NationStates Jolt Archive

I read this one a while back, and kept meaning to post something about it. A letter to the ed. in the IHT reminded me of it.

READING THE COCA LEAVES
by John Tierney, New York Times
The most enlightening speech at the United Nations this week, I'm sorry to say, was the one by Evo Morales of Bolivia.

I don't mean it was a good or even a coherent speech. That would be too much to expect from the world leaders' annual gasathon. The rhetorical bar is extremely low. Morales, like his friend Hugo Chavez, spent much of his time ranting about a new world order based on the economic policies that have worked such wonders in Cuba.

But Morales at least brought a visual aid -- and thank God, it wasn't a book by Noam Chomsky. Unlike Chavez, he didn't assign reading homework to the U.N. Instead, he held up a small green coca leaf, and when he talked about international drug policies, he made more sense than anyone in the United States government.

We've sacrificed soldiers' lives and spent billions of dollars trying to stop peasants from growing coca in the Andes and opium in Afghanistan and other countries. But the crops have kept flourishing, and in America the street price of cocaine and heroin has plummeted in the past two decades.

Meanwhile, we've been helping terrorists and other enemies abroad. The Senate has voted to send Afghanistan more money for programs to harass opium growers, whose discontent is already being exploited by the resurgent Taliban. In the Andes, American drug policies made Bolivians so mad that they elected Morales, a former leader of the coca growers, who campaigned for president on the kind of anti-American rhetoric he spouted this week.

At the U.N., he denounced "the colonization of the Andean peoples" by imperialists intent on criminalizing coca. "It has been demonstrated that the coca leaf does no harm to human health," he said, a statement that's much closer to the truth than Washington's take on these leaves. The white powder sold on the streets of America is dangerous because it's such a concentrated form of cocaine, but just about any substance can be perilous at a high enough dose.

South Americans routinely drink coca tea and chew coca leaves. The tiny amount of cocaine in the leaves is a mild stimulant and appetite suppressant that isn't more frightening than coffee or colas -- in fact, it might be less addictive than caffeine, and on balance it might even be good for you. When the World Health Organization asked scientists to investigate coca in the 1990's, they said it didn't seem to cause health problems and might yield health benefits.

But American officials fought against the publication of the report and against the loosening of restrictions on coca products, just as they've resisted proposals to let Afghan farmers sell opium to pharmaceutical companies instead of to narco-traffickers allied with the Taliban. The American policy is to keep attacking the crops, even if that impoverishes peasants -- or, more typically, turns them into criminals.

Drug prohibition in Bolivia and Afghanistan has done exactly what alcohol prohibition did in America: it has financed organized crime.

The only workable solution is to repeal prohibition. Give Afghan poppy growers a chance to sell opium for legal painkilling medicines; give Andean peasants a legal international market for their crops in products like gum, lozenges, tea and other drinks. As Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance proposes, "Put the coca back in Coca-Cola."

That's what Morales wants, too, and he's right to complain about American imperialists criminalizing a substance that has been used for centuries in the Andes. If gringos are abusing a product made from coca leaves, that's a problem for America to deal with at home. The most cost-effective way is through drug treatment programs, not through futile efforts to cut off the supply.

America makes plenty of things that are bad for foreigners' health -- fatty Big Macs, sugary Cokes, deadly Marlboros -- but we'd never let foreigners tell us what to make and not make. The Saudis can fight alcoholism by forbidding the sale of Jack Daniels, but we'd think they were crazy if they ordered us to eradicate fields of barley in Tennessee.

They'd be even crazier if they tried to wipe out every field of barley in the world, but that's what our drug policy has come to. We think we can solve our cocaine problem by getting rid of coca leaves, but all we're doing is empowering demagogues like Evo Morales. Our drug warriors put him in power. Now he gets to perform show and tell for the world.
http://www.mapinc.org/tlcnews/v06/n1266/a03.htm?155

So, what do you guys think? Good or bad plan? Why?

Oh, and here's a link (http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34821) to a news article on his speech...

repealing prohibition is a good plan

let people hurt their own health if they wish it but punish them when they hurt others

allow the drug market to flourish and help economies around the world

stop spending money on punishing people who would otherwise be operating legitimate businesses and paying taxes. putting more money in the hands of the people and the govt. taking the stress off an already over crowded prison system. allowing law enforcement to focus on serious crimes.

repealing prohibition is a good plan

let people hurt their own health if they wish it but punish them when they hurt others

allow the drug market to flourish and help economies around the world

stop spending money on punishing people who would otherwise be operating legitimate businesses and paying taxes. putting more money in the hands of the people and the govt. taking the stress off an already over crowded prison system. allowing law enforcement to focus on serious crimes.

Exactly... we shouldn't even talk about 'legalising' drugs. They were legal, until we allowed them to be declared no longer so.

And the whole situation has gone downhill from there.

repealing prohibition is a good plan

let people hurt their own health if they wish it but punish them when they hurt others

allow the drug market to flourish and help economies around the world

stop spending money on punishing people who would otherwise be operating legitimate businesses and paying taxes. putting more money in the hands of the people and the govt. taking the stress off an already over crowded prison system. allowing law enforcement to focus on serious crimes.

And that's not to mention the non-harmful asspects of coca. If Pope John Paul II could drink coca tea, why should it be illegal elsewhere?

And that's not to mention the non-harmful asspects of coca. If Pope John Paul II could drink coca tea, why should it be illegal elsewhere?

as well as the medicinal uses of marijuana, cocaine, opium...

Exactly... we shouldn't even talk about 'legalising' drugs. They were legal, until we allowed them to be declared no longer so.

And the whole situation has gone downhill from there.

And don't forget the why! Drug prohibition in the US was pure racism. (I've provided the documentation repeatedly before, I'll get around to it again if need be.)

as well as the medicinal uses of marijuana, cocaine, opium...

Exactly so.

We need to legalize drugs and have them all be regulated by the FDA, AMA, and whoever else.

Given a year or two after the legalization, we'll see more commercials like this.

Middle-aged woman: "For years, the pain was just unbearable. I've been run over by semi trucks, beaten up by meat-cleaving midgets, and there's this really small spot in my left thumb that hurts if you press it just right. Plastic surgery healed the physical scars, but the pain was still there. That is, until my doctor told me about Heroin."

Camera angle changes.

Same woman: "Heroin is a narcotic, so it kills the pain. Right now, I feel fantastic. I just shoot it into my arm once a day, and there's no pain at all. I even sleep better, and I don't have to turn the heat on anymore because it's always just so damn cold in here. It's almost euphoric. Why, just the other day, I rode a unicorn to Cloud Nine and had the best hamburger I've ever eaten. And it's all thanks to Heroin. This is some good shit."

Voice-over: "Heroin is not approved for women who are nursing, pregnant, or may become pregnant. Heroin is only approved for adults over the age of 18. Side effects include nausea, vomiting, feeling cold all the time, believing you're a helicopter, mistaking hobos for the Prince of Darkness, the desire to assassinate world leaders at random, spontaneous combustion, inflammation of your eyelashes, the belief that some people are made of candy, and actually understanding Aaron Sorkin's Sports Night. Take Heroin only as directed. If you see a leprechaun, consult a doctor. People who are on MAOIs or hallucinogenics should not take Heroin. Do not drink alcohol while taking heroin...oh hell, just don't drive if you do. Do not pretend to represent the Lollipop Guild while taking Heroin. Do not board a moving train while taking Heroin. If a rash develops while using Heroin, use a topical cream to get rid of the rash and double the Heroin dosage."

Original woman: "Heroin is the greatest thing ever to happen to me. Now I can pay attention to my -- ooh, gotta go, Santa Claus needs me at the North Pole."

Other voice-over (singing): "Thi-is is a corny ad slo-ogan..."

Fade to black.

To me, that article seems to wish to sacrifice the long-term health of the population for a short term economic boom.

While I'll agree we need to revitalize the Afghan economy, and soon, legalizing drugs for a quick influx of cash just does not seem right to me; we need a better, safer plan than that.

repealing prohibition is a good plan

let people hurt their own health if they wish it but punish them when they hurt others

allow the drug market to flourish and help economies around the world

stop spending money on punishing people who would otherwise be operating legitimate businesses and paying taxes. putting more money in the hands of the people and the govt. taking the stress off an already over crowded prison system. allowing law enforcement to focus on serious crimes.

Pretty much agree, although some of the peopel currently playing major roles in the drug trade should be gotten rid of, because they are primarily thugs and organized criminals.

If we could ensure that folks like the FARC, Taliban and Cali Cartels are permanently gone, then it would be a much better situation.

I read this one a while back, and kept meaning to post something about it. A letter to the ed. in the IHT reminded me of it.


http://www.mapinc.org/tlcnews/v06/n1266/a03.htm?155

So, what do you guys think? Good or bad plan? Why?


i forget..either colbert or stewart said it..or a guest on their respective shows.

they declare war in ..iraq...working out great..no

they declare war on drugs..working out great..no

maybe they should declare war on an animal on the endangered species list...we will be swimming in white rhinos in no time.

i forget..either colbert or stewart said it..or a guest on their respective shows.

they declare war in ..iraq...working out great..no

they declare war on drugs..working out great..no

maybe they should declare war on an animal on the endangered species list...we will be swimming in white rhinos in no time.

He. I like.

So, what do you guys think? Good or bad plan? Why?

Personally, I would go about things differently.

In my mind, the government can produce narcotics far more effectively than cartels and criminals that have all sorts of associated additional costs as a result of the illegality of their product.

That, and I'd hate to see a narcotics industry develop, just as we have with alcohol and tobacco.

So let the government grow everything, and sell it to the populace. All the profits go to the government, and you can likely eliminate the illegal market altogether by undercutting the street price and making "illegal" narcotics not worth the hassle.

Who would bother spending a whole day looking for a $50 bag of pot from some dealer when they could get the same thing in ten minutes at the corner store for $20?

Nobody...that's who.

That doesn't even take into account reduced prison and law enforcement costs. Money that could then be used to help address the obvious health issues that will arise from legalized drug use.

This nation gets it wrong on a lot of issues...but this one might just be the worst. :mad:

repealing prohibition is a good plan

let people hurt their own health if they wish it but punish them when they hurt others

allow the drug market to flourish and help economies around the world

stop spending money on punishing people who would otherwise be operating legitimate businesses and paying taxes. putting more money in the hands of the people and the govt. taking the stress off an already over crowded prison system. allowing law enforcement to focus on serious crimes.

It doesnt hurt just the person that is using it. It hurts thier friends and family. It would be unsafe because you would have these drugged up people on the road. It is a very bad idea.

It doesnt hurt just the person that is using it. It hurts thier friends and family. It would be unsafe because you would have these drugged up people on the road. It is a very bad idea.

1. Say what? If it was legal, their would be support networks and they wouldn't have to suppport the habit by crime. How would it be hurting their family?

2. Say what? Why would they be allowed yo drive while intoxicated? Alcohol's legal, but drink-driving isn't; I don't see how smacked-up driving would be any different.

It doesnt hurt just the person that is using it. It hurts thier friends and family. It would be unsafe because you would have these drugged up people on the road. It is a very bad idea.

Why would you have those people on the road?

There is no reason that we shouldn't have the equivalent of the old 'Opium Den', where people might go to get 'messed up', and sleep it off afterwards.

Of course we currently HAVE the same problem with our alcohol trade, and people already ARE on the roads messed up on Class A drugs. At least if we 'legalised' we could have places where people could go to use drugs...

More importantly, those people are "on the road" already.
The same people who would drive while high on anything, are the same people who are altrwady doing it right now.

The common misconception is that if you made these drugs legal for consumers, that they would become far more available, and far more people would be using them.

Guess what folks?

These drugs are already available, and people are already using them.
Anyone who wants as bag of weed can usually find one pretty quickly if they know where to look.
Nothing is really hard to find, even in Suburbia.

Especially Surburbia.

The benefit to legalizing them is drug cartels who profit from manufacturing and shipping drugs stop making money.
The Government would.
If such drugs were taxed and controlled, but allowed to be bought by consumers, the government reaps the benefit.

The quality of the drug goes up, becuase it too, can be monitored and made safely.

A few years ago the US goverment spent 30,000 per person, to keep 750,000 people in jail for possession of relatively small amounts of marijuana.

Do the math.

22,500,000,000

Twenty-two and a half billion dollars.

If the US spent an extra 22 and 1/2 billion dollars extra in education next year, how do you think that would effect our literacy problems?

The "war on drugs" is wasting billions and billions of our hard-earned dollars, to fight a losing battke.

I think the plan is worth trying, because the current prohibition policy is a total failure & has been for a long time now.

there is no public bennifit to criminalizing or keeping criminalized the possession of anything. sale; yes, mass production; yes, mass importation; yes, but possession; (in personal amounts, not for resale) no.

then there's the question of relative potential harm, i.e. relative to what is already lawful.

the very second article of cameroi's constitution lists certain kinds of laws that well forever be contrary to it to enact, and outlawing possession of anything is one of them.

the problem of people driving under the influence of anything begins and ends with their having to drive at all. in cameroi they don't.

we don't have paved roads for cars to drive on. just lots of little ultra light rail trains instead. there isn't a lot of demand for neurotropic substances, generaly because folk here arn't defacto discouraged from freely enjoying the greater gratifications of creating and exploring.

we don't manufacture or import fire arms as such either, though we do make our own tasers and other more exotic personal and collective defense tecnology.

the main opposition to criminalizing the possession of anything, my opposition to it anyway, is the opportunity it creates for suffering resaulting from political oppertunism. entrapment, fraiming, whatever you want to call it, all that sort of thing. and we just don't trust giving anyone the authority to be able to do that. far more the any concern over destabilizing effects of consuming neurotropic substances. which we recognize and realize are also a reality.

we do instead, detain those unwilling to restrain themselves in a considerate mannor, from causing suffering to others. every village has a very great degree of autonomy and none are permitted to prevent anyone from leaving and seeking surroundings closer to the heart of their own contentment, whatever that might be.

i'm sorry if my response seems to wander but it has only touched upon a few of the many factors bearing directly on this issue.

we don't endorse the rectreational consumption of neurotropic substances, but rather feel strongly that the criminalization of their possession (or for that matter, the possession of anything) is an utterly gratuitous and bennifitless absurdity that serves only to provide further excuses for unneccessary reductions in personal freedom at public and personal expense.

=^^=
.../\...

Drugs legalisation is important to fight crime organisations but lets not forget that these rich organisations have connections in security and goverment forces. Many prefer the money to go to their pockets instead of goverments. So biggest problem is those guys. The point that must be pushed is: we are against the drugs because they are harmful to our health and society but we will allow those who wish to harm themselves under control and so not our society.
If you don't want to have any responsibility in your life than you don't deserve any of your rights. Thats basicly what I believe. You must be able to use them but also carry the responsibility you have effected on your health.

I don't agree with commercials or anything that will make people think its any good. The struggle against cigarettes and alcohol should be tripled or quadrupled for drugs. I mean NO COMMERCIALS, Lots of research on their short and long term effects, HEALTH WARNINGS and lots of informing people about their harms and benefits. People must know what they are using.

They will be able to buy drugs legally and use them but endure the health problems and carry the responsibilities. Insurance won't cover health problems caused by drugs etc.

Although I disagree with the drug laws, I can see why they exist, but I cannot see why people who grow cannabis or opium or coca are prevented from selling it for legal uses like pharmaceuticals and health foods, not to mention all the other things that can be made from cannabis, like paper and clothes.

We fight a war on drugs by preventing the people who make drugs from making anything else. Maybe if we force metal workers to only make guns and knives then that will reduce violent crime.

It doesnt hurt just the person that is using it. It hurts thier friends and family. It would be unsafe because you would have these drugged up people on the road. It is a very bad idea.

Like in the twenties, when everybody was a (still legal) drug fiend, families where horribly torn asunder and road killings wherever you laid your eyes, right?
Irresponsible behaviour is the problem, not the chemical itself. But fighting the chemical has had the same effect as the alcohol prohibition had, it fostered organised crime to new heights. Education about drugs, more rehab and societal pressure upon that bad habit would be more effective, cheaper and not criminalise thousand who did no more than smoke a joint. Having a criminal record is the most destructive influence in their life, not smoking a green herb which makes drowsy and mellow.

1. Say what? If it was legal, their would be support networks and they wouldn't have to suppport the habit by crime. How would it be hurting their family?

2. Say what? Why would they be allowed yo drive while intoxicated? Alcohol's legal, but drink-driving isn't; I don't see how smacked-up driving would be any different.

1. Yeah because support groups help alcoholics a lot.

2. No you are not. But people do. Can't change that. But you can prevent from even more mind altering substances from becoming more frequent. You are just throwing more shit into the pot that is the chaos of people driving on the roads.

1. Yeah because support groups help alcoholics a lot.

2. No you are not. But people do. Can't change that. But you can prevent from even more mind altering substances from becoming more frequent. You are just throwing more shit into the pot that is the chaos of people driving on the roads.

Youre missing the point.

People are already driving on those substances.
Regardless of whether its legal, or not.

What difference would it make, either way.

You'll still have people driving under the influence, and it will STILL be illegal to do so.

Youre missing the point.

People are already driving on those substances.
Regardless of whether its legal, or not.

What difference would it make, either way.

You'll still have people driving under the influence, and it will STILL be illegal to do so.

You are missing my point. By making it legal, the precentage of people using them would soar astronomicly (SP?). Now there will be even more people driving under drugs than there currently are.

You are missing my point. By making it legal, the precentage of people using them would soar astronomicly (SP?). Now there will be even more people driving under drugs than there currently are.

I'd like to see one shred of evidence to support your claim.

I'd like to see one shred of evidence to support your claim.

I would like to see the same for your side.

I would like to see the same for your side.

I certainly never claimed that incidents of driving while intoxicated would stay the same were drugs legalized.

You, however, have made the opposite claim...that the numbers will skyrocket.

Explain your reasoning.

You are missing my point. By making it legal, the precentage of people using them would soar astronomicly (SP?). Now there will be even more people driving under drugs than there currently are.

I don't see how. People are already using these drugs. If they were legalised tomorrow guess who'd be waiting outside whatever stores they'd be sold in? Not the people who have never done drugs before, the ones who already do. There might be more people using drugs that haven't used them before, but there'd be a drop in people using them when they become legal, because the illegality of it is why they're using(I wouldn't really know how many of these people there are, but there's surely some).

So if there isn't a huge increase in the numbers of drug users, why would there be a huge increase of people trying to drive when they're high.

I would like to see the same for your side.

The Netherlands. http://stats05.emcdda.europa.eu/en/elements/gpstab08a-en.html

2. No you are not. But people do. Can't change that. But you can prevent from even more mind altering substances from becoming more frequent. You are just throwing more shit into the pot that is the chaos of people driving on the roads.

Have you ever seen the effects of marijuana?

If we legalised it, it would slow traffic on the roads, and maybe make everyone more cautious as drivers.

Hardly 'chaos'.

You are missing my point. By making it legal, the precentage of people using them would soar astronomicly (SP?). Now there will be even more people driving under drugs than there currently are.

Why would the numbers soar?

I live in a part of the US that has a huge problem with crystal meth. And yet, although this part of the country has ridiculously high DUI figures, they are basically all alcohol related.

Why do you think that is?

I think it is because people doing crystal meth don't WANT to be on the road. They want to be sat somewhere safe so they can make the most of the effects, The same, I assume, would be true for heroin, or cocaine, or whatever else.

I don't see why legalising it, would make those same people any more likely to be on the road while they were 'fucked up'... and, there are ALREADY laws that address the illegality of their activities if they DID decide to drive.

I see no reason to accept your premise.

Why would the numbers soar?

I live in a part of the US that has a huge problem with crystal meth. And yet, although this part of the country has ridiculously high DUI figures, they are basically all alcohol related.

Why do you think that is?

I think it is because people doing crystal meth don't WANT to be on the road. They want to be sat somewhere safe so they can make the most of the effects, The same, I assume, would be true for heroin, or cocaine, or whatever else.

I don't see why legalising it, would make those same people any more likely to be on the road while they were 'fucked up'... and, there are ALREADY laws that address the illegality of their activities if they DID decide to drive.

I see no reason to accept your premise.

And didn't someone mention earlier bringing back 'Opium Dens', somewhere to go get high and then go to sleep. No chance of driving if you're too stoned to get out of bed :D

Ask someone on Acid or Mushrooms if they would like to drive.

Expect to be laughed at.

Ask someone on Acid or Mushrooms if they would like to drive.

Expect to be laughed at.

I'd expect to be laughed at whatever I asked them.

Well as for evidence this was the best I could do:

With respect to traffic deaths per year there are about 1100 in Holland which has one of the most liberal drugs policies in the western world.

http://217.174.251.13/library/pdfs/Netherlands_RoadSafety2004.pdf#search=%22Dutch%20driving%20offences%22

Total population = 16.5 million
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/nl.html

giving you a result of 0.006875% a year

Now lets take a country with much more strict drug policies in the same sort of area. The UK for example:

Total road deaths = 3320

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1641519,00.html

Total population = 60.4 million
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Population+of+UK&meta=

giving you a result of 0.005467%

As you can see there is no significant difference. I know this isn't definitive but its better than just knee jerk opinion

repealing prohibition is a good plan

let people hurt their own health if they wish it but punish them when they hurt others

allow the drug market to flourish and help economies around the world

stop spending money on punishing people who would otherwise be operating legitimate businesses and paying taxes. putting more money in the hands of the people and the govt. taking the stress off an already over crowded prison system. allowing law enforcement to focus on serious crimes.

IMO, this is how you scored:

1) :D +
2) :D ++
3) :D +
4) :D +

Ave: :D +-

You did good. :)

I would like to see the same for your side.

Youre the one making a claim.

You claim by legalizing such drugs as marijuana, that the number of dui's on such subtances would "increase astronomically".

I say you would have people doing it anyway.
Either way..legal or not.

You have been asked to provide some kind of proof of your claims.

Logic proves mine.

Is that all you got?

I'd expect to be laughed at whatever I asked them.

If they're having a bad trip, they might scream. :p

I can't belive that nobody yet has asked if it is unconstatioinal or aagaisnts human rights laws for goverment to legistate on what substances people choose to take?

Drugs it's a scary word, but what does it mean? Could a drug be any substance put into you body to bring about changes in your body or brain? If so then every thing is a drug, tea, coffee, chocolate, fags, beer, and canabis.

So how then does goverment decide which of these we should be allowed and which not, by what critaria, and is the same criteria uswed for all substances?

We need to legalize drugs and have them all be regulated by the FDA, AMA, and whoever else.

Given a year or two after the legalization, we'll see more commercials like this.

Middle-aged woman: "For years, the pain was just unbearable. I've been run over by semi trucks, beaten up by meat-cleaving midgets, and there's this really small spot in my left thumb that hurts if you press it just right. Plastic surgery healed the physical scars, but the pain was still there. That is, until my doctor told me about Heroin."

Camera angle changes.

Same woman: "Heroin is a narcotic, so it kills the pain. Right now, I feel fantastic. I just shoot it into my arm once a day, and there's no pain at all. I even sleep better, and I don't have to turn the heat on anymore because it's always just so damn cold in here. It's almost euphoric. Why, just the other day, I rode a unicorn to Cloud Nine and had the best hamburger I've ever eaten. And it's all thanks to Heroin. This is some good shit."

Voice-over: "Heroin is not approved for women who are nursing, pregnant, or may become pregnant. Heroin is only approved for adults over the age of 18. Side effects include nausea, vomiting, feeling cold all the time, believing you're a helicopter, mistaking hobos for the Prince of Darkness, the desire to assassinate world leaders at random, spontaneous combustion, inflammation of your eyelashes, the belief that some people are made of candy, and actually understanding Aaron Sorkin's Sports Night. Take Heroin only as directed. If you see a leprechaun, consult a doctor. People who are on MAOIs or hallucinogenics should not take Heroin. Do not drink alcohol while taking heroin...oh hell, just don't drive if you do. Do not pretend to represent the Lollipop Guild while taking Heroin. Do not board a moving train while taking Heroin. If a rash develops while using Heroin, use a topical cream to get rid of the rash and double the Heroin dosage."



1. The side effects are close to those of my antihisaminic... No... The antihistaminic is worse.
2. In pain treatment Morphine is used normally... Guess what, Morphine is a patented (Bayer) medicament that is composed by refined heroin...
3. It's bad to board a moving train also when you are NOT on heroin. ;)

I don't see the point you are making.

I think, there are enough problems with the legal drugs like alkohol. We don't need new problems with mariuahna and heroin.

Heroin addicticts are dangering their lifes - and the society has to pay for it. You could use it as painkiller - but nowadays, there are painkillers with the same effect, but much less adverse effects.

And mariuahna is dangerous as well. It causes lethargy and increases the risk of depressions. I know some mariuahna addicts - and that is enough for me.

Legalzation increases the number of addicts, I'm sure. Many people - like me - don't even know there to buy drugs. And perhaps some people would buy them, just to try them, if they see them in a normal shop. As long as these drugs are illegal, they won't get this stupid idea.

Heroin addicts use Xanax(t) or Diazepan(t) as a back up for when they cannot get a dose... Why aren't those drugs outlawed?

Why I can buy a pack of Xanax(t) on the net without prescription?

Have you ever seen someone high on Prozac(t)?

Why you are allowed to drive under the effects of Dirahist(t) (a cortison based antihistaminic)?

Why is Morphine(t) good for your health (expecially in pain treatment terapy) and Heroin bad?

Next time you take your syrup to stop coughing look up the active components, may be that you'll find Codeine listed...

ILegalzation increases the number of addicts, I'm sure. Many people - like me - don't even know there to buy drugs. And perhaps some people would buy them, just to try them, if they see them in a normal shop. As long as these drugs are illegal, they won't get this stupid idea.

From Wikipedia: Implications of policy on drugs use statistics

Despite the legalization of soft drugs, use of cannabis in the Netherlands is not higher than most other countries in Western Europe: 9.7% of young males consume cannabis at least once a month, which rates the Netherlands 7th in the EU after Cyprus (23.3%), Spain (16.4%), United Kingdom (15.8%), France (13.2%), Italy (10.9%) and Germany (9.9%).[1]

Some critics say that the legalization of soft drugs often leads to quicker consuming of hard drugs. Yet, the percentage of the population which ever consumed cocaine in the Netherlands is still lower than that of the United Kingdom, Spain and Italy. The situation is similar for other hard drugs. [2]

Heroin addicts use Xanax(t) or Diazepan(t) as a back up for when they cannot get a dose... Why aren't those drugs outlawed?

Why I can buy a pack of Xanax(t) on the net without prescription?

Have you ever seen someone high on Prozac(t)?

Why you are allowed to drive under the effects of Dirahist(t) (a cortison based antihistaminic)?

Why is Morphine(t) good for your health (expecially in pain treatment terapy) and Heroin bad?

Next time you take your syrup to stop coughing look up the active components, may be that you'll find Codeine listed...
Good old Codeine. It's not a realy hangover if you don't need some Solpadine(loaded with caffine and codeine) the next day.

We should at least legalize the "soft" drugs. Keeping such things outlawed is much more trouble than it is worth. Even the harder drugs I am leaning more towards legalization. The government would be able to take much of the danger out of the drugs once taken off the streets. Even a rise in the use is better then the violence that comes with the drug trade. We simply hammer them with their insurance even more than we do with smokers for they chose to use. Same with crimes. If you commit a crime while intoxicated, it is NOT a defense. You will face the same penalty.



Btw, perhaps I misread the article but from what I saw, it said nothing about legalizing drugs. Just opening up the coca and opium markets so that they can be used for other purposes then for the illegal drugs they are used for now. I saw nothing about legalizing cocaine and heroin.

I think, there are enough problems with the legal drugs like alkohol. We don't need new problems with mariuahna and heroin.

Enough problems such as....?

Heroin addicticts are dangering their lifes - and the society has to pay for it.

How are we doing that then?


You could use it as painkiller - but nowadays, there are painkillers with the same effect, but much less adverse effects.

Such as/

And mariuahna is dangerous as well. It causes lethargy and increases the risk of depressions.

Lethargy is dangerous how? You are right though that cannabis increases the risk of depresion, in young people who startto smoke it before their 20's.

I know some mariuahna addicts - and that is enough for me.

I know an alwfull lot of them, and the vast majority are married, with kids, and hold down steady and well paid jobs, their drug habit have no effect on their normal lifes whatso ever.

Legalzation increases the number of addicts, I'm sure.

You are sure, but you don't know for sure?

Many people - like me - don't even know there to buy drugs. And perhaps some people would buy them, just to try them, if they see them in a normal shop. As long as these drugs are illegal, they won't get this stupid idea.

That's a fair point.

Drugs it's a scary word, but what does it mean? Could a drug be any substance put into you body to bring about changes in your body or brain? If so then every thing is a drug, tea, coffee, chocolate, fags, beer, and canabis.

I realise you're British but here in America that just reads as funny.

To me, that article seems to wish to sacrifice the long-term health of the population for a short term economic boom.

While I'll agree we need to revitalize the Afghan economy, and soon, legalizing drugs for a quick influx of cash just does not seem right to me; we need a better, safer plan than that.

No. It want's to eliminate a long term waste of public funds and public health (really, do you think it has a good effect on the health of Columbia's people to drop massive dosses of herbicide on them?) in order to follow a sane foreign and domestic policy on these matters.

Legalized drugs benifits the health of the American public. If they're legal you can get them from legitimate companies that sell stuff that's mixed with poison to make it feel stronger for less money. You can grow your own pot in your back yard without worrying about how it's grown.

We need to legalize drugs and have them all be regulated by the FDA, AMA, and whoever else.

Given a year or two after the legalization, we'll see more commercials like this.

Middle-aged woman: "For years, the pain was just unbearable. I've been run over by semi trucks, beaten up by meat-cleaving midgets, and there's this really small spot in my left thumb that hurts if you press it just right. Plastic surgery healed the physical scars, but the pain was still there. That is, until my doctor told me about Heroin."

Camera angle changes.

Same woman: "Heroin is a narcotic, so it kills the pain. Right now, I feel fantastic. I just shoot it into my arm once a day, and there's no pain at all. I even sleep better, and I don't have to turn the heat on anymore because it's always just so damn cold in here. It's almost euphoric. Why, just the other day, I rode a unicorn to Cloud Nine and had the best hamburger I've ever eaten. And it's all thanks to Heroin. This is some good shit."

Voice-over: "Heroin is not approved for women who are nursing, pregnant, or may become pregnant. Heroin is only approved for adults over the age of 18. Side effects include nausea, vomiting, feeling cold all the time, believing you're a helicopter, mistaking hobos for the Prince of Darkness, the desire to assassinate world leaders at random, spontaneous combustion, inflammation of your eyelashes, the belief that some people are made of candy, and actually understanding Aaron Sorkin's Sports Night. Take Heroin only as directed. If you see a leprechaun, consult a doctor. People who are on MAOIs or hallucinogenics should not take Heroin. Do not drink alcohol while taking heroin...oh hell, just don't drive if you do. Do not pretend to represent the Lollipop Guild while taking Heroin. Do not board a moving train while taking Heroin. If a rash develops while using Heroin, use a topical cream to get rid of the rash and double the Heroin dosage."

Original woman: "Heroin is the greatest thing ever to happen to me. Now I can pay attention to my -- ooh, gotta go, Santa Claus needs me at the North Pole."

Other voice-over (singing): "Thi-is is a corny ad slo-ogan..."

Fade to black.


The ironic thing about that is, Bayer designed heroin for exactly that back in the early 1900s. The reason was mostly that the Amercians were worried about the side-effects of aspirin...

I would love it if the USA stopped interfering in the agricultural policies of other nations. Morales makes a good point about sovereignty, legalisation, and international drug policies.

As for legalisation of drugs, I definitely support legalisation. I say this as a parent who has to be careful taking his kids to the park because there's always used syringes around the softball bleachers.

If drugs were legalised then it would be possible to refine them to be less harmful and put down realistic international standarts for drugs to be obeyed. You know there are regulations for food, for electronics, for anything to make them worth your money and stop them from harming you too much.

Lets say that it would be possible to produce 'cocain light' and people would prefer more healhty and regulated products from good brands rather than illegal ones.

It would be unsafe because you would have these drugged up people on the road.

Like there aren't already?

Why would you have those people on the road?

There is no reason that we shouldn't have the equivalent of the old 'Opium Den', where people might go to get 'messed up', and sleep it off afterwards.

You do know that was outlawed in 1880 on purely racist grounds, rioght?

Although I disagree with the drug laws, I can see why they exist, but I cannot see why people who grow cannabis or opium or coca are prevented from selling it for legal uses like pharmaceuticals and health foods, not to mention all the other things that can be made from cannabis, like paper and clothes.

We fight a war on drugs by preventing the people who make drugs from making anything else. Maybe if we force metal workers to only make guns and knives then that will reduce violent crime.

Like in the twenties, when everybody was a (still legal) drug fiend, families where horribly torn asunder and road killings wherever you laid your eyes, right?
Irresponsible behaviour is the problem, not the chemical itself. But fighting the chemical has had the same effect as the alcohol prohibition had, it fostered organised crime to new heights. Education about drugs, more rehab and societal pressure upon that bad habit would be more effective, cheaper and not criminalise thousand who did no more than smoke a joint. Having a criminal record is the most destructive influence in their life, not smoking a green herb which makes drowsy and mellow.


You are missing my point. By making it legal, the precentage of people using them would soar astronomicly (SP?). Now there will be even more people driving under drugs than there currently are.

Astronomical. Evidence?

I'd like to see one shred of evidence to support your claim.

Ditto.

I would like to see the same for your side.

You've made the extraordinary claim. It is incumbent upon you to provide evidence, not on those who question your claim.

So how then does goverment decide which of these we should be allowed and which not, by what critaria, and is the same criteria uswed for all substances?

The original reasons, as I said above, were out and out racist economics, couched in crime terms.
"The damned dirty Chinese are seducing good white women! Ban Opium!"
"The damned coked up niggers kill cops! Ban Cocaine!"
"The evil spics are hopped up on cannabis and dangerous! Even better! Let's now call it 'marijuana' and make it really evil sounding and ban it!"

Each step was linked to a minority group associated with said drug making economic advances. (Yes, I'll yet again go dig up the original primary source documents, mostly in the form of period newspaper editorials, if you really want. But iut gets tired. Maybe I sould just make a thread and link it everytime this comes up...)

I think, there are enough problems with the legal drugs like alkohol. We don't need new problems with mariuahna and heroin.

Heroin addicticts are dangering their lifes - and the society has to pay for it. You could use it as painkiller - but nowadays, there are painkillers with the same effect, but much less adverse effects.

And mariuahna is dangerous as well. It causes lethargy and increases the risk of depressions. I know some mariuahna addicts - and that is enough for me.

Legalzation increases the number of addicts, I'm sure. Many people - like me - don't even know there to buy drugs. And perhaps some people would buy them, just to try them, if they see them in a normal shop. As long as these drugs are illegal, they won't get this stupid idea.

Conjecture. Pure, unsubstantiated conjecture. Not to mention horrible language.

I would love it if the USA stopped interfering in the agricultural policies of other nations. Morales makes a good point about sovereignty, legalisation, and international drug policies.

Yes indeed. I loved the comment about Saudi Arabia and alcohol.

I've been saying that legalizing all drugs is a good idea for ten years or so. The main reasons:

1: The War on Drugs is causing more measurable harm than the drugs themselves could possibly do, in the developed world. Far more people are imprisoned, and thereby become more hardened criminals, due to minor possession charges than are ever harmed by the drugs themselves; artificially inflated prices force the addicted to steal and kill to feed their habits; and our police waste their time on a consensual crime instead of real crimes.

2: Illegality promotes criminal activity. Prohibition of drugs has created a massive shadow economy that benefits no one except drug lords, corrupt puppet governments and the occasional terrorist insurgency.

3: Abject Failure. The WOD has accomplished nothing.

4: It is likely that legalizing drugs will result in a lessened use of drugs. This may sound counter-intuitive, but is based on strong evidence. One of the strongest urges in the human psyche is the Romance of the Forbidden. Anything denied us is desired by us - and once the forbiddance disappears, then usually so does the desire.
The perfect example of this was chocolate in the United States during WWII. Those of you outside the US may not realize that the US was never under the overall rationing systems that were te norm for many other nations during that war, but was under some restrictions, most notably on chocolate, which was declared a strategic resource. Suddenly, demand for chocolate throughout the US skyrocketed - the Hershey company, the US's largest chocolate manufacturer, built two new plants to fill the demand, despite the fact that they had to sell the majority of their produce to the government at fixed rates. Once the war ended, the startegic materials system was scrapped as quickly as possible, and Hershey's owners anticipated huge profits.
Instead, Hershey came to within a hairs-breadth of bankruptcy. Demand dropped as swiftly as it had risen - chocolate was no longer forbidden. Hershey had to cut production dramatically just to stay in business.
For the same reason, I waould expect a drop in drug use (and no, that has not been the Netherlands experience. I would point out that the Netherlands is a tiny country surrounded by larger, prohibitivist neighbours - the mental effect of soft drugs being legal there is not enough to eliminate the Romance of the Forbidden).

5: Every adult human has the right to go to hell in their own handbasket.

I support this for the mere fact that I believe that Hemp is a wonder-plant in so many forms of the word. The pure industrial/energy potential of the plant is thus that I would readily allow feilds to grow it just to see business attempting to develop it for other needs.

I've said it before, and I will say it again: you will never stop a product with a 3000% profit margin. That isn’t exaggeration, that’s cocaine.

When you look at the war on drugs you will see that it is not just an abysmal failure, but a sad joke. Massive amounts of money have been wasted in the effort, with little to show for it. Drugs are cheaper than ever, despite demand having increased in the past couple decades. This means the amount of drugs getting into the market has skyrocketed.

Many, teenagers especially, get into drugs because they are ‘counter-culture’. If you remove that forbidden aspect, the demand will drop precipitously.

I was in New Zealand when they busted a ‘major ecstasy production facility’ – the reduction in supply was expected to cause a huge rise in price. The effect was negligible. The police had so drastically underestimated the drug market (or so vastly overestimated their ability to enforce drug laws) that what they thought was one of the biggest sources of E in the country was actually a negligible player.

Even if you keep hard drugs illegal, there is little reason for the ‘soft drugs’ to remain so. Tobacco is responsible for far more damage than marijuana ever was, yet we promote tobacco (even encourage its export around the world). How would we respond if Bolivia was giving subsidies to coca exporters?

I agree with his argument that coca is not cocaine. I do not see any drawbacks to allowing coca – even cocaine manufacturing will likely stay in other countries as the risk of getting caught with a production facility is probably greater than importing tiny packages of pure cocaine.

It is a mild stimulant – I would definitely prefer to see people chewing coca leaves to chewing tobacco. Coca used to be used throughout society quite commonly, yet I don’t think the country was transformed into a society of raving homicidal maniacs.

Cocaine was banned because someone whipped up racist fears of blacks (black dockworkers used coca to be able to work longer and harder) getting all crazy on coca and raping white women.

Why should we continue legislation which funds criminal organizations, burdens our law enforcement, and infringes upon the rights of the people when the only reason for it being banned in the first place is due to racist fears?


I support this for the mere fact that I believe that Hemp is a wonder-plant in so many forms of the word. The pure industrial/energy potential of the plant is thus that I would readily allow feilds to grow it just to see business attempting to develop it for other needs.
I always laugh when potheads use ‘things can be made with hemp’ argument for legalizing marijuana. Hemp can and is used as a material quite freely and without restriction because it is made on an industrial scale from very legal plants similar to cannabis but without the THC (it can’t make you high).

And don't forget the why! Drug prohibition in the US was pure racism. (I've provided the documentation repeatedly before, I'll get around to it again if need be.)

If you've got those links handy, I wouldn't mind reading them. If you haven't, don't bother.

This post has two parts, so please read it all. I think that legalizing drugs would result in an increase in drug use. A war on drugs increases the per-unit costs of producing drugs, since one must have security and protection and bribes etc.- this results in a shifting of the supply curve to the left. Making these per-unit costs go away through decriminalization/legalization would cause a shift to the right. This would cause an increase in the quantity supplied of drugs along all prices.

Now, drug demand. It is true that at the higher prices, the demand curve of drugs is elastic, since there are addicts who MUST get the drugs no matter what. However, as prices head lower and lower, you would have more casual users or experimenters who get a lower marginal cost from buying the drugs than before. This would result in a very quick growth in quantity demanded at the lower prices, which would mean that there would be more drug use. Ergo, I conclude that legalizing drugs would increase drug use.

But, I will support legalizing drugs on the following grounds- first of all, it is the individual's choice, and it does not directly harm anyone else. The argument of criminalizing drugs because of the effects on society are patently paternalistic- why not criminalize overeating, too? Isn't that an unhealthy act that can cause indirect consequences on others? Even if it is a bad choice, if it does not directly harm others, it should be permissible because it is that individual's choice alone.

Secondly, the existence of a black market will end up helping criminal traffickers, and cause various other problems resulting from violence etc. This will require greater costs than simply letting people do drugs and possibly be fined for being disorderly in public (like if they get stoned and go tripping around in public).

It's not a very easy decision, but I have to go for liberty over aggression in this case.

If you've got those links handy, I wouldn't mind reading them. If you haven't, don't bother.

I didn't, but I'd have to go dig them up again eventually...

[note:

This is a good place to start http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/history.htm

NEGRO COCAINE "FIENDS" NEW SOUTHERN MENACE
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/negro_cocaine_fiends.htm

For some years there have been rumors about the increase in drug taking in the South-vague, but always insistent rumors that the addiction to such drugs as morphine and cocaine was becoming a veritable curse to the colored race in certain regions. Some of these reports read like the wildest flights of a sensational fiction writer. Stories of cocaine orgies and "sniffing parties" followed by wholesale murders seem like lurid journalism of the yellowest variety.

But in point of fact there was nothing "yellow" about many of these reports. Nine men killed in Mississippi on one occasion by crazed cocaine takers, five in North Carolina, three in Tennessee-these are the facts that need no imaginative coloring. And since this gruesome evidence is supported by the printed records of the insane hospitals, courts, jails, and penitentiaries, there is no escaping the conviction drug taking has become a race menace in certain regions south of the line.

In the North drug addiction is prevalent enough, in all conscience. The hospitals for the insane in New York State admitted one insane drug taker to every 380 other patients last year and New York's record is about the same as that of her immediate neighbors. But in Georgia the proportion was one to 42, in North Carolina about 1 to 84, in Tennessee 1 to 74, and in one of the Mississippi hospitals 1 to 23.

Stated otherwise, these Southern States had between them, from five to fifteen times as many insane drug takers as New York state.

But these comparisons, although sufficiently startling, fail to show the extent of drug addiction in the South. For most of these insane drug users, both North and South, were the victims of morphine; whereas the negro drug "fiend" uses cocaine almost exclusively.

A recent experience of Chief of Police Byerly of Asheville, N.C., illustrates this particular phase of cocainism. The Chief was informed that a hitherto inoffensive negro, with whom he was well acquainted, was "running amuck" in a cocaine frenzy, had attempted to stab a storekeeper, and was at the moment engaged in "beating up" various members of his own household. Being fully aware of the respect that the negro has for brass buttons, (and, incidentally, having a record for courage,) the officer went single-handed to the negro's house for the purpose of arresting him.

But when he arrived there the negro had completed the beatings and left the place. A few moments later, however, the man returned, and entered the room where the Chief was waiting for him, concealed behind a door. When the unsuspecting negro reached the middle of the room, the chief closed the door to prevent his escape and informed him quietly that he was under arrest, and asked him to come to the station. In reply the crazed negro drew a long knife, grappled with the officer, and slashed him viciously across the shoulder.

Knowing that he must kill this man or be killed himself, the Chief drew his revolver, placed the muzzle over the negro's heart, and fired-"Intending to kill him right quick," as the officer tells it but the shot did not even stagger the man. And a second shot that pierced the arm and entered the chest had as little effect in stopping his charge or checking his attack.

Meanwhile, the chief, out of the corner of his eye, saw infuriated negroes rushing toward the cabin from all directions. He had only three cartridges remaining in his gun, and he might need these in a minute to stop the mob. So he saved his ammunition and "finished the man with his club."

The following day, the Chief exchanged his revolver for one of heavier calibre. Yet, the one with which he shot the negro was a heavy, army model, using a cartridge that Lieutenant Townsend Whelen who is an authority on such matters, recently declared was large enough to "kill any game in America." And many other officers in the South; who appreciate the increased vitality of the cocaine-crazed negroes, have made a similar exchange for guns of greater shocking power for the express purpose of combating the "fiend" when he runs amok.

AFTER CHINESE OPIUM RING.
Federal Officials Suspect Alien Smuggling and White Slavery
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/e1910/nyt09081913.htm

Marihuana - The Mexican dope plant is the source of a social problem
http://www.druglibrary.org/mags/nature.htm

The Black Candle
CHAPTER XXIII.
MARAHUANA -- A NEW MENACE
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/blackcandle.html

"They (the Mexicans) madden themselves with a drug called Marahuana. This has strange and terrible effects. It appears to make those who swallow it do whatever is uppermost in their thoughts. At El Paso, a peon came across the International Bridge firing a rifle at all and sundry. Much talk against the Americans and a dose of Marahuana had decided him to invade the United States by himself. The bridge-keeper quickly put a bullet into the poor wretch."

A CRUISE ON THE BARBARY COAST
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/1870/evans.htm

In an alcove on one side of the room is a raised couch, spread with matting, and provided with braided split-cane pillows, for the accommodation of the opium smokers, two of whom are now stretched out at full length thereon, gazing into vacancy with fixed, staring eyes, unconscious of all that is passing around them, and wrapped in the wild hallucinations called into existence by the fumes of the deadly drug, which is sooner or later to utterly prostrate them, bodily and mentally, and send them, after awful sufferings, to fill untimely graves. Did not Christian England wage a savage war upon Heathen China, that the opium trade should not be broken up? Why then talk of abolishing it, now that it has become the curse which is destroying the whole Mongolian race?

CALIFORNIA - A PLEASURE TRIP FROM GOTHAM TO THE GOLDEN
Chapter XVI.
ACT LIII. -- SCENE 102. -- AN OPIUM DEN.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/1870/leslie.htm


We looked into another room in the same court much smaller but better furnished, the bunks neatly fitted up with mattrasses and each containing its little tray with the lamp, pipe, and opium all ready for the smokers not yet arrived. Our guide informed us in a mysterious tone that there are yet other opium dens to which access is impossible except to the initiated, where may be found at a later hour of the night young men and women as "white as you are" as he said, and with no drop of Mongolian blood to excuse their participation in this imported vice.

"Not respectable Americans?" asked some one incredulously, and the detective, with a glance inscrutable as the Sphinx, replied:

"That's according to what you call respectable. The women I don't suppose are generally received in your society, but as for the men -- well, a lady would be surprised, sometimes, if she knew just how the gentleman she has danced with all the evening spends the rest of the night!"

I'm still looking for a certain editorial from the SF Chronicle I came accross that illustrated the opium den thing really well...

I always laugh when potheads use ‘things can be made with hemp’ argument for legalizing marijuana. Hemp can and is used as a material quite freely and without restriction because it is made on an industrial scale from very legal plants similar to cannabis but without the THC (it can’t make you high).

I am not so foolish as to fall into the crowd of "you can make rope :eek: ". The cannabis is actually a very individual plant, there are substitutes, but not very close ones. I would love to see the actual cannabis plant employed on a large industrial scale, and to do that, the legal stigma must be removed. Counter-culture T-shirts are nothing compared to the actual potential that this little plant holds.

I am not so foolish as to fall into the crowd of "you can make rope :eek: ". The cannabis is actually a very individual plant, there are substitutes, but not very close ones. I would love to see the actual cannabis plant employed on a large industrial scale, and to do that, the legal stigma must be removed. Counter-culture T-shirts are nothing compared to the actual potential that this little plant holds.

Don't forget PAPER. In fact, paper making was one of the major reasons hemp was banned.

For this, blame a gentleman called William Randolph Hearst. You've probably heard of him; he was the Rupert Murdoch of his day, owning newspapers across the world. The movie Citizen Kane is a very slightly fictionalized story of the man.

You see, Hearst didn't just own newspapers. He owned everything to do with newspaper-making; it was one of the first true vertically-integrated companies. He owned the plantations that made india ink; trucking and distribution companies; even the mechanical manufacture companies that built and maintained his presses. But more importantly for this story, he owned the pine plantations and pulping mills that made the cheap wood-pulp paper his newspapers were printed on.

Up to the 1920s there were two kinds of paper making. Cheap wood-pulp was used for everything from toilet paper to newspapers and 'penny dreadful' dime novels and magazines and digests. But real books, and fine stationary, were made from Hemp paper, which gave a whiter, cleaner sheet that was more durable, less susceptible to the elements and longer-lasting - all extant official copies of the Declaration of Independence are printed on hemp paper, and this was true of any form of written documentation that had to last. The only problem with hemp paper was that it took longer to make and was significantly more expensive.

Then in the 20's some smart-aleck made a breakthrough - hemp paper at the cost and in the time of wood-pulp. Great, right? Not for Hearst. He had millions of dollars (literally, and consider the time) tied up in wood-pulping operations around the globe. Operations that were shortly to become as useful as so many hand spinning wheels.

You know what happened. They started the scare campaign, renamed hemp "marijuana" (actually the name of a cheap mexican cigarette) and bought every congressman in sight. By 1930 Hearst's wood-pulp mills were perfectly safe...

We might do more to fight the problem on the demand side. The solution shifted in the 80s from punishing the users to trying to control the supply. Not only has that effort been unsuccessful, but it has turned some countries against us. If there is no demand, they will make something else...hopefully something legal. There is nothing wrong with throwing users in prison as long as we have control of the prisons. Regulating the border is another way to fight this problem but some people don't think we should guard our borders. Anyone who is for legalizing drugs is flat-out NUTS.
I laugh when liberals lecture on two subjects in particular....the economy and morals.

To me, that article seems to wish to sacrifice the long-term health of the population for a short term economic boom.

While I'll agree we need to revitalize the Afghan economy, and soon, legalizing drugs for a quick influx of cash just does not seem right to me; we need a better, safer plan than that.
To me that article appears not to have been read and sufficiently comprehended by you.

It suggests letting people get on with growing and selling their own crops, in the instance of opium in Afghanistan, to drug companies (who can use it in the production of pain killers for instance), or in the case of coca for use in small dosages (that are according to the studies not deleterous to health at all, but actually beneficial) in products such as teas and chewing gums.

I dont see the big health risk in allowing pharmaceutical companies to source organic opiates for their medicines rather than artificial opiates, nor do I see the harm in a substance less addictive than coffee and beneficial at small doses taking the place of coffee, which has been shown to cause miscarriage, birth defects and chromosomal abnormalities. What health risk are you referring to? Given that at the moment all such crops are intended to be processed into drugs of abuse, it seems to me that legitimate commercial use of the crops would greatly reduce the amount of raw materials needed to make 'drugs of abuse'. Both coca and opium are currently being grown in huge amounts and soley for the purpose of manufacturing drugs of abuse. The article suggests a far more effective way of making such crops unavailable for the manufacture of illicit drugs of abuse. I'm not sure how that poses a health risk.

Evidently what right does say the US have to control what crops a farmer in Afghanistan grows, at the expense of the farmer (when he is prohibited frrom earning a livliehood during to the prohibition) in order to give unwanted protection to the health of US law breakers? Absolutely outrageous!

It doesnt hurt just the person that is using it. It hurts thier friends and family. It would be unsafe because you would have these drugged up people on the road. It is a very bad idea.
Having a heart condition and/or diabetes from eating McDonalds hurts one's friends and families, should we make that a crime too? As for people driving, people have no right whatsoever to drive automobiles under the influence of drugs, while other people do have a right to expect those driving on the roads are fit and competent to drive. That explains why laws prohibiting the operation of automobiles whilst under the influence of drugs are a good idea. It doesnt explain why some poor farmer in Afghanistan should be prevented from using his own land to grow whatever crops he chooses, it doesnt justify preventing people in some other country from making earning their livlihood through the productive use of their own land.

1. Yeah because support groups help alcoholics a lot.
Yeah they do actually.

2. No you are not. But people do. Can't change that. But you can prevent from even more mind altering substances from becoming more frequent. You are just throwing more shit into the pot that is the chaos of people driving on the roads.
You seem to be suffering from some miscomprehension. The mind-altering substances allow farmers to make a profit on crops that they are not allowed to sell for use in medicines or for use in low-dose form as part of legitimate products. So to make a living they have to sell the raw materials to drug producers. If ensuring a constant supply of raw materials to drug manufacturers is your notion of preventing mind altering substances from becoming more frequent, I can only suggest you have some rather odd notions.

You are missing my point. By making it legal, the precentage of people using them would soar astronomicly (SP?). Now there will be even more people driving under drugs than there currently are.
Your logic circuit appears to have shorted. It is illegal to drive while under the influence of drugs. Either people who wouldnt break the law to consume drugs would if drugs were legal abide by the more important laws that prohibit driving while under their effects, or we have fucked up majorly. It would be absolute proof of the ridiculousness of drugs laws if they have resulted in people thinking that simple possession under current regimes is worse than driving under the influence of any legal drug (such as alcohol or any others that could be legalised).
The only people not taking drugs due to them being illegal are people who choose to abide by the law, why would these same people suddenly turn into criminals and start driving under the influence? And how the fuck did we get to a point where people would obey a law about not endangering their own health with drugs but wont obey laws requiring them not to risk everyone elses life and limb when it comes to motor vehicles? If that is the effect of drug laws, then all the more reason to be rid of them.

Drugs it's a scary word
No word is scary.

People think they are, but that's what causes irrational fear of "chemicals", when in fact everything in the universe is a chemical.

At University I once started a petition to ban electro-magnetic radiation just to see how many signatures I'd get.

2,162