Joined: 28 Dec 2005
|Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 7:14 am Post subject: Drugs Prior Info
Economists find a range of evidence rather than hard evidence. That helps explain why there are honest disagreements between economists.
The War on Drugs was a response to drug use reaching epidemic proportions in the '60s and '70s.
It not only stopped the steep rise in drug use, it reversed it and contained it.
If I was in a foreign government intent on destroying the U.S., legalizing drugs would be part of the strategy.
Ken, why should I care if someone high on drugs shoves you in a trash compactor without him even knowing it?
If you’re sick, why bother to see a doctor and pharmacist? (After all, people like you make Obama look humble).
Anyway, one person’s belief, that’s not supported by the medical profession, is not very scientific (of course, Ken, that’s something else you know nothing about).
Although, I’ve proven, many times, Morganovich doesn’t even have a rudimentary understanding of economics (in every field), math (in every category, except maybe addition), drugs (and the “War on Drugs’), etc., I learned I don’t have to prove Morganovich wrong, because he’s so good at doing it himself.
Morganovich, I’ve never claimed it was just the Fed. When you’re not making false assumptions based on your ignorance, and poor comprehension, you play politics, along with name calling, since that’s all you have to support your ridiculous statements.
Discovering marijuana is less addictive than most other drugs is not a reason to apologize.
He should apologize for being ignorant of the non-medical reasons not to use marijuana (maybe, someday he will).
I heard LSD is less addictive than marijuana. Is that enough of a reason not to pass a law?
Anyway, the California Society of Addiction Medicine has another view:
Charles says: “it would be difficult for anyone to argue that punishing people for using marijuana has had any effect other than to ruin lives and create huge law enforcement costs needlessly.”
I’ve shown a mountain of evidence that contradicts your statement. Yet, people like you have beliefs stronger than a Muslim suicide bomber.
I could show the evidence again. However, from experience, it wouldn’t do any good for some people.
And, it’s amazing you try to turn the California Society of Addiction Medicine’s (CSAM) statement into a comparison between marijuana and coffee.
Moreover, I may add, you originally made the comparison between marijuana and drug laws and now it’s irrelevant?
Furthermore, your generalized personal observations contradict some of mine.
Charles, you need to dig to find the unbiased drug information, like I did, which I posted on this blog, to learn why you’re so ignorant.
Also, you need to figure out why you’re so susceptible to the active pro-drug legalization propaganda.
I’m sure you’re more intelligent than Ron and Morganovich, although that’s not saying much.
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement (NOBLE)
September 2, 2010
“…the movement in California as outlined in Proposition 19 to legalize marijuana is not in line with NOBLE’s mission, history or stance on drugs in our communities.
As an organization, NOBLE does not support the legalization of marijuana. The true social and community impact that this type of legislation will have is speculative, however, history has shown that the impact of similar actions can be devastating.”
“NOBLE has and continues to be concerned about disparities in sentencing and treatment in the criminal justice system, however, this legislation will not eradicate that issue.”
NOBLE joins a growing list of law enforcement organizations legal professionals who recognize the flaws in the measure and the harmful effects it will have on California and are opposed to Proposition 19, including: the California Police Chiefs’ Association, the California Narcotic Officers’ Association, the California District Attorneys Association, the California District Attorney Investigators’ Association, the California Peace Officers Association, the California State Sheriffs’ Association, the Los Angeles County Police Chiefs Association, and the Peace Officers Association of Los Angeles County, as well as 40 County sheriffs, 32 police chiefs and 31 district attorneys.
Other groups opposed to the initiative include: Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the California Chamber of Commerce, the Association of California School Administrators, the League of California Cities, the California State Firefighters’ Association, Californians for a Drug-Free Youth, Crime Victims United, gubernatorial candidates Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman, Attorney General candidates Steve Cooley and Kamala Harris, and many more.”
The “War on Drugs” saved the U.S. trillions of dollars in social costs. I stated before:
Spending $20 billion a year to prevent and reduce $300 billion a year in social costs, which include lost productivity, traffic & work injuries & fatalities, health problems & drug treatment, mental illness, unemployment, crime, domestic violence, child abuse, and other social services, means we’re not spending enough on the “War on Drugs,” e.g. rehabilitation.
The Economics of Drug Legalization – 1995
“Already, drug addicts cost the country roughly $33 billion dollars a year in lost productivity and job-related accidents, according to a study conducted in 1987 by the Research Triangle Institute of Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
If legalized, addiction rates would increase and the cost would rise to between $140 billion and $210 billion a year.
And who will pay for lost productivity and job-related accidents? Consumers will, of course, in the final costs of the produced goods.”
The Economics of Drug Legalization – 1995
“Proponents of legalization suggest that their policy will save society money…First, we will not have to pay police to enforce the present criminal-justice approach to drug usage. Second, we will be able to tax legal drugs, thereby raising revenue.
The FY 1994 federal budget allocates $7.51 billion for drug control (supply reduction) which includes criminal justice, interdiction, international programs and intelligence. State and local governments spend even more, $12.6 billion a year.
The total revenue collected from alcohol taxes at the federal, state, and local levels amounts to about $13.1 billion a year, a paltry sum compared to the social costs associated with alcohol consumption.
We spend approximately $20 billion a year on drug control activities. If drugs were legalized, we would see an increase in addiction rates.
Consequently we would have more crack babies (the kind that already will cost the system $90 billion), decreased productivity (at a cost of between $140 billion and $210 billion), more job-related accidents, and more dead people.
And given the potential black market effect, it is unlikely that we could raise even several billion dollars in tax revenue.
From a purely economic standpoint, legalization is not cost effective.”
“Most people whose only crime is marijuana possession do not go to prison. A survey by the Bureau of Justice Statistics showed that 0.7% of all state inmates were behind bars for marijuana possession only (with many of them pleading down from more serious crimes).”
Is Illinois winning the War on Drugs?
July 24, 2011
“Jack Riley, special agent in charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration in Chicago…noted that Chicago’s decreasing crime is an important indicator that the so-called War on Drugs is working.
About 70 percent of all crime can be traced to drugs, he said, and crime in the city is at its lowest in years.
“They (police, DEA, etc.) believe in what we’re doing because they see the devastation drugs are causing.””
When you legalize something, you get more of it. I stated before:
The millions of irresponsible drug users you want to create will spoil it for the millions of responsible drug users you want to create.
Actually, Prohibition Was a Success
New York Times
October 16, 1989
“What everyone ”knows” about Prohibition is that it was a failure. It did not eliminate drinking; it did create a black market. That in turn spawned criminal syndicates and random violence. Corruption and widespread disrespect for law were incubated and, most tellingly, Prohibition was repealed only 14 years after it was enshrined in the Constitution.
But the conventional view of Prohibition is not supported by the facts.
First, the regime created in 1919 by the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act, which charged the Treasury Department with enforcement of the new restrictions, was far from all-embracing. The amendment prohibited the commercial manufacture and distribution of alcoholic beverages; it did not prohibit use, nor production for one’s own consumption. Moreover, the provisions did not take effect until a year after passage -plenty of time for people to stockpile supplies.
Second, alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928.
Arrests for public drunkennness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent.
Third, violent crime did not increase dramatically during Prohibition. Homicide rates rose dramatically from 1900 to 1910 but remained roughly constant during Prohibition’s 14 year rule. Organized crime may have become more visible and lurid during Prohibition, but it existed before and after.
Fourth, following the repeal of Prohibition, alcohol consumption increased. Today, alcohol is estimated to be the cause of more than 23,000 motor vehicle deaths and is implicated in more than half of the nation’s 20,000 homicides. In contrast, drugs have not yet been persuasively linked to highway fatalities and are believed to account for 10 percent to 20 percent of homicides.”
“The Journal of the American Medical Association reported, based on a study of 300 sets of twins, that marijuana-using twins were four times more likely than their siblings to use cocaine and crack cocaine, and five times more likely to use hallucinogens such as LSD.”
Opium in 19th century China:
“As more and more addicts were created, Emperor Dao guang (1821-1850) of the Qing Dynasty became alarmed. He ordered that Guangdong (Canton), the only port then open to foreigners, be closed to all opium traffic.
But British captains evaded the edict by smuggling opium into China with the help of local pirates.
Opium presently became so widespread that by 1838, officials in Guangdong and Fujian were notifying the Imperial government that nine people out of ten in these provinces were addicts.
The Emperor responded by naming as High Commissioner to Canton, a most extraordinary man, Lin Zexu. Lin was given strict orders to rid the country of opium.
In a letter to Queen Victoria which was never sent, Commissioner Lin chided:
“… so long as you do not take it (opium) yourselves, but continue to make it and tempt the people of China to buy it, you will be showing yourselves careful of your own lives, but careless of the lives of other people, indifferent in your greed for gain to the harm you do to others: such conduct is repugnant to human feelings …”
After confiscating and destroying the opium stocks and pipes being sold by Chinese merchants, Lin put pressure on all merchant ships in the harbour carrying the drug to deliver their opium stores to him. Although these stores were publicly disposed of, it did not restrain the British as he had hoped.
One tension led to another, finally erupting in the war of 1839 to 1842, called the Opium War by the Chinese. It was an epithet bitterly resented by the British, who piously maintained that the war’s purpose was to teach the Chinese a lesson in free trade.
Just what kind of trade was meant was obvious from the swarm of opium boats which followed the Royal Navy upstream to Nanjing, where the Qing Dynasty was forced to sign a treaty opening China to trade.
Peace had barely been concluded when the opium boats began to hawk their wares: ‘Opium is on sale very cheap at Sui Shan – an opportunity not to be missed.’ “
Drug Legalization: Why It Wouldn’t Work in the United States
By Edmund Hartnett, Deputy Chief and Executive Officer, Narcotics Division, New York City Police Department, New York
“Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch described drug legalization as “the equivalent of extinguishing a fire with napalm.”
Joseph Califano, the author and a member of President Johnson’s cabinet, stated: “Drugs like marijuana and cocaine are not dangerous because they are illegal; they are illegal because they are dangerous.”
William J. Bennett, former director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy…”legalized alcohol, which is responsible for some 100,000 deaths a year, is hardly the model for drug policy.””
Examining the Impact of Marijuana Legalization on Marijuana Consumption
Insights from the Economics Literature
“From this review it is clear that total consumption will rise in response to legalization due to increases in the number of new users, increases in the number of regular and heavy users, and probable increases in the duration in which marijuana is consumed for average users.”
THE EDUCATOR – Spring 1998
Drug Enforcement Works
“Strong drug enforcement in the United States is correlated with dramatic reductions in crime, drug use, and drug addiction rates.
Drug arrest rates are not an accurate measure of how tough the nation is on drugs.
There are three times as many alcohol related arrests than drug arrests. Is alcohol policy three times tougher than drug policy? If we legalize drugs, we may triple the number of drug arrests.
Permissive drug policy was an abject failure in the U.S.
A drug criminal was four times more likely to serve prison time in 1960 than in 1980 and the incarceration rate plummeted 79 percent.
This drug-tolerant era brought a doubling of the murder rate, a 230% increase in burglaries, a ten-fold increase in teen drug use, and a 900% rise in addiction rates.
From 1980-1997…incarceration rate rose over four-fold and crime and drug use began a steady, unprecedented decline.
Murder rates fell by over 25 percent, burglary rates dropped 41 percent, teen drug use reduced by more than a third, and heavy cocaine and heroin use levels fell.
With peak drug incarceration rates, many cities such as New York, reached record low crime levels.”
Myth: Marijuana Is Medicine
May 02, 2012
“The scientific and medical communities have determined that smoked marijuana is a health danger, not a cure. There is no medical evidence that smoking marijuana helps patients. In fact, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved no medications that are smoked.
Marijuana remains in schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances Act because it has a high potential for abuse, a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision, and no currently accepted medical value.
The American Medical Association has rejected pleas to endorse marijuana as medicine.
The National Multiple Sclerosis Society stated that studies done to date “have not provided convincing evidence that marijuana benefits people with MS.”
The British Medical Association has taken a similar position, voicing “extreme concern” that downgrading the criminal status of marijuana would “mislead” the public into thinking that the drug is safe to use.
The IOM (Institute of Medicine) further found that there was no scientific evidence that smoked marijuana had medical value, even for the chronically ill.”
American College of Pediatricians, June 2010
Marijuana Use: Legalization Not a Good Idea
“The negative physical and mental effects of marijuana use are well documented. It’s associated with lower educational accomplishment, lower work productivity, increased risks of motor vehicle accidents, and heart and lung disease. All forms of cannabis are mind-altering drugs due to delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main active chemical in marijuana. THC affects nerve cells in the region of the brain where memories are formed. This makes it difficult for the user to recall recent events. Chronic exposure to THC may hasten the age related loss of nerve cells. Marijuana impairs a person’s judgment, coordination, balance, ability to pay attention and reaction time. Cannabis use in adolescence is a predictor of depression in later life. Cannabis induces psychotic symptoms and cognitive impairment in some individuals. Numerous mechanisms have been postulated for the link between cannabis use and attention deficits, psychotic symptoms, and neural desynchronization. Studies indicate that it impairs driving performance in the same way alcohol does, with users displaying the same lack of coordination on standard sobriety tests. Marijuana is second only to alcohol as a factor contributing to traffic accidents involving loss of life. Students who regularly use marijuana have lower grade and test scores and are less likely to achieve personal goals. Marijuana smokers often jeopardize their future by engaging in risky practices or committing criminal acts.”
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS
Marijuana: A Continuing Concern for Pediatricians
“The abuse of marijuana by adolescents is a major health problem with social, academic, developmental, and legal ramifications. Marijuana is an addictive, mind-altering drug capable of inducing dependency.
There is little doubt that marijuana intoxication contributes substantially to accidental deaths and injuries among adolescents, especially those associated with motor vehicle crashes, and is frequently involved in incidents related to driving while intoxicated.
Adolescents who use marijuana are 104 times as likely to use cocaine compared with peers who never smoked marijuana.”
Marijuana Use Can Threaten Teen’s Academic Success
Mar 15 2007
“Some factions of society still try to perpetrate the myth that marijuana is nothing nore than a harmless and misunderstood drug no more dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes.
The bottom line is that marijuana and other illegal drugs have real and proven negative effects on teen academic performance.
Marijuana and underage drinking are linked to higher dropout rates. Students who drink or use drugs frequently are up to five times more likely than their peers to drop out of high school. A teenage marijuana user’s odds of dropping out are more than twice that of a non-user.
“In fact, studies show that heavy marijuana use impairs a teen’s ability to concentrate and retain information. And this is especially problematic during these peak learning and testing years” said Larry S. Fields, M.D., F.A.A.F.P. and President of the American Academy of Family Physicians.”"
Illegal Drug Use on the Rise in U.S.
Sept. 8, 2011
“The use of illicit drugs and the nonmedical use of prescription medications is increasing, and this is largely driven by an increased rate of marijuana use, a survey shows.
There were also some glimmers of hope seen in the new survey.
Rates of nonmedical use of prescription drugs, hallucinogens, and inhalants are around the same as in 2009.
The number of current methamphetamine users decreased by roughly half from 2006 to 2010.
Cocaine use also declined, from 2.4 million current users in 2006 to 1.5 million in 2010.
Fewer 12 to 17-year-olds drank alcohol and used tobacco.
“We really need to figure out this marijuana problem and understand how to help people not use and/or delay starting to use marijuana.”
Stratyner is concerned that medical marijuana or the legal use of marijuana to treat certain medical or pain-related conditions may further fuel increases in the use of marijuana — especially among young people.
“The message we are sending to youth is that medicalized marijuana is safe.” (says Harris Stratyner, PhD, the clinical regional vice president of Caron Treatment Centers).”
Charles, you’re making excuses and relyng on junk science, at best, to continue supporting your false assumptions. Your denial is so typical of the pro-drug legalization crowd.
Also, I may add, I started from an unbiased position. If legalizing drugs would benefit society, I’d be all for it.
From the Huffington Post:
“According to statistics compiled by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) between 2001-07, after decriminalisation (in Portugal), more people took cannabis, cocaine, amphetamines, ecstasy, and LSD – but decreased in neighbouring Spain between 2003-2008.”
Also – NPR: Mixed Results For Portugal’s Great Drug Experiment
January 20, 2011
“When Portugal decriminalized all illegal drugs in 2000, officials hoped to reduce addiction rates and drug-related violence. Today, more users are in rehab, but drug use is on the rise, and reporter Keith O’Brien says the policy has made the problem worse….”
The Japanese model actually reduced drug use:
“The Japanese in 1954…inaugurated a system of forced hospitalization for chronic drug users. Under this policy, drug users were rounded up in droves, forced to go through cold-turkey withdrawal and placed in work camps for periods ranging from a few months to several years.
This approach to drug users, still in force today, is seen by the Japanese as a humane policy focused primarily on rehabilitation. By American standards, however, these rehabilitation programs would be seen as very tough.
The Japanese from the very beginning have opted for a cold-turkey drug withdrawal. Thus, every heroin addict identified in Japan is required to enter a hospital or treatment facility, where they go immediately through withdrawal.
Conviction through the criminal justice system is not necessary for commitment. Any addict identified, either through examination by physicians or through urine testing, is committed through an administrative process.
As a result courts are not burdened with heavy caseloads of drug users, drug users are not saddled with criminal records and punishment for drug users is swift and sure.
These policies dramatically and rapidly cut drug use. Within four years of the 1954 amendments, the number of people arrested for violating the Stimulant Control Law dropped from 55,654 to only 271 in 1958.
Japan began experiencing serious problems with heroin. By 1961 it is estimated that there were over 40,000 heroin addicts in Japan…tougher penalties against importation and selling, and by imposing a mandatory rehabilitation regime for addicts.
The results of Japan’s tough heroin program mirrored those of its successful fight against stimulants. The number of arrests for heroin sale and possession fell from a high in 1962 of 2,139 to only 33 in 1966 and have never risen above 100 since.”
“Concord, NH Wants to Spend $250,000 on a tank (armored police vehicle) to Use Against Occupiers and Libertarians. Yikes, that’s scary.”
What’s even scarier is hiring a dozen cops at $70,000 a piece instead, with Cadillac health care plans and big pensions.
Legalizing Marijuana Not Worth the Costs
20 Apr 2010
“State governments are exploring convenient fixes for overcoming massive debts burdening their states… some legislators are proposing the legalization of marijuana to boost tax revenue.
…findings from a white paper by the California Police Chiefs Association’s Task Force on Marijuana Dispensaries: California legalized “medical” marijuana in 1996, and dispensaries where the drug is handed out – to pretty much whoever comes in with a doctor’s note – have become catalysts for serious crime.
According to the white paper, dispensary operators have been attacked, robbed and murdered. Also, “drug dealing, sales to minors, loitering, heavy vehicle and foot traffic in retail areas, increased noise and robberies of customers just outside dispensaries” are all criminal byproducts resulting from California’s medical marijuana distribution. We can expect similar problems—but on a far grander scale—from full legalization.”