If you’ve read the news the past two weeks, you may have noticed eye-grabbing headlines with bold proclamations that marijuana use leads to increased risk of heart disease and that teens who use marijuana suffer from greater rates of depression. If you took the time to read these so-called "studies," however, you know that they are fear-mongering government propaganda pieces meant to stand in for science. Unfortunately, with a few exceptions — like David Harsanyi’s column in the Denver Post — much of the media has simply parroted the government’s press releases.
Let’s start with "Teen Marijuana Use Worsens Depression: An Analysis of Recent Data Shows ‘Self-Medicating’ Could Actually Make Things Worse," a seven-page "report" mostly filled with bar graphs and empty space, prepared by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). It’s never a good sign when you’ve got to use "Could Actually" in the title of a report.
As usual, the government’s deceptive claims are based on the deliberate confusion of correlation with causation. As criminology professor Matthew Robinson, Ph.D, explains in his analysis of ONDCP’s latest report, credible social science must demonstrate both temporal order and a lack of spuriousness to make a claim of causality. In other words, scientists have to consider the order in which things take place as well as other variables that could be responsible for an outcome prior to concluding that one phenomenon causes another. ONDCP’s report ignores temporal order by failing to account for whether marijuana use occurs as a result of depression, or vice versa. Worse, the report doesn’t take into account other variables that might account for both outcomes — such as family environment, peer groups, use of other drugs, etc. As Victor Reus, a psychiatrist at the University of California, explained, "Both conditions could be related to something else. Depressed teens are more likely to exercise less, stay indoors and watch TV. Take your pick as to which one is causal."
Media accounts of ONDCP’s teen marijuana-depression report omit mention of larger, more credible studies that present evidence to the contrary. For example, in April 2008, a British government advisory panel concluded that there is no conclusive evidence of "a causal relationship between the use of cannabis and the development of any affective disorder." Meanwhile, in November 2007, the American Medical Association’s peer-reviewed journal, Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, published a comprehensive study of 5,263 students finding that teens who have used marijuana demonstrate the same rates of psychosocial problems as those who have never used marijuana.
Next, let’s take a brief look at the study that prompted the bold Reuters headline, "Marijuana May Up Heart Attack, Stroke Risk." First of all, the study only examines a scientifically insignificant sample of 18 marijuana users, who smoke "78 to 350 marijuana cigarettes per week" — 11 to 50 joints per day. While we don’t know precisely what fraction of the roughly 20 million Americans who have used marijuana in the past month smoke at least 11 joints a day, needless to say it is a miniscule fraction.
Even more ludicrous, the study doesn’t even evaluate whether any of these extreme marijuana smokers actually have an increased risk of mortality. The study simply found that heavy marijuana users showed increased blood levels of a particular protein called apolipoprotein C-III that is involved in the body’s metabolism of triglycerides, but didn’t examine whether these users were more likely to develop heart disease.
Again, this study flies in the face of larger, more credible studies. A 2001 study published in the Journal of Public Health Nutrition that examined approximately 11,000 marijuana users and non-users found that marijuana smokers’ nutritional health was equal to that of non-smokers. Another 2001 study published in the journal Circulation examining the association between heart attacks and marijuana use in 3,882 heart attack sufferers found negligible risks — about the equivalent of the risk of vigorous exercise for someone of average fitness. A 1999 British Heart Foundation study even found that marijuana-like compounds play a key role in reducing high blood pressure, suggesting that marijuana could be a useful treatment for hypertension. And then of course there’s Dr. Donald Tashkin’s authoritative 2006 study finding that even heavy marijuana users are not at increased risk for lung cancer, contrary to government claims.
Still, don’t expect the government’s half-baked attempts to demonize marijuana to end soon — they’re the product of the confluence of several institutionalized interests. First, there is the need to justify arresting 830,000 people on marijuana charges each year (89 percent for mere possession). Second, the federal government’s National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) offers hundreds of millions of dollars in easy money to researchers willing to make claims about marijuana’s harms — surely to increase with NIDA’s recent establishment of the nation’s first "Center on Marijuana Addiction." (Click here for NIDA’s own research comparing the addictive properties of popular drugs, finding that even caffeine use causes stronger symptoms of dependence, withdrawal, and tolerance than marijuana.) The third factor in the proliferation of quack marijuana science is the general willingness of the mainstream media to buy government scare tactics hook, line and sinker. This dates back to the prohibition of marijuana in the 1930s, when journalists dutifully parroted Harry Anslinger’s claims that one marijuana cigarette will transform children into murderous psychopaths and similarly senseless propaganda.
The silver lining is that people from all walks of life are beginning to question the government’s truthfulness when it comes to its drug policies. The emergence of the Internet as both a source for news and watchdog to the mainstream media has been critical to this process. The House of Representatives’ Domestic Policy Subcommittee also recently convened a hearing to examine the effectiveness and accountability of the ONDCP. The chairman of that committee issued a statement squarely condemning the Office for its failure to report any concrete successes, its unwillingness to comply with Congress’ standards of accountability, and its lack of "consistent or useful performance measures."
Let’s hope that growing numbers of policymakers, media commentators and everyday people are willing to put science over politics and support rational alternatives to the disastrous "war on drugs."
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Very well said. We must continue to fight this propaganda machine.
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:23 pm
It’s so scary to think that we, as citizens, can trust no one.
When it comes to our health, stretching the truth to fit tradition should never be a factor.
May 24th, 2008 at 1:41 am
Here is fact: Marijuana has the third highest rate of dependence in the US (after heroin and crack). We recently wrote on this issue at Brain Blogger. I would like to hear your comments on our article. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Shaheen
May 24th, 2008 at 6:24 am
A lot of people are making a lot of money off the drug war. It’s a whole industry. ONDCP produces “educational” programming available for downlink to healthcare professionals and universities, among others. That’s not cheap, and we’re paying for it.
They (DEA, ONDCP, etc.) want marijuana to remain illegal so they don’t have to look for honest work.
The ignorance of the “powers that be” is astonishing. Those who are in a position to bring some sanity to our drug laws know nothing about marijuana, so they fall for that manure being spread for profit.
The health effects of marijuana are well documented. Glaucoma, arthritis pain and fibromyalgia, just to name a few. It’s OK with the government for doctors to prescribe dangerous, addictive drugs (Oxycontin, e.g.), but balk at the simple, effective herbal solution for many medical problems.
The government cares nothing for our health. They are interested in the “bottom line,” their bottom line.
May 24th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Even if any of the government’s fear-mongering were true that does not justify the current prohibition based economy that puts more drugs into the hands of children.
As long as the congress prohibits America from regulating, licensing and taxing the violent criminal anarchy out of the distribution there will be drug dealers and gangsters on the street corners of America happy to sell drugs to children. Instead of the drug addict dealers and gangster distributors of the current prohibition we could have responsible, licensed and regulated members of the community, who share American values about protecting children from exposure to drug abuse, in control of the $ 141-billion annual U.S. consumer demand for intoxicant drugs.
May 24th, 2008 at 8:23 am
End Marijuana Prohibition in 2008
http://aleftindependent.blogspot.com/2008/05/
end-marijuana-prohibition-in-2008.html
It can happen.
May 24th, 2008 at 8:50 am
After many years of wobbling back and forth over the “war on drugs”, I have come to the conclusion that all drugs should be decriminalized and that drug addiction should be listed as a medical problem instead of a criminal problem. As far as I know, the only thing the “war on drugs” has done is make felons, fill our jails, make certain people rich and make drugs cheaper.
May 24th, 2008 at 8:57 am
the main problem is that most people have no idea how miiscule the drug “problem” actually is. nor do they understand how much worse the impacts of drug abuse have been made by declaring “war” on the drugs and the users thereof.
only the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth will lead us to the end of this nightmare.
look at it yourself: http://www.briancbennett.com
site map page: http://www.briancbennett.com/pagelist.htm
tell everyone
May 24th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Recreational Drugs must be legal! No one can argue that drug abuse is a scourge in our society. However, as bad as the effect of drug abuse on our society is, the effect of prohibition is considerably worse. If drugs were legal, under controlled conditions as is the legal drug alcohol, hundreds (perhaps even thousands) of lives would be saved each year. Criminal and terrorist organizations would be denied a major source of income. Crime would be reduced. Doctors can use any efficacious treatment that will benefit the patient most. Billions of tax dollars could be diverted to useful and successful things. The economy would grow and provide benefit for more people. The social benefits would be manifold.
Many of the deaths that are now pigeonholed as ‘drug overdose’ are, in fact, caused by drugs that are purer than the users’ accustomed dose. This will cause an overdose by merely taking the dose to which they are accustomed. Other deaths are caused by the drugs being ‘cut’ (diluted) with impure or dangerous substances. At present drugs are cut with anything from relatively harmless things such as baking soda, powdered sugar, lactose and corn starch to poisons like strychnine and arsenic.
Legal drugs would fall under the supervision and standards of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) thereby insuring cleaner, purer drugs at consistent dosages. In addition, intravenous and intramuscular drugs could be packaged in single use syringes that are designed to be destroyed by the act of using them once. Thus preventing the reuse and sharing of needles. This will reduce the spread of AIDS, hepatitis and many other types of infection. Hence, more lives saved, as well as reducing the burden on public resources since many drug abusers cannot afford to pay for medical treatment.
Legal drugs will take the drug trade out of the hands of criminals and terrorists. It will eliminate the wars for territory and many of the drive-by shootings that have become commonplace in our inner cities. We will not only save the lives of the dealers who are the targets of these shootings but the innocent bystanders, too often children, who get caught in the crossfire.
It will prevent future attacks of the nature of the attack on our Marines in Lebanon, the American Embassy in Kenya and the World Trade Center by terrorists who are, in part, financed by the drug trade.
Speaking of saving children… Legalizing drugs with the appropriate regulation and control would severely limit the access of drugs to children. Just as minors cannot legally buy alcohol, they would not be able to walk into a state regulated drug store and buy drugs. Under the present conditions drug dealers don’t care if the customer is 5 years old or 50. ‘If you got the green you got the dope.’ Consequently, more lives saved.
Let us now discuss crime. Legalizing and regulating drug production and sale will quickly eliminate a whole plethora of crimes relating to those endeavors. Crimes such as smuggling, producing and selling drugs would cease to be profitable. These crimes would cease to be, except perhaps, for a few diehard adventurers. Or in those locales where the local community has mandated that it remain illegal (After all, their is still a thriving ‘Moonshine’ industry despite the legality of alcohol). We would also eliminate the crime of possession of drugs. It will also limit the availability of funds to finance other crimes such as illegal gambling, prostitution, extortion and terrorism.
Drugs will likely be cheaper. The supply would be relatively consistent. Market forces such as ’supply and demand’ will be less of a determining price factor. Nor will the ‘risk’ factor to dealers and smugglers affect price. The cost of producing most illegal drugs is minimal, particularly in an industrial setting. Therefore, legalization will reduce crimes such as burglary, mugging and prostitution.
The laws we enact to legalize and regulate drugs must include severe, mandatory penalties for the violation of those laws. In addition, crimes committed while under the influence of drugs and crimes committed for the purpose of obtaining drugs must be dealt with more severely than crimes committed for mere profit.
I would like to propose that criminals motivated by an addiction to drugs be treated as the sick people that they are. That they’re conviction require a mandatory, indeterminate stay at a drug treatment facility until such time as the addict is declared, by a proper medical authority, not only free of the addiction, but unlikely to return to drugs. Then, when the addict is cured of their illness they will be returned to the sentencing authority to determine if further criminal penalties are in order. It would also be nice if said medical authority, as well as parole boards and other agencies with the responsibility for releasing criminals into society be held personally responsible for those decisions. But, I suppose that is too much to ask.
Mandatory drug testing in critical industries, massive drug education efforts and a changing social climate as relates to the non-acceptance of drug abuse by the general public in recent years has been more effective in the control of drug use than prohibition ever was.
Another cost factor for drugs which will be eliminated is one that is not talked about very much, but it’s effect on society is just as devastating, although not as obvious. That is the cost of corruption. The money that drug traffickers now expend for policemen, judges and public officials. I want to say here that the vast majority of policemen and judges (I’m not so sure about politicians) are honest, hardworking public servants. Nevertheless, they are human, mostly underpaid and overworked and some will succumb to temptation. There is today a ‘revolving door’ justice system with it’s plea bargaining. early paroles and assorted rules that make it difficult for police and judges to do the job of taking criminals off the streets and keeping them off. This gives rise to a level of frustration and cynicism that is enormous. It is an atmosphere ripe for corruption. The surprising thing is that there is not more of it! This is a tribute to the men and woman of the law enforcement community. Corruption does exist and imbrues the character of the individuals that engage in it, as well as diminishing the institutions that depend on them. Also, we cannot forget the people in our financial institutions who ‘launder’ (legitimatize) the ill-gotten gains of the criminals who engage in these activities.
In addition, the elimination of drug crimes and the reduction of drug related crimes will reduce the burden on the prison system by more than half. It will free law enforcement officers to concentrate on other, more pressing, matters. It will allow judges to put away more dangerous criminals and to keep these people off the streets longer when overcrowding becomes less of a consideration.
Let’s talk economics now! The legalization of drugs will, first of all, create jobs. Jobs in agriculture growing the plants. Prosperity to many third world countries and their citizens. Much of these drugs are now grown by warlords and criminals who oppress their people. Jobs in the manufacturing of drugs. Jobs in the distribution and wholesaling of drugs. As well as jobs in the retail sector. Then there are the tax revenues. The taxes will be paid by the industries that manufacture drugs. The taxes paid on the incomes of those who find jobs in the drug industries. The ’sin’ taxes that will most likely be levied on drugs. If the taxes on alcohol and tobacco are any indication every dollar spent on drugs will be 60¢ to 70¢, perhaps as much as $2 or $3, will be taxes. Not to mention local sales tax. A portion of the ’sin’ tax can be earmarked for effective drug rehabilitation and drug awareness education. After all it is only fair that the people who are the problem be a part of the solution. Some of that money could also be used to develop drugs that are not addicting or physically harmful but will provide the pleasure that drug users seek. Wouldn’t it be nice that when a drug abuser matures enough to no longer need to use drugs to hide from their life, they can make a choice to stop. A choice unobstructed by a physical dependency. While moderate users can enjoy their pleasure without fear of addiction.
Further, the reduction of drug dealers who provide a negative role model to the young people in a community is a social benefit that cannot be denied. Today young people, especially in the slums and ghettoes of the inner cities, are given a mixed message. They are told by their families, ministers and teachers to be hard working, honest and law abiding in order to have a good and prosperous life. Then they look around and see, all too often, people who live by these ideals struggling in poverty and unhappiness at worst, struggling to make ends meet at best. Driving old beater cars (when they can afford cars), living in rundown homes, imprisoned in their homes afraid to walk the streets. While the drug dealers, pimps and thieves seem to own the streets, ride around in flashy new cars, live in classy houses and apartments and always seem to have money. Not only does this send a confusing message to the children. It creates disrespect for those people they should respect most. Children will feel they have been deceived by parents, clergymen and teachers when the lessons they are taught do not conform to the reality they see around them. Legalization will, to some extent, eliminate those negative role models. Then the children will only have corporate executives and politicians to look to for negative role models
I realize that the drug problem is an emotionally charged issue to many people. There are no accurate figures on the extent of drug use and drug abuse in this country. Estimates indicate that between 5 and 10% of the people in this country abuse themselves with drugs. The number of those moderate drug users is practically unknown. However, if we use as an indication the ratio of moderate alcohol users to the number of alcohol abusers perhaps that will give us an indication.
The people who use recreational drugs and medicinal drugs (that are illegal) moderately are often discrete, quiet, responsible people who go to work every day. They mow there lawns on the weekend and have their friends and neighbors over for dinner. However, because of the illegal nature of their activities they must keep it discretely behind closed doors, often hiding from their children even their mates. These estimates vary to some extent with the rise and fall of the economy. Poverty is a great stimulus to drug use and drug abuse. Perhaps some of the billions of dollars that will be saved by ending the so-called ‘War on Drugs’ could be used to help reduce poverty. Estimates also indicate that there is no appreciable change in drug abuse figures from when drugs were legal to when they weren’t.
“Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other ’sins’ are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful - just stupid.)”
–Lazarus Long–
Many great people throughout history have been addicted to drugs and gone on to accomplish great things. Ben Franklin was addicted to laudanum, an opium derivative in an alcohol solution. It didn’t stop him from creating the largest publishing empire in the colonies, Establish one of the first fire insurance companies, establishing the US Postal Service, discovering the nature of electricity, inventing bifocal eyeglasses, the Franklin stove, Etc.. Etc. While establishing the Committees of Correspondence, to share ideas throughout the colonies, that led to the American Revolution, serving in the 1st Continental Congress and being one of the authors of the Declaration of Independence, as well as serving as our first ambassador to France influencing the French court to support the American cause. George Washington smoked marijuana and drank Madeira wine by the keg, It didn’t stop him from taking a rag tag bunch of farmers, former slaves and indentured servants, exiles and colonists to fight the most powerful and disciplined military force in the world to a standstill, as well as serving as the first president of a fledgling nation based on a totally experimental concept- Democracy!
While we are talking about the founding of this country, let us remember the freedom for the pursuit of happiness. We have an obligation to protect children. One that we too often do not fulfill. However, as adults where is our right to choose? At what point did we allow the government to be our parents? I, for one, had a very good set of parents who taught me to make discriminating choices for my life. I certainly do not need an absentee parent who cares little about my safety, my health or whether I can make a decent living. Only that I derive pleasure in an approved manner.
I have seen first hand the deleterious effects of drug abuse, as we all have to a greater or lesser extent. Not only on the abusers, but on their families, their friends and their neighborhoods. It is not a pretty sight. However, the real world often calls on us to make choices. Choices that don’t always conform to standards of right and wrong, or on the basis of good or bad. Too often we must choose between the lesser of two evils. We make such choices almost every time we enter a polling booth. Every time we elect to buy a foreign-made product because it is cheaper even though we know it means taking jobs from our friends and neighbors. We make such unsatisfactory choices in many other aspects of our lives.
At this point I would like to call on all of you to look at the effects of the drug problem weigh them carefully against the points I have offered here for your consideration. Whatever choice you make, do it loudly! Talk about it with your family, your friends, your neighbors, your coworkers, the people you ride with to work. Write to your congressmen, your state assemblymen and your county and local political representatives. Let them know how you feel on the subject and remind them that you will be watching their actions and remembering come election time.
Thank you for your consideration,
Paul Diamond
May 24th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Even in the 1950’s and 1960’s all of us kids knew that the gov’t info was stupid. The info just didn’t match what we saw all around us. The end result was that we discredited ANY information coming from the government. You’d think these idiots would learn from history that their irrational demonization of marijuana was counter productive.
Maybe we should just elect politicians to Congress that have actually used the stuff (recreationally or for medical purposes) and have first hand knowledge. Seems like that’s the only way we are going to stop this “War on Drugs”.
May 25th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
>Maybe we should just elect politicians to Congress that have actually used the stuff (recreationally or for medical purposes) and have first hand knowledge. Seems like that’s the only way we are going to stop this “War on Drugs”.<
What makes you think that will work? We likely have congresspeople who are current users and yet still voting in favor of the War on (Some) Drugs. Just like we have congressmen who are demonizing gays and yet are gay themselves.
May 26th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Marijuana causes depression?
Nonsense! I have been diagnosed with a schizoid personality disorder (which has its roots in the abuse of a violent alcoholic step-father during my formative years) and severe depression is one of its major symptoms. Iow, I am almost always prone to depression unless busy at work. Marijuana, however, is one of the only drugs which helps me ‘overcome’ depression. That’s right, in my case marijuana alleviates depression. It is so effective, in fact, towards alleviating my depression, that it may have actually saved my life, because my depression gets so bad at times that I become suicidal.
It’s really sad that marijuana is illegal and unjustly demonized by the rabid prohibitionists. I can’t recall how many times I have turned to alcohol and made my situation worse, simply because alcohol is legal and marijuana is not.
May 26th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
“Hey, look, over here, over here, look at my right hand, here, over here, look here…”
While the left hand takes money from pharmaceutical companies and correctional facility lobbyists to criminalize a plant.
May 26th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
The harms inherent in addiction are nothing compared to the public safety, public health and national security threats posed to all of the civilized world by the $ 320-billion a year global crime and terrorism subsidizing economy CREATED by the war on drugs prohibition policy.
As long as the United States government prohibits us from regulating, licensing and taxing the violent criminal anarchy out of the distribution of intoxicant drugs the criminals and stateless terrorist armies will continue to grow and thrive.
The violent criminals and terrorists that are given financial “aid” and tactical “comfort” by the prohibition economy serve to violate every principle enumerated in the preamble to the United States constitutional.
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
“establish justice” 2.3 million in prison. Millions more criminally disenfranchised.
“insure domestic tranquility” The demand by drug gangs for cheap and easy to get hand guns effectively subsidizes the proliferation of these weapons on our streets for all criminals.
“provide for the common defense” According to recent U.S. War College reports 70% of the Taliban funding comes from heroin protection and profits. America’s southern border is a war zone because the $ 141-billion U.S. consumer demand for intoxicant drugs is so lucrative that it has, for decades, inspired an entire industry dedicated to circumventing our best border security efforts. It is the drug profits that make the smuggling routes worth the investment while immigrant labor and weapons are cream enabled by the drug routes.
“promote the general welfare” HIV-AIDs. Addiction spreading because the sales force empowered by the prohibition is composed of addicts and gangsters instead of responsible, regulated, licensed and taxed members of the community who share society’s goals about keeping drugs out of the hands of children.
“secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” Ask Rev. Wright of Chicago about this. Or talk to the tens of millions of Americans disaffected, disillusioned and disenfranchised by the past three dozen years of Richard Nixon’s Jim Crow drug war.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:26 am
Just wanted to add one more little item to Paul Diamond’s post. In England, heroin addicts are provided pure, pharmaceutical grade heroin by the socialized medicine providers (the government) for free. (It costs about $1.40 per month supply). Addicts are required to attend a group counseling session with their prescribing doctor once a month to get their prescription and check on their status.
The “addicts” are living full lives, caring for their children, holding down jobs, and not ‘intoxicated’. In interviews, a number of the individuals in the program stated that since they have a ready supply of the drug, they keep their usage more or less on an even keel without the highs and lows of the addicts in the US and other places where the drug is illegal. This even keel, which they compared to a diabetic on insulin, allows them to live normal, happy lives.
And guess what - no crime, no criminals, very little cost, and the rate of addiction has not changed from the pre-legalized days as a percentage of the population.
Wow. What a concept.
As far as marijuana - the study of the people smoking 11-50 joints per day - I believe that does have an effect. My ex-husband smoked marijuana in a pipe every single waking hour of every day. His personality altered. I don’t know about heart disease or anything else, but I can attest to that. And I have seen other studies on “heavy” smokers that also showed this effect from marijuana. It also, under these conditions can cause changes in the DNA in reproductive cells (sperm, eggs) that result in birth defects. So marijuana is not the completely harmless drug that some people think. On the other hand, as pointed out by the poster above - this group of people is miniscule. Most people do NOT smoke that much, and for medical reasons the benefits seem to far outweigh the risks. (Just like pharma drugs - they all have side effects!)
May 27th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
TO: lokywoky bitter hussein May 27th, 2008 at 3:26 am
“In England, heroin addicts are provided pure, pharmaceutical grade heroin by the socialized medicine providers (the government) for free. (It costs about $1.40 per month supply). Addicts are required to attend a group counseling session with their prescribing doctor once a month to get their prescription and check on their status.”
This program was stopped in the 1990’s at the insistence of the U.S.
Just recently it came out that the Brits had a secret heroin prescription test program going for the past couple of years but it only has something like one hundred people in it.
The Swiss are the leaders in heroin prescription programs.
Here are a couple of links.
Summary of the Synthesis Report 1997
http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/presumm.cfm
The official Swiss public information agency swissinfo.ch reported in 2006:
Swiss heroin model reporting benefits
http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/detail/Swiss_heroin_model
_reporting_benefits.html?siteSect=105&sid=7032610&cKey=1157366472000
Before the Brits adopted the war on drugs in the 1970’s they had a normalized heroin prescription program that operated as you describe. It was stopped for new participants but kept going for the existing community. In the 1990’s that was stopped too and the consequences were pretty ugly for the addicts and their neighborhoods according to doctors in the program.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
The entire drug war has made a sham of sacred and traditional herbal medecine, and the unsrpassed intellect of Native American shamans that lived on this continent centuries before the real ‘Mericans grabbed hold of the land. Not only is the drug war detrimental to public health, it is a monument to the racist movement that annihilated an entire group of people in one of the most horrific holocausts in history–the genocode of the Native American people.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:13 am
End ‘nanny state’ bans, argues major new study
04 March 2008
Prohibitions impose huge costs on individuals and society, yet produce few benefits in return
download document
A major new study, released today by the Institute of Economic Affairs*, argues that the expansion of the ‘nanny state’ should be halted. A ‘banning culture’ has seen greater restrictions placed on what individuals are permitted to do with their own bodies on private property.
The study, conducted by a distinguished international panel of experts under Dr John Meadowcroft** of King’s College London, examines the outlawing of the manufacture, distribution, sale or provision of particular goods and services by consenting adults. A wide range of issues are covered including gun control, prostitution and recreational drugs.
The research on the impact of gun control provides a good illustration - tight restrictions, such as the UK handgun bans in 1988 and 1997, have been completely ineffective at reducing both gun crime and the murder rate in general. Indeed, most countries introducing such controls have, like Britain, experienced a dramatic subsequent increase in gun crime and homicide as the market for guns becomes completely controlled by criminals. In Jamaica the murder rate has risen fourfold since guns were banned in the 1970s, with criminals finding it easy to obtain illegal weapons. The study also reveals that in England and Wales only one firearm in ten used in homicide is legally held.
The authors find that in most cases bans and prohibitions impose significant costs on individuals and society as a whole and produce few benefits in return. They place markets into the hands of criminal enterprises and criminalise people who would not otherwise come into conflict with the law, making risky behaviour even more risky, increasing public ignorance and often encouraging the behaviour they seek to prevent. The study concludes that prohibitions are bad public policy and that tighter controls on activities such as drinking alcohol and prostitution are likely to be counter-productive. Alternative solutions, such as improved education and counselling, are likely to be more effective than bans at addressing the problems associated with consensual but undesirable behaviour.
*Prohibitions, edited by John Meadowcroft, Hobart Paperback 35, Institute of Economic Affairs (2008).
**Dr John Meadowcroft is Lecturer in Public Policy at King’s College London.
Notes to editors
The IEA is a registered educational charity and independent of all political parties. It accepts no corporate funds linked to research areas and allows no corporate donor to exceed more than 2% of annual income.
http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=release&ID=138
April 21st, 2009 at 2:11 am
This blog is really fantastic as I have gone through all the posts. I don’t know why the blog mater is not interested in posting some more relative information. I request the blog mater to add some more content to this great blog. I shall link from my blogs to this blog soon.
Regarding complete cure of HIV I was simply wondering why can’t we find some thing useful in this direction. Since HIV and its treatment is an important issue or information we need more specific information on this subject. I have found a nice informative guide on HIV from following URL http://www.helpcure.com/hiv/ .
This guide deals with How To Cure HIV Through herbal medicines and Holistic Treatment. Guide claims that HIV viruses can’t be killed but they can be ousted out of the body cells using bio magnetic repulsion or something written. You can verify the guide by downloading that for free. for this site. I dreamt of a HIV free world after reading this guide.
Hope that you will add more free information to the comment boxes to let other people read about this interesting subjects.
God bless you all-