Conjunctival injection
Dry mouth
Increased appetite
Impaired reaction time.

Psychologic signs of intoxication include:
Euphoria
Time distortion
Anxiety
Depression
Impaired short-term memory
Paranoia
Mystical thinking

Impairment of concentration and motor performance last for 12 to 24 hours due to accumulation of marijuana in fatty tissue, with slow release of THC from fatty tissue stores and enterohepatic recirculation [19].
Thus, a marijuana user may think that he or she is no longer impaired several hours after use when the acute mood altering effects wear off. However, impairment of cognition, coordination, and judgment lasts much longer than the subjective feeling of being "high." Impairment is intensified by combination with other drugs, especially alcohol. These findings may help explain the observation that fatal traffic accidents occur more often among individuals who test positive for marijuana [20]. International studies have shown rates of positive urine or blood tests for marijuana varying from 10 to 57 percent in impaired or injured drivers [21-25]. Screening for marijuana and other drugs of abuse, in addition to alcohol, may be a useful adjunct to standard roadside sobriety testing [26]."
Michael F. Weaver, MD
UptoDate.com

Marijuana is a gateway drug for street narcotics, cocaine and methamphetamine; and it is associated with schizophrenia and depression in children and teens, and we as responsible adults must keep it out of their hands to the best of our ability. If we lived on a planet where there were only adults I would be more sympathetic to the legalization of mind-altering drugs, but anyone who smokes a joint would have to refrain from driving a car for 24 hours; nor pilot a plane or perform surgery on your vital organs. Even if marijuana were legalized on a planet with no children or teenagers, there would have to be great curtailment of its use in order to protect innocent people not under the influence of mind-altering drugs.

Simon says: "Taken in appropriate doses opiates are not harmful. And unlike alcohol do not damage organs from chronic but somewhat immoderate use."

Not true - chronic use of narcotics results in addiction and other chronic health risks. Chronic narcotic use should be reserved for patients suffering from malignancy, the bed-ridden and those with other terminal illness.

"Tolerance and physical dependence occur after one to two weeks of daily use, resulting in a withdrawal syndrome after abrupt cessation. Tolerance develops much more slowly to the miotic effects, constipation, and respiratory depression...Chronic use of opioid agonists can result in hyperalgesia. A form of bowel hyperalgesia (narcotic bowel syndrome) has been proposed but has not been well studied. In the largest published series, patients had chronic or recurring abdominal pain that worsened with continued or escalating dosages of narcotics [25]. Improvement in symptoms was observed following graded withdrawal of the narcotic with institution of medications to reduce withdrawal effects [25]."

Michael F. Weaver, MD
John A. Hopper, MD
UptoDate.com