The problem with these kinds of articles is that they make the assumption that governmental drug fighting efforts are sincere. They probably aren't that sincere to their original intent now. Like most other government agencies, they start out with some presumption of sincerity, but then the old case of "the means becomes the ends" sets in. Reminds me of what Tom Wolfe meant when the lawyer character in Bonfire of the Vanities labelled the line of criminals waiting at the back of the courthouse as "chow."
The DEA will probably never go away, because it keeps people employed for one thing, and helps large pharmaceutical companies keep small pharm companies (makers of class II, III drugs with expired patents) from building a legitimate enough business that would help these smaller companies spend money on new drug research. Keeping drugs illegal is good business; it has less to do with discouraging illicit drug use.
The problem with these kinds of articles is that they make the assumption that governmental drug fighting efforts are sincere. They probably aren't that sincere to their original intent now.
I don't quite understand your usage of the word "sincere". As an ER nurse that's worked in the ghetto of Chicago, I have worked alongside many law enforcement officers. The thinking that hard drugs (cocaine, heroine, crack, meth) are bad and should be off the streets is a sincere and fairly universal belief. The majority of the efforts that I've seen first hand in getting these drugs off the streets are well intentioned and sincere albeit ineffective and futile.
The DEA will probably never go away, because it keeps people employed for one thing, and helps large pharmaceutical companies keep small pharm companies (makers of class II, III drugs with expired patents) from building a legitimate enough business that would help these smaller companies spend money on new drug research. Keeping drugs illegal is good business; it has less to do with discouraging illicit drug use.
Wow, that's a really cynical point of view, and sounds very conspiratorial.
Mind you, I would have little problems with legalization of many drugs that are strictly controlled now. I've administered cocaine and very strong morphine derivatives to patients for years. I've also lost track of how many people's lives I've helped save from heroine OD's. People make choices to kill themselves with alcohol. They can also choose to kill themselves with cocaine as far as I'm concerned. If cocaine were as cheap and abundant as alcohol, there wouldn't be as much crime as far as I'm concerned.
But the idea that Big Pharma is in collusion with the DEA to keep certain classes of drugs is silly as far as I'm concerned. A much simpler explanation is that a large percentage of the population thinks that these substances are evil or too dangerous to be freely available.
You find quite of bit of support for legalizing marijuana on the Coasts, but even among the drug legalization crowd, I haven't really heard too many people suggesting that morphine/heroine derivatives like Vicodin and Oxycontin, or stimulants like cocaine be sold freely like alcohol or nicotine. I don't believe that our society is ready to accept that.
You must understand why people have conspiratorial attitudes here: the CIA has on more than one occasion been involved with drug trafficking. Iran-Contra at the very least. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking
The particular conspiracy of the grandparent post doesn't make much sense though -- DEA scheduling is not what makes it hard for smaller pharma companies. Jksmith, could you explain your logic a little more with that?
There is no doubt in my mind that the CIA has trafficked in drugs. I grew up in the country between Nicaragua (The Contras) and Panama (Manuel Noriega) during the 80's. I'm sure that they still traffic drugs or worse to achieve whatever objectives they're after.
But, the idea of the entire DEA being in collusion with big Pharma to keep drugs illegal is a bit silly when there are other much more straight forward answers that fit the evidence much more readily.
If marijuana were readily available from pharmacies, how many people would use it instead of Vicodin or Oxycontin to treat pain? And it may be an effective antidepressant for many people. There are tens of billions of threatened revenue right there. Any other industry with that much at stake would exert substantial influence on the govt.
However, marijuana growers need it to stay illegal too. Some of them are influential in CA. It's currently the largest single cash crop in the US, just because it's illegal. If it were legal, it could probably be grown and sold for the same price as corn.
As for pain, I don't think it functions as a direct substitute for opiates but in combination with opiates lower doses are needed for the same antinociceptive effect. It is probably a more direct treatment for certain kinds of nerve pain.
Price shouldn't really be an object for people that are depressed: Wal-mart has a number of generic anti-depressants available for $4 and $10 for a 90 day prescription. The doctors' appointments are more expensive than the drugs themselves. Depressed people need marijuana like they need large amounts of alcohol. It would be a terrible thing if large numbers of depressed people starting self-medicating with marijuana, medical cannabis's #1 negative side effect is the tendency to exacerbate underlying mental health conditions. The anxiety/paranoia caused is very real and doesn't mix very well with depression. http://i.walmartimages.com/i/if/hmp/fusion/customer_list.pdf
The marijuana growers in CA definitely benefit financially from the current state of affairs. Right now things are just about ideal. I would still bet that the majority of them would prefer their industry to made legitimate, despite the repercussions on their revenue. It's a political/belief thing. The price fall to tobacco levels (no government subsidies + evil tax) will take years during which profits are sky high. There will be price fixing.
If I was a top marijuana grower and cannabis was legalized, I would be on the phone to the tobacco companies immediately offering my skills as a high paid consultant. It will be interesting to see what happens, I fully expect cannabis to become legal during Obama's second term. Or at least for medical marijuana to be legal in the majority of the states.
While I know that marijuana relieves pain for certain, very specific illnesses, to say that it is a general pain relief alternative is quite naive.
As to whether or not it is an adequete antidepressant, you believe what you want. I don't know of any evidence to support its effectiveness in that category of drugs.
Sounds like you haven't smoked much marijuana, I'd say you're wrong on both counts. I'd go so far as to say marijuana's primary use is as an anti depressant. It's a freaking make me happy/content drug for Christ sake, that's why people smoke it.
Regarding issues of conspiracy, we tend to want to use labels which make things easy to consume, imo. Either you can take the article for face value, or I think there's a conspiracy going on.
That's just not the case, IMO. We tend to see things from an on the ground perspective. Those who are right in the middle of making large governmental decisions have a very different perspective. It's not conspiracy, it's shades of grey. I could offer a couple of examples if you like.
Lots of drugs which are scheduled in this country are over the counter in other countries. Notices that they are all generally very cheap - to make and manufacture. Sched II and III can oftentimes benefit the large US drug manfacturers, because they encourage limited access to the most lucrative drug market in the world to the second tier drug manufacturers.
You find quite of bit of support for legalizing marijuana on the Coasts, but even among the drug legalization crowd, I haven't really heard too many people suggesting that morphine/heroine derivatives like Vicodin and Oxycontin, or stimulants like cocaine be sold freely like alcohol or nicotine. I don't believe that our society is ready to accept that.
I would guess that much of the focus on marijuana is to do with setting achievable goals. Similarly to medical marijuana or soft decriminalisation. Marijuana is easier to 'sell' because it is so commonly used & arguably far less harmful then alcohol.
But on the whole, I agree with the article pretty much word-for-word. Decriminalising marijuana might be a positive step. Less risk of impurity. Less soft criminals in jail. Less unnecessary meddling in individual rights. But avoiding the big evils of drug prohibition: narco-states & a ($320b less whatever marijuana retailing is worth) illegal industry, that is the big fish.
On the question of the more harmful drugs, I suppose if we ever get there, they should be made available very gradually, & keep the process non-ideological.
The people you have worked with, the LE at that street level, can hardly fn read, and they don't write the laws, and they don't profit from them the way others higher up the chain do, but they do understand that it is keeping them employed.
I'm am going to stay away from this thread after this, I live in the Republic of Colombia, and I am a bit - let us say - INTIMATELY acquainted with the topic. Why? One of the multiple reasons is that my Grandfather served and retired as a Colombian Supreme Court Justice, I have had a few talks with him over shots of that sugarcane hooch they like here, and the corruption on behalf of the Colombian gov AND the Americans down here is downright astonishing.
The gov and pharma and defense contractors ARE in cahoots in America. All you have to do is look!
The only solution short of vaccination (I understand there is a cocaine vaccine in the works) OR (my favorite idea) creating a biological agent that sets off a major crop disease which eradicates most of the coca plants - the only solution is to legalize, the problem is, you do that and no more clandestine crates full of 100 dollar bills for anyone in the US, Mexico, Colombia govs.
There is actually quite a bit of literature, from credible sources (some former high ranking LE) anyone that cares to look further into the topic most certainly can.
Ok, goodbye thread, now I'm getting worked up remembering some of the greasy illiterates (and their whores) driving BMW's that I have had minor run ins with down here with, ALL BECAUSE PROHIBITION ALLOWS SUCH SUBHUMANS TO PROFIT.
Honestly I think the whole reason for the "war on drugs" is to justify domestic surveillance and wire tapping.
You make a valid point that it also has become it's own end, but I also think it's much easier to have strong and assertive domestic law enforcement when you can justify it by claiming they are "fighting the war on drugs".
I wish you and your parent would stick with Occam's Razor on this one. There really are a large percentage of reasonably minded people who think that legalizing drugs would cause more harm than good. Considering that alcohol has well-known negative effects on society, and is legal, it's not as if these folks' concerns are outrageous.
I'm fully, passionately on board with legalizing drugs, but accusing your opponents of intellectual dishonesty all the time only impresses people who already agree with you.
Well when I said that I wasn't trying to claim that everyone who supports the current drug laws was being intellectually dishonest.
I was trying to say that I think the reason law enforcement (at all levels) pursues the 'drug war' so assertively is that it justifies a lot of spending, manpower, and surveillance, which may be good or bad.
When something pays the bills and gives you a little more latitude to operate, you'll find ways to justify it whether you are winning or losing.
Isn't this just BS, physiologically speaking? I have never heard of SSRIs increasing dopamine levels. Wikipedia even claims the opposite: "It is believed that sexual dysfunction is caused by an SSRI induced reduction in dopamine."
1. "Anti-depressant" is not synonymous with "SSRI". Benzodiazepines are also used to treat depression and can create a strong chemical dependency.
2. The concept of addiction is hard to define, and is becoming more so. Some drugs (marijuana springs to mind) can be considered addictive, but don't seem to cause the unthinking crave-gratify-repeat cycle you see with cocaine or nicotine. Some have argued that checking email or Facebook, playing MMORPGs, and "consuming" pornography are addictive.
You know, I can't help but be reminded of the movie Layer Cake ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0375912/ ), where the main character, a drug dealer kingpin, points out that drugs will be legal some day, and that people like him are just ahead of the curve as far as making a business out of giving people the drugs they want.
Thinking of it from this angle, if drugs were to indeed be legalised (as in, like cigarettes - not just decriminalised), the possibilities for innovation, product development, etc, would be pretty enormous. You want to build a product that people just keep coming back to? Here it is.
Sure, eventually, this market would become like food or, at best, cigarettes - with smaller margins, and not much innovation. But it would take a while, I imagine, and in the meantime, there would be a lot of potential innovations, experimentations, etc.
If you take cigarettes into account, notice how much processing and additives companies add to a standard cigarette and how much engineering goes into growing the actual tobacco plant. If drugs were legalized, all that would be rolled into the `drug market'.
I don't do anything, but I still think the current drug policy is extremely sub-optimal. What worries me though, is when corporations get the green card to manufacture drugs like pot, all that untested engineering, preservatives and additives that are intended to make it more effective make their way into what people consume. If you think about it, mostly all current drug production is as 'organic' as it gets (as far as I know at least).
Some fraction of pot all sold includes other drugs to alter it's effect. Still, making pot illegal when over 50% of the US population has tried it to little effect has caused many people to distrust just how dangerous other drugs are. IMO, when people distrust established "drug facts" people fall back on antidotes. If your friend has tried "X" 3 or 4 times at party's and seems fine, then it must not really be that bad...
Personally, I think pot should be legal and Cocaine / Heroin / PCP dealers should be shot. But, people tend to dump all "drugs" into the same bin and have zero understanding about how bad some of that stuff really is.
Your argument seems a bit inconsistent. While I generally understand the spirit of what you're saying, claiming that "over 50% of the US population has tried it to little effect" doesn't seem any less anecdotal than your example of the friend trying "X" 3 or 4 times.
All these substances should be assessed scientifically for medical risk, and empirically for societal risk.
Asking for dealers to be shot on a drug-by-drug basis is a bit sensationalist. Drug dealers simply respond to demand in the market. They sell whatever people are buying -- they don't have personal agendas about which drugs to sell. Demand for drugs is notoriously inelastic.
I'd modify your last statement to say that people tend to dump all illegal drugs into one bin, and legal drugs into another. Most everyone seems to think legal drugs are safe, but people tend to be split on illegal drugs (some think they're all the worst things ever, others seem to falsely presume they are all reasonably safe).
Personally, I think there needs to be more and better education across the board. The legal/illegal distinction is rarely meaningful and detracts attention from a proper comparative analysis of drugs and their risks. For example, fentanyl is more powerful than both heroin and morphine, yet is a legally prescribed painkiller. Similarly, Adderall has a family-friendly reputation for helping kids study, yet along with its use come many of the same risks associated with speed. This is not surprising, because they are in fact the same thing -- amphetamines.
To clarify, well over 50% of the US population has taken pot at least once. Like alcohol many people don't appear to be negatively impacted by it. But, we don't hear "Please smoke pot responsibly" instead pot and people with an alcohol problem are demonized. People see anecdotal evidence and such as the large number of entertainers that admit smoking pot and assume it's safe. They then extrapolate to the sample size of their friends when evaluating other drugs. Ecstasy does horrible things to the human brain over time, but people don't evaluate the long term medical effects they just assume they are invincible and "the man" is full of crap.
I am further suggesting that for drugs that need a large scale distribution chain, and are extremely addictive and dangerous a more effective deterrent than prison should be employed.
Sort of a tangent, but are you sure your opinion of Ecstasy isn't just a result of propaganda from "the man?"
I'm not saying it's safe, and the subject certainly warrants more scientific study. However, UK scientists did a risk-based analysis of common drugs of abuse, which resulted in MDMA being placed below alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis.
it's deeper than that. when you enforce laws that the people routinely break and come to regard as trivial you undermine the legitimacy of your enforcement of other laws. In essence you lose the ability to claim that laws are for the people's own good.
That makes sense, but surely trying to keep to an unenforceable law that clearly is being flouted (eg. pot) everywhere undermines the legal system even more.
I haven't thought much about the effects of big business on a legal drug market. It might be beneficial though.
My views on drug policy border Libertarianism. If you want to significantly damage yourself by using hard drugs, that should be your right. If you hurt other people while high I would be in favor of very tough consequences. I'm not totally sure whether that would increase drug related crimes though, so that attitude might not work.
But I would be extremely disgusted by any person or company who decided to manufacture hard drugs like meth or cocaine. So I'm not quite sure how comfortable I would be with a multi-billion corporation selling hard drugs.
Allowing corporations to sell hard drugs might actually work out well. Right now drugs can be cut with materials such as glass and even cheaper drugs like meth. So legal hard drugs might actually be safer than the illegal version. And any corporation that successfully sells drugs would have to compete with gangs, and other violent organizations. This would mean that criminal organizations would probably lose a lot of market share.
Probably not, because they would be crucified. But you can imagine a well-funded Big Drug company signing up Nelly as a smokesman for the Nelly Blunt (TM) and aggressively marketing it to chuckle adults of legal age who will indulge responsibly.
Remember the inner city crack epidemic? Imagine that, with less gang warfare and penetration in the population approaching that of television. There would be widespread support elsewhere in society for just writing them off totally. ("Poor people are just hopeless druggies who can't get a job because they won't stop smoking -- screw 'em").
No joke, I watched that movie (for the second time) tonight. It's a must-see. Easily the most "beautiful" crime movie I've ever seen. Every shot is just so aesthetically pleasing, yet you never lose touch with the danger and nastiness of the situations in the film.
My advice would be to stop referring to it with the loaded term "war" and start thinking about dealing with it in the fine grained way a problem with this many aspects requires. Using "war" for drugs both dilutes the term when applied to real horrible armed conflict and turns what should be a measured response to a sociological problem into a comic book farce with swat teams armed like soldiers busting in on teenagers at parties.
Most of the problems come from the comical binary approach currently applied that treats pot the same as PCP.
That's why I had such a big problem with the "war on terror". It came across as political spin. And implied that America was the superhero saving the world from the evil terrorists, instead of just reacting to a perceived threat.
This article is very well-written, well-thought-out, and interesting to hackers. (Do any hackers really want to live somewhere where the government tells you what you can and can't eat?)
So while it might appeal to Reddit for the "legalize weed" angle, it appeals to us for the points it brings up, and its explanation thereof.
I agree completely with the article, and like a lot of stuff from that 'newspaper', it is well written. However, I still think it's basically about politics, and would prefer not to see it here. Politics is a poisonous topic.
Few governments would tell you what you can and can't eat, but they sure do limit what you can sell to other people to eat, and most people are ok with that (minus a few libertarians who enjoy thinking up creative systems that more or less achieve the same results, minus the government).
Agreed. The only thing novel here is that it's The Economist saying it. Which means that HN has gotten to the point where people are only upvoting as a way to encourage others to read articles expressing viewpoints they agree with.
On the other hand, The Economist has been against drug prohibition for a long time. (If I recall correctly) So it is questionable how novel this really is.
Nah, I downmodded you because you used the "I'll probably get downmodded for this" line.
Also, this is a fine article -- it's well-written and makes some points that are novel (to me, at least). The fact that it's espousing one of the stances that redditors tend to blindly support is irrelevant.
The thing that irks me most about discussions on the internet like this regarding the illegal drug trade, is that this is just "intellectual" conversation to most. People are dying and families are being destroyed. Blame the system, argue that it's broken, or whatever, but don't even consider taking individual responsibility, which would start with saying no.
I have spent a decent amount of time in and around the drug community and one thing I've noticed is that many drug dealers are actually very bright and talented individuals. Were it a legal product, they would be entrepreneurs. There are many aspects of accounting, logistics, and supply chain management that go into being a continually successful purveyor of recreational drugs. It's a fickle industry - made significantly worse by the fear of legal repercussion.
Unfortunately, things being how they are, some are forced to continue this risky lifestyle because legitimate jobs are getting harder and harder to come by and "weed dealer" doesn't really look that good on paper.
Now I'm not saying dealers are these savants backed into a corner by an oppressive government, but the organization of drug trade is actually deeply interesting, if only because it is illegal.
As long as as an employer, I could test my employees for drug use, and as long as as a patient, I can be assured that my doctor is not a crack addict, and as long as as a driver and a pedestrian, I can be somehow assured that no one is driving or crossing the street while intoxicated, I'm for the legalization.
Not exactly. If your doctor treated you while on crack, you probably have grounds for a malpractice lawsuit. Overall, I'd expect drug use to increase, once drugs are both legal and cheaper.
Is it drug use per se we care about, or the negative consequences of drug use? What if more people used drugs but there were fewer drug-related crimes and accidents?
It is probable that there would be more drug use if drugs were legalized. (This is acknowledged in the article.) However, its not clear at all if related crime and accidents would go up. Looking to the example of alcohol prohibition, crime went sharply down when it was re-legalized. Many people die as a result of alcohol use while driving every year, so it seems possible that accidents from driving on drugs would increase with legalization. (This could be mitigated to some degree by harsh penalties for driving under the influence.) In general, I am puzzled as to why alcohol should be treated differently than other drugs.
So, that is a pretty big statement. Why do you expect this? You think there are people who are not using drugs because it is illegal? Or because they can't afford it?
People who don't use, don't use because they know it's unhealthy. Legalization is not going to change that.
The article doesn't go far enough! Governments should take the confiscated drugs they seize and give the stuff to addicts for free, with counselling to try and kick the habit. Think about it - devalue the product to the point the illegal importers can't make a profit at worst and not able to pay their suppliers at best and the illegal trade will fade away. Also, if addicts can get it for free, then there is less incentive to commit other crimes to fund the habit.
Legalization though probably not the ideal solution, makes sense. There are some decent examples out there today: ala. Amsterdam. Steven Levitt's book Freakonomics, does a great job of illustrating the elemental business like structures behind the crack-cocain outfits in Chicago; sprinkle in a bit of legitimate legal leeway and you have the potential of creating a regulated industry that pays taxes. The economy is in the gutter; every bit helps?
This is an academic view of the problems. The reality is different in each region, even in each block.
After Soviet Union was collapsing, we've got this so-called free market (free from a regulation of the goverment). First, we got unlimited supply of the low-quality alcohol, after some failed attempts of the soviet goverment to combat drunkness.
The result? Almost 1/5 of population were died in 10 years with direct or indirect involvement of alcohol consumption. The cases of the mental degradation and illness were never counted. But the next generations afrer looking at their animal-like fathers and mothers, at least trying to avoid the booze.
The heroine problem is almost the same, but more brutal and fast-going. After you saw several tens of the lethal cases you will try to stop, and even with some success.
I think (as a person who actually did it) that the most effective solution is the natural one - when you saw the results, you, sooner or later, will try to figure out the cause.
And what people or goverment can do is to show the results to the youths, to educate them, because they just trying to imitate an adults - in our case - tired and hopeless creatures, who become happy (actually just relaxed) for very short periods of time with booze and sigarettes.
And be sure, there never was a problem to get any stuff among a low-income and uneducated. And never will.
This would probably work for about 1 month. After everyone finished reeling in horror from the senseless murders of many of their families and loved ones, some subset of the people would quickly realize that all the competition had just been eliminated from the drug market, rendering it extremely profitable and lucrative. Time to stop whatever they were doing to start producing and selling drugs instead.
At which point, we kill them as well. And yes, I really am being serious.
For countries which have implemented this proposal or slightly watered down versions: see Singapore and China and note that even though they are in the middle of a drug heavy region, they have still managed to keep their countries relatively drug free.
I guess I just don't see the end goal of what you're proposing. What is the merit of having a drug-free society if it comes at the cost of damaging or destroying productive, happy human lives? Do you think the world you are describing would be a better world to live in than the one we have today? Or one in which more drugs were legal?
As various other commenters have pointed out, between prescriptions, over-the-counter pills, vitamins, and additives in the foods we buy, we're all drug users. This whole argument seems to rest upon an absolutist view that all currently illegal drugs are absolutely destructive and have no merit.
Countries like Singapore and China have radically different ideological approaches to policy than most Western nations. They are comfortable enforcing absolutist positions that limit individual freedoms. Such a position is against America's founding principles. They may statistically report less drug use, but is their society actually any better off for it?
From what I have seen from night clubs in Shanghai, there is a lot of extasy going around. And my friends in China have no problem getting hold of cannabis...
Now they are taking big risks and I wouldn't take those kind of risk if I were them but it convinced me that however strict the laws are against drug it doesn't stop people from taking them...
There are indeed places where drug dealing or use is punishable with death.
These places still have pervasive drug use -- in fact, greater use than places without such penalties.
How much more severe can you be? Seems like immediate death doesn't deter drug use. Does that idea still make sense to you? Or perhaps in all of those places it just hasn't been done correctly yet?
Prohibition (which took a constitutional amendment, btw) had zero effect on alcohol use -- it actually probably encouraged it and the organized crime that came with it. We're still cleaning that mess up.
Anything you put into your body changes the way your body and brain operate -- including tap water. So everything is a drug. It's just a matter of degree. I remember hearing about kids in the 60s who smoked pot laughing about their parents who were way more hooked on valium. In fact, misuse of legal drugs is much more pervasive than illegal drug use. We live in a society where you pop a pill for everything.
Nope -- shooting folks doesn't make much sense: unless you just don't like people and want to get rid of a few. I'm a libertarian and opposed to constraints on what government tells me I can do with my own body, but I wouldn't want crack being sold out of vending machines either. It's a tough subject, and part of the problem is that people need to acknowledge that it's tough. Only through socialization and education can we have an intelligent discussion about where the limits are -- just like we did with alcohol. Quick fixes aren't going to work.
The counter argument is that this might be true in expectation. If we caught and executed 1 out of every 50 drug users, maybe the rest would stop using. If being on drugs is half as bad as being dead, then on net you've saved 23.5 lives for every 50 users.
This is, of course, a very flimsy argument, which I would not stand by under any circumstances. But I think a better take on the subject would be "penalties against drug possession should be a net win for society", rather than what Carter said.
Last time I checked there was no data from Singapore because their government is not particularly interested in allowing independent studies to be made. There is data about their execution rate (death penalty), though. Amnesty international considers it to be amongst the highest worldwide.
Read your source again. Maybe go beyond the title this time. Here is a nice excerpt: "The lifetime prevalence rates of illicit drug use among residents age 15 years or older in high-prevalence Chinese cities increased from 1.1% in 1993 to 1.6% in 1996, and the 1-year prevalence rate increased from 0.9% to 1.2% during this period [10,11]."
Now go read that again and notice that in high-prevalence regions, use is ~1-2%. Wonder what it is in the low-prevalence regions... If the US had that kind of usage statistics, every anti-drug activist in the US and I would be very happy. Even happier if use went lower.
"Last time I checked there was no data from Singapore because their government is not particularly interested in allowing independent studies to be made. There is data about their execution rate (death penalty), though. Amnesty international considers it to be amongst the highest worldwide."
First point: Singapore gives the death penalty for quite a few crimes. By itself, it is not a useful statistic. Furthermore, AI is far from a "neutral observer" on these issues. Lastly, what exactly is the problem with a high execution rate? The lack of crime?
Second point: from the CIA Factbook on Singapore: "drug abuse limited because of aggressive law enforcement efforts"
newt0311, you can read all the reports you like. Here's what I can tell you about my experiences in Shanghai over 9 years:
Illegal drug use is on the rise and very accessible. Drugs that are _very_ easy to get: marijuana/hashish, cocaine, ecstasy. Drugs you can get if you ask around: opiates/heroine, crystal meth, ketamine.
That list is just what I have seen with my own eyes. And I'm not into the "party scene". I'm a family man that needs to go to work in the mornings. But I have seen all of it and it is very accessible.
China is working hard to fight opiate/heroine use. My info is that they are currently losing the fight as the growth is happening at the bottom of the economic pyramid. China has a clear history of what opiates can do to their country. The other stuff takes a back seat as they fight other problems, like clean water.
As for Singapore. There are lots of things that Singapore does that do not scale well to other societies. Its a city-state, an island!. You may agree with Singapore's tactics and like their results, but that does not mean these tactics can be grafted onto the U.S.
China doesn't really have a reputation for reporting real numbers (remember sars or what percentage is affected by the hiv according to them). When calculating drug use, it's always a guesstimate anyway so don't you think they just give artificially low numbers?
Like jhancock, I've had quite a few people proposing me to get drugs from the xiamen restaurant owner who proposed me to buy marijuana to my ex-girlfriend there that asked me if I want to try some meth when I asked about the people who clearly seemed high in night clubs...
As for singapore, I don't know but malaysia that has the same policies about drugs doesn't really seem to be so successful at not having drugs either.
First Point: My problem with the death penalty - as a libertarian - is that I can't imagine anything more wrong for my government to do to me than to unjustly take my life away. And if you think wrongful execution doesn't happen, you're kidding yourself. It's just a matter-of-fact combination of no system being perfect, and the law of large numbers.
Second Point: That sounds like an opinion about cause and effect, rather than a fact. Which is okay, since the CIA always gets it right, like those WMDs they found right after we conquered Iraq!
Now go read that again and notice that in high-prevalence regions, use is ~1-2%. Wonder what it is in the low-prevalence regions... If the US had that kind of usage statistics, every anti-drug activist in the US and I would be very happy. Even happier if use went lower.
Let me help you with a few quotes:
First:
In Chinese history, drug abuse and prostitution have been considered "social evils." The Chinese government typically takes "crackdown" measures and tries to eradicate these phenomena. China did achieve a success story in the 1950s. Illicit drug abuse and prostitution were eradicated through national anti-drug and anti-prostitution campaigns [3,34]. However, this success has not been repeated in the past two decades.
Second:
Illicit drug abuse and HIV/AIDS have increased rapidly in the past 10 to 20 years in China.
The study was a co-op between the University of Alabama and the Chinese Center for Disease Control. Which of them would you guess provided the absolute figures for citation?
Lastly, what exactly is the problem with a high execution rate? The lack of crime?
Well, the "killing people" part maybe?
from the CIA Factbook on Singapore: "drug abuse limited because of aggressive law enforcement efforts"
Hmm yes. Totally comprehensive.
Well, can't argue that, it's from the factbook after all.
While you're at it, why not shoot all the people who skip the bus fare? Also enforce proper adherence to schedules under the same technique. The buses, trains and planes will finally run on time, can you imagine that?
"While you're at it, why not shoot all the people who skip the bus fare?"
Because people who skip bus fare are usually not involved in large organized crime units. Also, skipping bus fair is not addictive (in the medical sense of the word).
"Also enforce proper adherence to schedules under the same technique. The buses, trains and planes will finally run on time, can you imagine that?"
So... you're suggesting that most people who use drugs are organized in large crime units rather than just hanging out with friends rolling blunts? Because I'm pretty sure the average drug user isn't involved in crime beyond buying an illegal substance.
My college supplier buys it from a guy, who buys it from another goy, who homegrows his stuff. It's a peaceful if illegal business.
Answer me this, before the conversation goes further: what is bad about using drugs, beyond their being illegal, and beyond problems started due to illegality?
I'm buying cheap shoes and clothes all the time and really can't be arsed to background-check where exactly my model of Nike or Adidas was manufactured.
I guess it's highly likely that I have owned (or even still own) at least one product that was manufactured in a sweatshop. I think it's equally likely that the same applies to you.
So welcome to the club, we are both supporters of child labor.
What now, suicide?
The vast majority of people who buy and use drugs are also usually not involved in large organized crime units. This argument doesn't hold water.
Many illegal drugs are not addictive, or significantly less addictive than nicotine or alcohol. While some drugs are highly addictive, the laws are simply not based upon addictive potential. Even some of the most highly propagandized super-scary-drugs (LSD, Mescaline, MDMA) are not physiologically addictive.
50%? Are you sure? If you're counting anybody who's tried, I'd guess the percentile is much higher than that. (Lower if we go by the assumption that marijuana shouldn't be illegal on account of near-harmlessness, but even then I'd imagine it's pretty high.)
If you really want, limit it to people in immediate knowing possession of the drugs. However the initial massacre is necessary to establish a precedent. If the US government had not squandered its credibility in law enforcement matters, this would not be necessary. We could instead offer unconditional amnesty to current users and dealers. Give them some small time period (like a week or a month -- less than half a year) to clean up their act and then put these laws into effect. As it is, it is a recognized fact that the government will not take extreme action without the n to the nth-level of bureaucratic paperwork and thus to establish an effective deterrent, the punishment needs to be exercised.
I'm going to assume that you're a younger guy? Back when I was in high school I might have thought the same way - this was before I actually made friends with some drug users and tried some myself in college.
Drug users are not bad people. Most drug dealers are not bad people. On my floor in college, the kid who sells drugs is a pretty cool kid: good student, active in sports. There's some social problems he runs across because he's "the kid that sells drugs," but he's a pretty cool guy. He's a typical college student who just happens to sell drugs to the kids who want to buy drugs.
That is not deserving of death. When you talk about killing somebody, you're talking about ending a life, unconditionally terminating a person's future. Some things are worth that (I will hold to my dying day that enjoying the Twilight book series is admitting your lack of will to live), perhaps, but drug selling and drug use? No. Not at all.
As I said: I tried marijuana a handful of times, and I thought it was pretty relaxing. Nobody was harmed. (To go to the extreme, if you use a vaporizer, you're not even risking lung damage, which means that your body seriously is not injured in any way, even minute.) It was voluntary on the part of myself and some friends. We were okay with paying for those drugs; the kid who sold them was fine with trading them for money.
Do I deserve to die because I voluntarily used chemicals? Does the dealer deserve to die because he gave a product to somebody who wanted it? Who is the criminal here?
Enforcing drug rules is basically punishing people not for actually doing anything bad, but for doing something that the government is telling you is a no-no. If I told you that it was bad to, say, whistle, and you whistled, and I told you I'd kill you if you didn't stop, maybe you'd stop, but that doesn't solve the real problem, which is "unalone is a dick who's setting arbitrary, pointless rules". The problem isn't your whistling, it's me.
It's fun thinking of things so black-and-white when you're young, but once you reach the ripe old age of 18, you'll start maturing a little bit.
You seem to be saying, in essence, "except for the drug dealing he is a pretty good kid, so therefore he is a pretty good kid." Um, what if you include the drug dealing into the equation, and all of the possible damage to the lives of people he is selling drugs to, or perhaps even to their friends, families, and loved ones?
(You didn't say the kinds of drugs, and maybe you believe that whatever he is selling is not bad, since you argue that marijuana is harmless and maybe he is selling only marijuana. But you did not say that and it is a pretty important caveat.)
While not condoning or agreeing with newt0311's argument, I wonder if whether the difference is a fundamental idsagreement with the place of individual human rights? Because newt0311 cites China and Singapore approvingly, I wonder if he believes that the harmony of society (or some other group-level values) are so important that the wishes and desires of individuals merit little consideration? In other words, drug addiction is so bad in its costs to society in general that the very lives of the individuals taking drugs are insignificant compared to the interests of society as a whole?
I only suggest this because if the disagreement is really at this level, arguing specifics and details will not be very fruitful.
Unless he's forcing people to buy from him, I don't think it makes sense to demonize the delivery guy. Gun dealers have helped introduce unimaginable pain to millions of families, but I'm sure there are some really "good guy" gun dealers.
I think unalone was just suggesting that newt0311 hasn't gotten out of the textbooks and actually studied the drug issue from the human side. That not all of these people he wants to murder are faceless mob gangsters, some are just like him.
It's easy to sit in your apartment and write Asperger's induced rants about how X is bad and that if we simply kill Y% of the population X will cease to exist and 100-Y% of the population will then enjoy Z% more happier lives. As long as the numbers work, what's the downside?
Empathy can't be taught, but ironically there are drugs that can help.
I'm a big fan of individualism. I don't remember the last time anything great was made by anything other than individual will, so perhaps I'm biased. People who think we should be cogs in a big machine can feel free to disagree with me.
You seem to be saying, in essence, "except for the drug dealing he is a pretty good kid, so therefore he is a pretty good kid."
Not quite. It's more that I'm saying drug dealers aren't just drug dealers. The people who sell drugs are rarely more or less scummy than other people. Saying you want to kill them for drug sales is ridiculous, and it's vilifying a lot of people who are more than just drug dealers.
"Um, what if you include the drug dealing into the equation, and all of the possible damage to the lives of people he is selling drugs to, or perhaps even to their friends, families, and loved ones?"
If it's their choice to buy drugs, then if he wants to peddle, he should peddle. (I honestly don't know what else he sells. I don't buy drugs at all, so I've never asked.) You can argue over whether or not drugs are good for people, if they help them relax or if they're burning people out, but in the end it's the choice of the people who want to buy the drugs. And there's some complexity to that argument - I think that the only meaningful things worth doing are the things that actively help people, but that means that I dislike people who write slush stories or directors who are sloppy with camera work or pretty much most people, if I'm going to stand absolutely by that metric. But that's not a reason to incriminate somebody. It's their choice to sell and I think they have that right.
I wish you would just make the libertarian argument that people should be allowed to do whatever damage they want to themselves, as long as they don't damage others, and be done with it. I can understand that argument, because it appeals to the idea that government action intended to stop one bad thing can lead to something much worse.
But you seem to be actively defending the idea that there is nothing immoral in a vocation that will inevitably destroy the lives of many people. You point out that the people being destroyed are complicit in their destruction, but I do not see that as a fully qualifying factor. If someone was contemplating suicide, and someone else happily persuades them to go through with it instead of trying to talk them out of it, that's a morally neutral choice?
You also seem to be equating bad camera work and writing with drug dealing, which I will assume is not what you meant because that would be pretty silly. Now, if you are just re-iterating the point that you do not want to incriminate drug dealers, that position can be defended. But if you honestly believe that there is nothing morally wrong with intentionally and actively enabling people into addiction, I doubt that the gap between our views on morality can be bridged.
I suspect there is some misunderstanding about where you are arguing for not criminalizing activities versus defending their morality. If so, could you clarify?
You state: "But if you honestly believe that there is nothing morally wrong with intentionally and actively enabling people into addiction, I doubt that the gap between our views on morality can be bridged."
Do you believe that liquor stores, grocery stores, corner shops, restaurants, and bars are all immoral? Should their owners refuse service to any customers that they believe to be at risk of alcoholism? Should pharmacies do background checks on customers purchasing Tylenol to determine whether or not they are addicted to painkillers? I think this argument boils down to legality, not morality.
I think the point originally being made was that a significant portion of drug dealers are NOT intentionally enabling people into addiction. Certainly this varies by drug dealer, and there is a big difference between selling marijuana and selling heroin or crack. A lot of these dealers are simply supplying people with a product that they are purchasing for personal use because they think it makes their life better.
I think it's also important to recognize that morality is subjective, and that it's one of America's founding principles not to legislate morality. Your belief that something is immoral, or even the belief of the majority, is not significant justification for legislation.
There's a big difference between drugs and suicide. Suicide is final. Any damage drugs do are usually temporary. I think that people using drugs should talk to people as much as people thinking about killing themselves, because with drugs you can go too far, but that's not the same thing as thinking that the people using drugs are bad people. Similarly, if you're selling drugs, you should only be selling to the people who want drugs. There's nothing immoral about selling to people who want them.
My argument was that making crappy products is a harmful thing. I recently broke up with a girl who was as close to a soul mate as I've ever found because she was insistent that everybody was like Sex and the City characters, and that my personality type was incompatible with her character. People who write and produce crap damage people's minds, and I will always find that repugnant. In my mind, making bad things is just as bad as selling bad product, possibly even worse because you ought to know better. That said, I don't think it's fair to persecute people who make crappy things. The best solution is to make better things and lead by example.
I'm not a libertarian. I think that there ought to be solutions to the drug problem. I just think that such solutions should be enticing people to do something better with their lives rather than punishing them for using.
It seems that I can't respond directly to newt0311's response to you, because the post is "[dead]". But I just wanted to say that had he started with this level of analysis, he might not have gotten so many down mods or at least got his more serious points noticed. Studies on recidivism rates are very relevant to this discussion, and it is disappointing that citations to serious studies about it are now grayed out and buried deep in a comment thread. It would be useful for the debate to have some arguments in favor of keeping drugs illegal that include empirical data, and I think newt0311 could have contributed some of that, had he not led with the "kill all the drug users" opinion.
To respond to you, the idea that the solution to the drug problem is the same as the solution to crappy writing is interesting. Not sure I agree, but interesting nonetheless.
and all of the possible damage to the lives of people he is selling drugs to
Why oh why are we always making victims of the users?
In my humble expirience the big evil dealer forcing the innocent child into a drug addiction is a myth or a very rare exception at least. The demand makes
the market, not the other way round.
I for one am a smoker. It might kill me, I should quit, it's an absolutely stupid, useless habit. Using the above logic I could comfortably blame it on the tobacco industry. They seduced me, they deal it to me.
Unfortunately that's not how life works. I can blame it on them all I want, it's still my life and my health and mydecision.
I do place some culpability on the tobacco industry. That in no way obviates your personal responsibility for your choices. But I do think that promoting a product that you know will result in addiction and ill health for many people is morally negative.
So, I place some responsibility for both you and the tobacco industry for your addiction. In the end, you bear more responsibility (and bear all of the consequences). But that does not make the tobacco industry morally neutral or good, in my opinion.
In the unlikely case that this cool, athletic drug dealer produced the drugs in his dorm room himself, I would agree with your position, but unfortunately the drug trade doesn't start in the dorm.
Do you realize how many truly good people's lives are destroyed in the process of keeping supply of drugs up with demand in America?
What about cool, athletic Juan in Mexico who was executed for refusing to join the Zetas? What about mayor Carillo who was gunned down in an intimidation assassination? What about Jake who died of an overdose in the frat house because he thought drugs were cool?
> Do I deserve to die because I voluntarily used chemicals?
I'm not going to go there, but ask yourself how innocent you really are.
I'm not going to go there, but ask yourself how innocent you really are.
I'm not innocent. I'm a human being. I've offended people and made an ass of myself and done things that I regretted. Does that make me somebody worthy of death? (Frankly, if I were to make a list of "things that would be good excuses for somebody else to kill me," drug use wouldn't be in the top 10, because at least that hurt nobody.)
What about cool, athletic Juan in Mexico who was executed for refusing to join the Zetas? What about mayor Carillo who was gunned down in an intimidation assassination?
That's a good reason to encourage legalization followed by business supervision. Used to be people were killed over alcohol. Now people have turned winemaking into an art, and not many alcohol gang deaths occur.
What about Jake who died of an overdose in the frat house because he thought drugs were cool?
What about my grandmother, who died of lung cancer? Or the people who die of alcohol abuse?
The solution is education. My college has many hard drug users, and zero hard drug deaths.
Unless you produce your own drugs and consume them secretly, that is not true.
The only people hurt were hurt due to illegality. Who is hurt when you drink wine? Used to be wine was illegal, and people got hurt until alcohol was legalized.
The reality is, drugs are not legal. You can't go there.
Drugs being illegal isn't hard reality. The solution is to legalize them rather than to stop persecuting the people who are using them.
My mindset - one that many other people share - is that you should worry less about the law and more about whether or not what you're doing is moral and good. I'll break the law if the law is bad, without feeling very guilty.
I agree with that too, but collateral consequences are not to be overlooked. If you break a bad law which, in turn, causes people to suffer, you should feel guilty.
It depends. If I'm making drugs illegally, and in doing so I shoot some guy to keep him away from my drugs, then I should feel guilty. But if I'm not directly involved in that violence, then my feeling guilty for that illegal process only encourages the people who would use your morality to enforce their own corrupt principles. Not feeling guilt for the things you didn't do forces the corrupt laws to look at themselves and eventually revise.
How do you define direct vs. indirect involvement?
If a weapons dealer sells a terrorist a bomb knowing it will hurt innocent people, the dealer might not directly detonate the bomb themselves, but I think we would still hold the dealer partly responsible for supplying the tool.
Likewise, if a buyer buys an illegal good and it is known that, somewhere down the line, people were killed in the process of getting that good to the buyer, the buyer shares responsibility for supplying the motive, money.
Have you ever gone 1 mph above the speed limit? Jaywalked? Loitered? Looked at pornography before you were old enough? Groped someone before you were of age? Had sex before you were of age? Drank underaged? Smoked underaged? Had a friend give you a few vicodin when you sprained an ankle? Given yourself a few dodgy deductibles when you filed your taxes?
All these things are fairly minor, but they are all CRIMES. Crimes that people perpetrate all the time. And we'd have to put nearly everyone in jail if we strictly followed 'reality'.
You're arguing for the other side now. You just (correctly, IMO) attributed the violence of the drug trade to the fact that it is illegal.
There's no violence in the tobacco or alcohol trades, largely because they are legal and regulated. It is a logical fallacy to blame the consumer for systemic violence.
The other side argues:
a) because illegal drugs should be legal (at this point in time),
b) contributing to demand by buying or selling illegal drugs is acceptable (at this point in time).
I'm arguing, or at least trying to argue:
a) because illegal drugs are not legal (at this point in time),
b) contributing to the demand for illegal drugs by buying or selling is not acceptable due to the violence that it fuels (at this point in time).
I define something acceptable as something morally permissible. If that makes sense.
> It is a logical fallacy to blame the consumer for systemic violence.
I would be sincerely interested in this topic, if you would like to go there. :)
> I would be sincerely interested in this topic, if you would like to go there. :)
Sure, do you blame consumers for buying clothing products that were manufactured using sweatshop labor? No, because the consumer had no intent. You blame the company that operates the sweatshops.
Do you blame civilians in Africa or the Middle East for the atrocities committed against aid workers? No, because the starving civilians have no intent of hurting aid workers. You blame the corrupt governments that perpetrate the atrocities.
Your argument when it comes to drugs rests upon the combination of current legal status and some moral presuppositions. I think the question of moral acceptability is orthogonal here. It is empirically true that people will purchase and use drugs, no matter what your moral sensibilities tell you.
Blaming the consumer is a fruitless effort when it comes to actually promoting better health and safety in society.
This argument could just as well be used to claim that our government is acting immorally by continuing to enforce policies that all evidence suggests promote violence.
In symbolic terms:
government:drug laws == consumer:drugs
We can fix things on either side. Moral arguments are irrelevant -- we should fix whichever side yields the most productive result.
jfornear, you're missing the points we've all made. The drug trade only results in violence because right now, every step to bring drugs to consumers is illegal. That means that it's unmonitored, and results in violence. Since you're breaking the law either way, no matter what you do is illegal, so there's no incentive to be peaceful in your processes.
If the drug trade were to be legalized, suddenly people could profit more by accepting business regulations, and violence would lower.
The point I've made elsewhere here is that it used to be producing alcohol led to violence, thanks to the Prohibition. Once alcohol legalized, businesses started making drinks rather than criminals, and the violence stopped.
No, I agree with your point. I just take it further by holding consumers responsible for fueling that violence when they could have done otherwise, not contributed to demand by obeying the laws.
To make an analogy, it is similar to supporting sweat shop labor by buying Nikes (or whatever companies still use sweat shop labor). The argument in the case of illegal drugs is that handing over money to people engaged in violence makes it more likely the violence will continue.
Don't you think that there is something wrong with, you know, killing people? Why not just castrate all the drug users instead? That would provide just as much of a disincentive without all the gratuitous violence.
I find it hard to believe that you are actually serious and not trolling.
Really? Are you saying that the student who screws up and decides to experiment with drugs deserves to die?
And what about all of the addicts whose drug use correlates with other serious problems? There is a strong correlation between serious mental illness like schizophrenia and drug use. And what about all the veterans? Over a quarter of soldiers in combat teams are at risk for developing PTSD. And around have of people with PTSD abuse drugs. I can't ethically support the death penalty for someone who risked their life in the army and whose only crime is abusing drugs.
Sure, every drug addict made a choice to use drugs. But I can't say that I would have not abused drugs if I was born with some serious mental illness or had gone through some traumatic event.
This would have the effect of encouraging legalization of some drugs. In some sense, the worst situation is where things are illegal but widely tolerated and practiced. This gives authorities a lot of scope for locking up people they don't like.
Currently, middle-class taxpayers who smoke pot don't worry much about getting busted, because it's fairly rare to end up in jail. But if they saw serious consequences, they'd lobby for legalization of all but a few hard drugs.
Nope. The reasoning is that continued use of this policy will convince possible dealers that the action is not worth the effort. Econ 101. If you want to reduce some activity, increase the costs of engaging in it. That is exactly what this does.
Such strong feelings about something that doesn't matter that much!
Your body makes chemicals -- these regulate your mood, control your feelings, and so on. Plants also make similar chemicals. You can consume these plants to make up for chemicals that your body doesn't make. That's what drug use is.
I don't see why there's any reason to murder someone else over this. Drugs don't really cause any of society's ills, you can commit crimes and be generally worthless without any help from "illicit" substances.
Also, why do we have such arbitrary lines drawn for what is OK and what should get you killed? Why is it OK to take Tylenol, alcohol, and caffeine, but not marijuana? (Incidentally, marijuana has never caused me ill effects, but non-prescription pain killers have. All drugs have risks, even "legal" ones!)
Anyway, if you have actual answers to these questions, I would really like to hear them.
Drugs aren't in the same category as murder (or any violence). Most obviously, they are personal. Drugs don't bust into your house at night and kill you. We don't [typically] see suicide as a crime because of that even though the result is the same.
Drugs are not completely personal. Depending on drug and supply chain, we are also talking about drug gang activity, drug-fueled economies in the developing world, social problems related to drug abuse, and so on. If you grow a harmless drug on your own or get it from a harmless source, you're probably okay, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that drugs are completely down to the individual.
Prohibition causes most of the troubles though (especially cartel violence). And I think the social aspects of any increased addiction rates would be more than offset by not imprisoning hundreds of thousands annually on drug charges.
It's vastly cheaper to subsidize rehab for the relatively small number of actual addicts than it is to pay to arrest and process a million people a year. Not to mention the effect on GDP of the lost production from all the incarcerated people.
So in other words, you're persecuting people not based on whether they've done good or not, but based on whether they're obeying drug laws that were often as not passed for political gain?
Isn't that a despicable reason to demand somebody's death?
Known medical effects has no bearing on the legality of drugs. Cocaine and heroin have known medical uses and are even currently used for medicine. Same with Cannabis. Another check in the medical use department for MDMA (ecstasy). Even meth has legitimate medical uses. Curiously, many illegal drugs are just (if not more) effective than their patented prescription drug counterparts. You want to kill people who buy heroin, but governments spend billions buying synthetic heroin for their citizens. It's madness.
If the government mobilizes to kill millions of its citizens, how are you confident that the line will be drawn at the point you think is acceptable? (Why we should let you set the line is another debate, but luckily you aren't in a position of power.) Perhaps there's someone else like you, but who takes it a step farther and believes something you do and don't think is immoral should be a capital offense. Your wanting to kill pot smokers is no more crazy than me wanting to kill coffee drinkers.
A recent study showed the benefits of red wine were linked to breaking down some of the worse components in red meat. It just happens consumption of both are so correlated that it looked like red wine in moderation was really healthy. The healthiest choice would be to drink tea and avoid red meat.
The American Heart Association, however, recommends against starting to drink to be healthier. http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4422 While light alcohol consumption does have small benefits, you could make a much, much bigger difference in your overall health by exercising and following a healthy diet. One drink a day probably does have marginal benefits, but from a public health perspective I can see why organizations don't actually recommend it -- people in the aggregate would think it is more meaningful as a recommendation than it actually is and use it as an excuse to drink to excess.
One thing to keep your eye on is Sirtris Pharmaceuticals's (now a subsidiary of GSK) amped-up resveratrol (the good stuff in red wine) derivative. The idea is to get the benefit of drinking 1000 glasses of red wine a day without actually killing yourself. It will be approved for treating diabetes but will be of interest to absolutely everyone that can afford it. http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN0743693420080...
I've always been under the impression that you can get the health benefits from wine without drinking alcohol. Resveratrol is found naturally in foods like grapes and peanuts. So you won't be missing out on any health benefits if you don't drink.
Most of the studies about this kind of thing get messed up because they are studying it with smoked marijuana. Let's assume that such a study uses vaporized or oral cannabis. I would be surprised to see reduced heart disease as a result of cannabis consumption but I would expect to see reduced cancer of some forms and lower rates of Alzheimer's.
Seems to indicate that THC stops inflammation of blood vessels by suppressing the immune system's response. Also seems that oral delivery was used vs. smoking.
Just red wine and only in some circumstances, pg. There's no medical benefit to vodka, whisky, rum, absinthe, peppermint liquer, beer, jagermeister, goldschlager, etc etc etc.
The worst thing about drugs is drug-related violence. Cocaine and heroin are quite bad for the body, but most of the harm they do comes from their illegal status and the crime surrounding them.
Even addiction's not as terrible as it's made out to be. There are a number of drug addicts who've had productive lives. Drug addiction can be horrible, but most users don't become addicts, and not all addicts become useless, parasitic human beings. There's a wide spectrum.
Your "solution" is absurd: you're proposing that, in response to a small amount of violence, the government should respond with an absurd and unnecessary large amount of violence? I'm going to call "troll".
[Edit 1]: Naturally, this policy would be continued in the future. If anybody is ever found to be knowingly in possession of illegal drugs, they are shot.
The DEA will probably never go away, because it keeps people employed for one thing, and helps large pharmaceutical companies keep small pharm companies (makers of class II, III drugs with expired patents) from building a legitimate enough business that would help these smaller companies spend money on new drug research. Keeping drugs illegal is good business; it has less to do with discouraging illicit drug use.