The War on Some Drugs

[Cartollomew]

Okay, this has been a pet peeve of mine for a while, and I've mentioned it in passing in the past.

Why do we, as a society (this covers pretty much most of modern society) insist on taking a "drugs are bad, mmmkay" attitude?

There are three major problems that I can see this causes:

1) The creation of a multinational, lucrative and very aggressive black market for recreational drugs.
2) A head-in-the-sand approach to drug awareness - "Just say no" is inadequate as an education. Any time someone tries to provide a useful and sensible position on recreational drug use, the Mrs Lovejoys get up in arms and it gets squashed.
3) A lack of societal support for those whose lives are significantly disrupted by drug abuse.

The Black Market
Think of the crime - gangs, shootings, drug dealers, drug growers, smuggling, drug "cook houses" - which exists purely because the vast majority of drugs which could be used for recreation are banned.
Lift the ban and suddenly that entire market, everything it supports and that supports it is gone.
Recreational drug prices become regulated by a free market, or by government intervention (or both, I don't really care), and as a result, burglaries, muggings, theft - all down.
The legalisation and regulation of recreational drug use also gives us an opportunity to bring drug use into the open; people who aren't committing a crime have less reason to hide (but obviously may still choose to do so. Whatever).

Just say no!
Actually, this is one area in which society seems a little more relaxed than has been in the past. I know that the curriculum here in WA includes some fairly broad health education, allowing students to research and present both the effects and side effects of various drugs. This is a good start.
Then when you start reading stories like the one above (banning an entirely sensible leaflet), you begin to despair.
Let's take a quote from our Very Good Friends, the zealots of Drug Free Australia:

"Schools play a crucial role in preventing drug problems when students bring drugs to school or use drugs at school. According to research, at least 50% of senior students in Australian school have tried cannabis".

Of fucking course >=50% of senior school students have tried cannabis. That's what people do. That statistic is wholly uninteresting, except to prove the point that over half our population has taken a banned substance at least once and, crucially, our society has not fallen apart.

Far more interesting, would be a study that shows how many of the students who've tried cannabis went on to use it regularly?
How many students overall go on to use regularly?

But doing these studies is really fucking hard because somebody has broken the law whenever they take a puff.

There comes a point (hint: it's high school) where you need to stop treating children as children, and start treating them as the young adults they are. It is not beneficial to society, or kids to try to keep breastfeeding babies until the age of 18, when suddenly they get spit out into the world and are expected to behave like adults.

What else do we have from these paragons of education?
"Drug Free Australia will continue to strive for pro health alternatives to illicit drugs and to ensure that harm prevention is not only a household catch phrase, but a reality, put into good practice, throughout our country."

I couldn't agree with this more. Let's start by removing the vast majority of drugs from having illicit status. Bam. That simultaneously reduces the number of illicit drugs and increases the number of "pro health alternatives" (whatever the hell those are).
More constructively though, the use of the phrase harm prevention is a brilliant one. Let's apply that phrase instead of any of the following ones:
*Drug Ban
*Zero Tolerance
*Tougher Laws
*Oh Won't Somebody Please Think of the Children?

We're cookin' with gas!

Before I start getting stuck into these twerps, let's ask what would be involved in the Cart Method of Drug Regulation and Education:
*Drugs would be taxed, sold only by approved, regulated and audited sources. We would have similar restrictions on drug use as we do on cigarettes and alcohol.
*The money from the taxes would go into a fund. This fund would be used for: treatment centres - rehabilitation - education - research - enforcement
Even with a reasonably heavy tax, I'd wager that recreational drugs would be cheaper to purchase than they are now, while still maintaining acceptable margins.
Much of the "cost" of drugs today are with regards to the risk and illegality of their production, movement and sale. Those costs would all be gone.
This would have the added benefit of pricing unauthorised dealers (effectively the current black market) out of the market.
*We can now educate about the full effects of drug use. We can also more effectively research said effects, produce "cleaner" and safer drugs.
*People who choose to take drugs are better informed from both ends - drugs sold through authorised retailers are transparent in their strength and content. This makes everyone's life easier.

[tangent]
Indulge me a little: now to the DFA's patron, one "Dr" Margaret Court.
Firstly, we need to be a little more precise about the fact that Ms Court's qualifications lie primarily in the arenas of law and tennis, and nowhere near medicine.
Presenting your patron on the home page as "Dr Margaret Court" lends your organisation (which is based primarily on health issues) more credence than it is due (some people actually believe that one's qualifications shouldn't automatically imbue one with more authority on a subject than, say, the field itself, but I digress).
This is also someone who has some wonderfully progressive views on other "controversial" topics. Okay, that really shouldn't matter either way, but I guess I'm just a spiteful person.
Actual content follows.
[/tangent]

Societal Support and Acceptance
Drug use isn't a thing to hide and be ashamed of - people are far more likely to search out and accept support if they aren't made to feel guilty for their choices.
If someone develops a drug problem, they need all the encouragement and support they can get. Our current society provides this for alcoholics. Our current society does not encourage other drug users to step up and take charge - after all, they're guilty of doing something illegal.

I'm aware of nutjobs on both sides, and often times both sides have good points, which need to be taken into consideration.

But nobody even seems to be considering the case for legalising all recreational drugs, bar the odd fringe crazies in Russia a few years back.

Madness.

[Philondra]

I totally agree. I hate drugs with a burning passion and wish they would just go away because they cause too many societal ills.

That being said, I really think they should be made legal. Why is it OK to have cigarettes and alcohol but not other mind altering, dependence-inducing substances? We tried prohibition (at least in America) and guess what? IT DIDN'T WORK.

*sigh* prohibiting things doesn' t work -- all it does is place people at the margins of society and stigmatize them so that they can't get their lives back on track.

[Xact]

I started scrolling and decided not to read.

Do you work cart? Or spend most of your day drafting and re-drafting then publishing posts like these lol?

[Cartollomew]

I totally agree. I hate drugs with a burning passion and wish they would just go away because they cause too many societal ills.

Lots of them are also fun. But you know, FOR THE CHILDREN, we'd best banninate the lot.

*sigh* prohibiting things doesn' t work -- all it does is place people at the margins of society and stigmatize them so that they can't get their lives back on track.

I guess a lot comes down to poor education; [anecdote]the people I know who do the most drugs are also the most poorly informed[/anecdote].
But meh. My concern is more with the fact that this isn't even on the agenda for any first world nations (one could argue Amsterdam, but really, doing it half-assed is like not doing it at all); it's a glaring oversight.

@Xact
Depends on my calendar. Now shutup and go normalise my database.

[Xact]

@Xact
Depends on my calendar. Now shutup and go normalise my database.

NO YOU


ps. im just jealous I cant string more than 20-30 words together, whereas you can do 20-30 thousand without using a tenth of your brain capacity.

[Cartollomew]

ps. im just jealous I cant string more than 20-30 words together, whereas you can do 20-30 thousand without using a tenth of your brain capacity.

This is my brain on drugs (okay, caffeine).

Thanks for the complement, but you were absolutely right the first time around; I'm pretty much preaching to the choir here, not getting the agenda out into the real world and not getting any work done.

But I sure do feel superior after I finish writing a post like that, so I guess mission accomplished

[Philondra]

I hear you, Cart. I've long since given up on getting anyone in America to understand me (let along here in Japan). This is why I say that I'm going to end up as one of those crazy cat ladies, except instead of knitting and cat I'll have the internet and some puppies.

[midi]

@Xact
Depends on my calendar. Now shutup and go normalise my database.

[Kayleb]

brilliant post Cart, although i dont think the legalization of drugs will save ze children, mmmk

I think the problem is these drugs have a greater effect, granted by romoving the illegal component such as the drug lords and their lacky's, the chances that the initial boom will cause so many addicts etc it could prolly bring on ze end of ze world!

well, thats the worst way I could have put it

[Cartollomew]

I think the problem is these drugs have a greater effect, granted by romoving the illegal component such as the drug lords and their lacky's, the chances that the initial boom will cause so many addicts etc it could prolly bring on ze end of ze world!

I don't think so; history typically shows that people, on the whole, are pretty responsible, bang up citizens.

Sure, you might initially get an increase in substance dependencies, but I suspect it'd be far less than an "addiction boom".

Alcohol is, for example, arguably far more addictive than many illicit drugs; yet the number of people affected by alcohol addiction doesn't significantly shift regardless of whether or not western society prohibits it (okay, the only hard data on that is from the 20s prohibition, but as a case in point, it's pretty hard evidence).

Look at it this way: We're not encouraging kids to do drugs. We are removing much of the mystique of banned substances. We are increasing the number of informed users/non users as well as the quality and reliability of the substances themselves.

Whether or not it "saves the children" is almost beside the point; it doesn't harm the children, and it provides immeasurable societal benefit, through the removal of drug black markets and instigation of high quality research and treatment/education.

I understand that there are many details which need to be ironed out; and also that there will be stiff opposition to the very idea (in this day and age, there are some pretty powerful pro-prohibition of alcohol groups), but the fact that it's not even discussed in the decision making/research areas of our society beggars belief.

[Kayleb]

Kids arn't stoopid... they are aware

It does not matter if the drugs were illegal or not, teenage boys n toys are smart enough to be aware of the effects of drugs. Mary jane, speed etc but they are still willing to use them

Even if a course were to be introduce where you need have to be at least 18, there's still the chance that the alcohol problem will arise... atm there is massive teen binge drinking issue, although only a few will die from poisoning there is a higher (MUCH higher, no numbers sorry... my uni is known as the super tafe, ANYWAY!) there is a higher possibility they will die from these drugs, they are lethal and they do destroy lives.

By legalizing drugs, you bring them out from behind the curtain to the shop window

[Vampirial]

I'll admit I didn't read the article but skimmed through it.

Just some points though its legal to grow marijuanna in adelaide - but not sell it. Everyone there is a fucking stoner lol. I got my sister living there the drug scene seems pretty bad (I wouldn't say worse but not better than anywhere else)

Some where in the world they legalised a lot of drugs. I could be wrong but I think its netherlands. I remember reading an article a while back on how it did nothing to change how that country dealt with drug addicts and that statistically there was more drug related deaths/illnesses/hospitalisations, and more prostitution than before it was legalised. Wish I could find the info for yous but this was prob 5-10 years ago I woulda read it.

[Cartollomew]

http://www.dassa.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=129
^Update on recent laws in SA regarding cannabis.

http://sos-sa.org.au/cannabis_capital.shtml
^Dense article, but provides an interesting discussion on the effect of decriminalising and then reneging on Adelaide's cannabis growing.

In short:
Doing it half-assed is detrimental. Go the whole hog or don't bother.

Key points:

Penalties have increased the risk and therefore the rewards. Ten backyard plants can now put you in jail for two years. Just one plant is a $300 fine. It means people buy their smoke not grow their own," says the dealer a little smugly.

This is bad...

"There have been a number of notable instances in recent years of law enforcement officers who have been seduced by the super-profits offered by the drug-trade."

So is this...

He says 95 per cent of the crop is still mums-and-dads, and 5 per cent in seriously criminal.

And of course, so is this.

If it doesn't make illegal distribution impractical, it fails.

Re: The Netherlands

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/67

Some points:

"There were 2.4 drug-related deaths per million inhabitants in the Netherlands in 1995. In France this figure was 9.5, in Germany 20, in Sweden 23.5 and in Spain 27.1. According to the 1995 report of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction in Lisbon, the Dutch figures are the lowest in Europe. The Dutch AIDS prevention programme was equally successful. Europe-wide, an average of 39.2% of AIDS victims are intravenous drug-users. In the Netherlands, this percentage is as low as 10.5%."

"Cannabis use among young people has also increased in most Western European countries and in the US. The rate of (cannabis) use among young people in the US is much higher than in the Netherlands, and Great Britain and Ireland also have relatively larger numbers of school students who use cannabis."

"The prevalence figures for cocaine use in the Netherlands do not differ greatly from those for other European countries. However, the discrepancy with the United States is very large. The percentage of the general population who have used cocaine at some point is 10.5% in the US, five times higher than in the Netherlands. The percentage who have used cocaine in the past month is 0.7% in the US, compared with 0.2% in the Netherlands.*"

This is possibly just due to supply and availability. Either way, no massive disparity, as expected, since the Netherlands hasn't made coke legal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_polic ... etherlands
is also worth looking at.

While the Netherlands is an interesting case study, it's still not even close to what I (and quite a few others before me) am suggesting; black markets exist there, as anywhere else. There's no real free market, or regulated free market for these drugs and their equivalents.

Further:

Kids arn't stoopid... they are aware

I would agree. Many high school aged kids are more educated and experienced than their parents, due to solid school education in recent years.
This is actually a bad thing, as it disempowers said parents. It's also partly their fault for not doing the Goddamn research themselves. Part of the problem of a nanny state is that it implies parenting can be done by our schools and communities.
Some of it can, but the ultimate responsibility lies with parents. They fail often.

It does not matter if the drugs were illegal or not, teenage boys n toys are smart enough to be aware of the effects of drugs. Mary jane, speed etc but they are still willing to use them

Correct, >=50% of high school kids. A much smaller percentage go on to use regularly. A smaller percentage of those fit into high risk or dependence categories.
What makes you think this will change significantly if the drug is legalised?

Even if a course were to be introduce where you need have to be at least 18, there's still the chance that the alcohol problem will arise... atm there is massive teen binge drinking issue

There is always a teen binge drinking issue. This is something we're addressing as a society, and it's something that, again, parents need to play the major part in.
Would prohibiting alcohol altogether solve our binge drinking problem, or would it make it worse?
So why are we trying to apply a prohibition solution to other drugs, many of which do less damage than alcohol?

...although only a few will die from poisoning there is a higher (MUCH higher, no numbers sorry... my uni is known as the super tafe, ANYWAY!) there is a higher possibility they will die from these drugs, they are lethal and they do destroy lives.

I can't find hard stats on alcohol poisoning; it's rare. What isn't so rare is alcoholism (alcohol addiction), liver damage, deaths due to alcohol effects while driving, deaths and serious injury due to alcohol effects.
What drugs are "lethal"? Heroin?
Anything else?
I guess there've been... 2, maybe 3 deaths relating to extasy. In the case of heroin, an overdose (equivalent to alcohol poisoning) is a serious risk.

Put yourself into an alcohol prohibited society though - what alcohol would be available? Beer? Wine?
Or the seriously hard, 70% moonshine stuff. Cheap, nasty, highest punch. Brewed in some bastards backyard or bathtub. Filled with God-knows-what, since it's unregulated.

This is the kind of heroin available on the streets. Legalised heroin is a different beast. That's not to say it's more trivial than alcohol - opiates are seriously heavy drugs. But with decent education and regulation, why would someone turn to heroin when there are so many safer alternatives legally available?
And if they do, the risk of OD is greatly reduced, due to better quality smack and better information regarding it. "Nutritional information", if you will.

By legalizing drugs, you bring them out from behind the curtain to the shop window

If there's one thing we need, it's to bring drugs out into the open. They lose their (entirely undeserved) mystique, people start to know more about them, and we as a society can move on.

Tax the damn things, and addicts pay for themselves.

[Vampirial]

oh cool I didn't know adelaide changed its laws O:
It's probably true a lot of addicts are older and growed their own plants, only problem is those "older" people then go on to have children of their own and smoke the stuff around their kids. The kids then usually get two mindsets from this, the first being canabis is cool its safe to use. Or the second being something along the lines of oh man my mum is really fucked up from this shit maybe I won't touch it. Admittedly I don't know the whole population of adelaide but I know a few and friends of friends etc whom seem to follow the first version. Grandad has a plant growing out the back, daughter comes over to get some more supplies, then heads home and gets hit up by her teenage children. Even with this law changes I know some people their that still grow their own weed.

Regaurding the netherlands too I don't think you can compare a study with what is happenning in the rest of the world. To be a true comparison you must along the way look at the drug related incidents in netherlands and compare them every two years. There may be differences in countries equating to the high increases. Eg How does poverty in netherlands equate to the rest of the world? How many are unemployed between each country? What are crime rates between the two countries? It would be like comparing the high teen suicide rates in Japan to those in Australia where aussie kids aren't facing the intense pressure the Japanese do to succeed.

"The number of problem opiate/crack users seems to have remained relatively stable in the past ten years (3.1 per 1000 people aged 15-64 years). In the past decade, local field studies among traditional groups of problem opiate users have shown a strong in-crease in the co-use of crack cocaine, a reduction in injecting drug use, and an increase in psychiatric and somatic comorbidity."

This sounds like the only paragraph in the statement that is directly comparing netherlands to netherlands. Just seems less people are injecting drugs, maybe a good thing but it isn't suggested that their is a decline in drug usage.

I don't neccessarily have an opinion made up on legalising drugs yet there seems good and bad points for both. But if the netherlands is anything to go by it seems it takes many generations to see results.

With drinking in Australia the governments response to oh know lets max the cost so far up that the kids won't buy them just didn't work..... I have people come into work and will happily pay over $100 for their favourite premix. I reckon a long term solution would of been better to raise the legal age to 21. Because I work in the industry alcohol is something I feel very strongly about I guess because I see the effects every day. The majority may be social drinkers but the sad fact is a lot of our consumers are alcoholics. Alcohol isn't really that different from drugs (except drugs don't make u pee excessively!). I'd like to see some research done comparing drug usage to alcohol useage see if drugs are more prevalent because of the illicit factor.

[Cartollomew]

Re: Raising the Legal age for Alcohol Purchase/Consumption

Neo-prohibitionists of today typically argue that raising the drinking age to 21 has been beneficial. However, the evidence suggests a different story. For example, a study of a large sample of young people between the ages of 16 and 19 in Massachusetts and New York after Massachusetts raised its drinking age revealed that the average, self-reported daily alcohol consumption in Massachusetts did not decline in comparison with New York. Comparison of college students attending schools in states that had maintained, for a period of at least ten years, a minimum drinking age of 21 with those in states that had similarly maintained minimum drinking ages below 21 revealed few differences in drinking problems. A study of all 50 states and the District of Columbia found "a positive relationship between the purchase age and single-vehicle fatalities." Thus, single-vehicle fatalities were found to be more frequent in those states with high purchase ages.

Suggesting that, at best it makes no difference, and at worst it exacerbates the problem.
Further:

Finally, an examination of East Carolina University students' intentions regarding their behavior following passage of the 21-year-age drinking law revealed that only 6% intended to stop drinking, 70% planned to change their drinking location, 21% expected to use a false or borrowed identification to obtain alcohol and 22% intended to use other drugs. Anecdotal statements by students indicated the belief of some that it "might be easier to hide a little pot in my room than a six pack of beer."

Hooray! Utter failure!

The data from 3,375 students at 56 colleges across the country revealed that, after the legislation, significantly more under-age students drank compared to those of legal age.

Take into account the fact that, probably at least the same number of students aged 18-21 are drinking, but now they are doing so under-age.

People become responsible by being properly taught, given responsibility, and then held accountable for their actions. We don't tell young people to "just say no" to driving, fail to teach them to drive, and then on their 18th birthday give them drivers licenses and turn them loose on the road. But this is the logic we follow for beverage alcohol because neo-prohibitionism underlies our alcohol policy.

Again, the attitude of one's parents has a huge impact on one's own attitude.

All quotes from here.

To be fair, I've discovered exactly one study suggesting that raising the legal drinking age to 21 reduces the number of fatal traffic collisions.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 062508.php
Well, it actually suggests that enforcing stronger laws discouraging and preventing underage drinking reduces the number of fatal traffic collisions. It doesn't actually say very much at all about whether or not that line being drawn at 18 or 21 makes any difference at all.
It does, however, go on for a fair bit about how awesome and detailed a study it is. Curious.

This trickypedia article provides an interesting point regarding attitudes toward drinking of those aged 18-21:

Underage drinking has become an activity primarily done behind closed doors. Typically, minors hide their alcohol consumption by drinking quickly before they go out which is often referred to as pregaming or pre-partying.

This is precisely why we need to discourage the hiding of alcohol - and any drug - bring it out into the open. The see-no-evil hear-no-evil approach isn't working.

That wiki article also includes a line stating that research shows that restricting access doesn't reduce consumption, but drives it underground. It then fails to cite a reference, making it utterly fucking useless. Such is Wikipedia, I guess.

It's probably true a lot of addicts are older and growed their own plants, only problem is those "older" people then go on to have children of their own and smoke the stuff around their kids. The kids then usually get two mindsets from this, the first being canabis is cool its safe to use. Or the second being something along the lines of oh man my mum is really fucked up from this shit maybe I won't touch it. Admittedly I don't know the whole population of adelaide but I know a few and friends of friends etc whom seem to follow the first version. Grandad has a plant growing out the back, daughter comes over to get some more supplies, then heads home and gets hit up by her teenage children. Even with this law changes I know some people their that still grow their own weed.

It's probably true a lot of alcoholics are older and make their own wine/beer, only problem is those "older" people then go on to have children of their own and drink the stuff around their kids. The kids then usually get two mindsets from time, the first being alcohol is cool and it's safe to use. Or the second being something along the lines of oh man my mum is really fucked up from this shit maybe I won't touch it. Admittedly I don't know the whole population of Adelaide bt I know a few friends and friends of friends etc who seem to follow the first version. Grandad has a still out the back, daughter comes over to get some more supplies, then heads home and gets hit up by her teenage children. Even with this law changes I know some people there that still distill their own spirits.

Apologies for the imitation quote, but this is exactly the problem with anecdotal evidence. It's just words, and when you change the words, it's still just as reliable.

A few points to consider:
*If any drug is sold legally, from registered and regulated outlets, the only people growing their own are the fringe hobbyists. How many people brew their own beer, make their own wine or run their own (illegal) stills? Does that number of people "rolling their own" create problems for society or their families?

*If you're a parent, and your teenagers are "hitting you up" for anything like alcohol, cigarettes or pot, then you're doing it wrong. Part of this can be resolved through better education - hopefully newer parents today are more aware of the effects of alcohol and drugs on their children.
But there will always be parents who deal with their children irresponsibly, and there honestly isn't anything that prohibition can do to help with that.

*Most importantly, the concept of pot/alcohol/anything either "fucking you up" or you not touching it at all is hideously flawed. Many people partake of alcohol - it hasn't ruined their lives. Over half of the population of Australia coming out of high school has used cannabis; society hasn't collapsed. It is possible to use drugs responsibly. The "Just Say No" brigade have distorted a balanced view on this issue - the reason we allow alcohol in our society is because it can be consumed in a sensible fashion. If anything, the example kids should be getting from their parents is "Hey, these things are safe to use, but Mum and Dad use them in moderation, and only when the time and place is right."

Re: The Netherlands

To be a true comparison you must along the way look at the drug related incidents in netherlands and compare them every two years. There may be differences in countries equating to the high increases. Eg How does poverty in netherlands equate to the rest of the world? How many are unemployed between each country? What are crime rates between the two countries?

Take a look at the article in question (it's not too long or wordy). It has a table answering a number of these questions (although the comparison is to the US).

The Netherlands has hugely progressive and liberal policies almost across the board, so the differences are striking, particularly with regard to unemployment, poverty, crime and so on. But these are comparible to other Scandinavian nations who do not have the same drug policies as the Dutch, but still provide very different drug stats - compare the Netherlands to Finland or Sweden.

Okay, comparing Holland to Holland:

"The National Youth Health Surveys (in 1988, 1992, 1996, 1999) among pupils (12-18 years) showed that the increase in cannabis use since 1988 stabilised between 1996 and 1999 (De Zwart et al. 2000). According to the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children study, this trend continued in 2001 (Ter Bogt et al. 2003). Use of other drugs showed a similar trend or slightly drecreased (LTP of ecstasy and amphetamine)."

(from article above)
The problem with not comparing this sort of trend with other countries is that this could have been a natural event, or one triggered by other events (although it would be unlikely that a drug policy as radical as the Dutch one would have little to no effect on these figures).

But if the netherlands is anything to go by it seems it takes many generations to see results.

Yes. I would be highly suspicious of just about any legislation that would have a lasting overnight effect. The education programs (which are generally good) employed in Australia are a good example of this - we won't see their full effect for at least 2-3 generations.

The majority may be social drinkers but the sad fact is a lot of our consumers are alcoholics.

There isn't really a lot that can be done about that; if you prohibit it, the same people will still be alcoholics, but you punish the social drinkers.
If you raise the age limit, the same people will still be alcoholics.
Responsible taxation advocates using the taxes on alcohol to assist with treatment, research and education. You get the money from the source of the problem itself.

I'm still not to seeing a reason why this policy isn't used for drugs other than alcohol and tobacco.