DEA "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization" Claim 3 - a rebuttal

(self) | March 26, 2012 | (self)

[JustSayNoToNannies]

The DEA Web pages on "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization" are linked with some regularity on FR. They're full of errors in fact and logic; since I couldn't find a comprehensive rebuttal online, I've started creating one. Here's my rebuttal to their "Fact 3;" more to come as time permits. ("Fact 1" rebutted at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2858443/posts; "Fact 2" rebutted at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2861557/posts.)

Claim 3: "Illegal drugs are illegal because they are harmful."

Fact: The legal drugs alcohol and tobacco are legal despite being harmful.

• Claim: Drug use can be deadly, far more deadly than alcohol. Although alcohol is used by seven times as many people as drugs, the number of deaths induced by those substances are not far apart. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), during 2000, there were 15,852 drug-induced deaths; only slightly less than the 18,539 alcohol-induced deaths.

  Fact: Because the drug alcohol is legal, it can be and is effectively regulated for concentration and lack of contamination. Because other drugs are illegal, they are forced into the black market where no such effective regulation is possible — so the illegality of drugs makes them more deadly than they would otherwise be.

Ecstasy

• Claim: Ecstasy has rapidly become a favorite drug among young party goers in the U.S. and Europe, and it is now being used within the mainstream as well. According to the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, Ecstasy use tripled among Americans between 1998 and 2001. Many people believe, incorrectly, that this synthetic drug is safer than cocaine and heroin. In fact, the drug is addictive and can be deadly. The drug often results in severe dehydration and heat stroke in the user, since it has the effect of “short-circuiting” the body’s temperature signals to the brain. Ecstasy can heat your body up to temperatures as high as 117 degrees. Ecstasy can cause hypothermia, muscle breakdown, seizures, stroke, kidney and cardiovascular system failure, as well as permanent brain damage during repetitive use, and sometimes death. The psychological effects of Ecstasy include confusion, depression, anxiety, sleeplessness, drug craving, and paranoia.

  Fact: Ecstasy can be deadly — as can cocaine and heroin (and alcohol). The DEA comes less than halfway to supporting their claim that the belief that "this synthetic drug is safer than cocaine and heroin" is "incorrect." Those considering using Ecstasy should know the risks ... but the DEA insures that it won't be listened to by 'crying wolf' with its claim that Ecstasy is as unsafe as heroin.

Cocaine

• Claim: Physical effects of cocaine use include constricted blood vessels and increased temperature, heart rate, and blood pressure. Users may also experience feelings of restlessness, irritability, and anxiety. Cocaine-related deaths are often the result of cardiac arrest or seizures followed by respiratory arrest. Cocaine continues to be the most frequently mentioned illicit substance in U.S. emergency departments, present in 30 percent of the emergency department drug episodes during 2001.

  Fact: That an emergency-department patient mentions something says nothing about whether that something was a causal factor in their emergency; does the government track "mentions" of techno music or pizza? This profoundly silly statistic is used to artificially inflate the numbers on the harmfulness of drugs.

Marijuana

• Claim: Drug legalization advocates in the United States single out marijuana as a different kind of drug, unlike cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine. They say it’s less dangerous. Several European countries have lowered the classification of marijuana. However, as many people are realizing, marijuana is not as harmless as some would have them believe. Marijuana is far more powerful than it used to be. In 2000, there were six times as many emergency room mentions of marijuana use as there were in 1990, despite the fact that the number of people using marijuana is roughly the same. In 1999, a record 225,000 Americans entered substance abuse treatment primarily for marijuana dependence, second only to heroin—and not by much.

  Fact: Regarding "mentions," see the previous bullet point. As for substance abuse treatment admissions: Curious how the DEA mentions comparative usage statistics in the first bullet point, but not here. Since in 2008 there were 71 times more past-month users of marijuana than of heroin (http://www.samhsa.gov/data/nsduh/2k8nsduh/tabs/Sect1peTabs1to46.htm#Tab1.1A) the DEA's statistic actually indicates that marijuana is much less addictive than heroin. And regarding the "record" admission number, note that many substance abuse treatment admissions come through ever-multiplying "diversion programs" from the criminal courts, such as California's Proposition 36, under which "all offenders charged with nonviolent drug-related offenses are potentially eligible to receive treatment services" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK64143/#A80751) ... which means that many of those admitted to these treatment programs have no substance abuse problem but only an aversion to jail.

• Claim: At a time of great public pressure to curtail tobacco because of its effects on health, advocates of legalization are promoting the use of marijuana. Yet, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, “Studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day.” Marijuana contains more than 400 chemicals, including the most harmful substances found in tobacco smoke. For example, smoking one marijuana cigarette deposits about four times more tar into the lungs than a filtered tobacco cigarette.

  Fact: Because tobacco is legal, its sellers have motive and unfettered opportunity to make tobacco less harmful, for example, by developing lower-tar cigarettes. Again we see that the illegality of drugs makes them more harmful than they would otherwise be.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Never mind, I just caught up with you. :-(

[JustSayNoToNannies]

THe ones that can handle drugs have no reason to be removed from society. The ones that can’t and commit crimes on drugs get removed from society.

I'm not sure we can't get that done using the existing penal system ... but the underlying principle you state is rock solid.

[Secret Agent Man]

I understand and agree, that’s why I have come up with a new solution to the problem. It would be a building that housed only drug abusers, they could not get out, the only way out of the building would be for the staff to service the vending units (replacing drugs) and one to monitor an intercom in case one came to clarity and desperately wanted to get clean rather than eventually overdose. If it was a person who never asked before, there would be an armed team that went in the only entrance (multiple locked foyers) to get that one person out. If they had failed at getting clean a prior time, they would be ignored as they proved the past time that wanting to get clean was not really what they genuinely wanted.

People have to accept the consequences for misusing and abusing drugs and hurting/murdering/stealing from others. It is almost impossible to cure drug addiction personalities. That is because almost none of them want to sincerely give up the drugs. THere are those people who would like to get the high but are scared of addiction, bad health, or realize it’s not a workable way to live life, and/or don’t want to ever be in a position to hurt or murder others because they were high, and they therefore don’t do drugs. To them they understand the benefits to avoiding drugs outweigh the consequences of screwing up while on drugs even though you feel real good while screwing up. We already know this because we all make choices regarding alcohol.

Drugs are much more potent and therefore addictive than alcohol. And believe me, alcohol is addictive. Wouldn’t have AA and a whole bunch of people making money getting people sober if it wasn’t. We lose a lot of innocent people to drunks. We have a lot of wrecked lives and families do to drunks. Their own families and lots of others’ families who are innocent victims of the drunks.

Therefore a more drastic solution is required if drugs are to be legalized. ANd it’s the one I’ve outlined. We tolerate just one screwup before being put in a facility you can’t get out of, but you will get your drugs there, they will be safe and pure, as much as you want. We believe you only once if you say, while in that facility, you want to get clean. You only get one time at getting clean. You use drugs again, you’re back in and you never get out alive, as you’ve proven you can’t stay clean and really at your core want your drugs above anything else.

[Mack the knife]

I have come up with a new solution to the problem. It would be a building that housed only drug abusers

---

England had a much less drastic solution They simply treated addiction as a health problem, to be treated by physicians. Addicts would simply go to the doctor to get their maintenance “fix” for a nominal fee, and then go back to their lives. Almost all worked, and had normal lives. Since the cost of the drugs was nominal, the men had not turned into thugs and the women had not turned into prostitutes or thieves.

This approach worked for years ... until the U.S. Government pressured them into discontinuing it — the drugs were made illegal, and hence costly, and the addicts were tossed out of their normal lives (due to the cost of the now illegal drugs). And now England had a drug addictioni problem, with overdose deaths, petty crime to support their habits, and police corruption with drug money profits.

Just another case of lofty motives leading to disasterous results.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Drugs are much more potent and therefore addictive than alcohol.

Some drugs are. According to research cited by the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine, of all those who ever used alcohol 15% at some point became dependent; the corresponding figures for other drugs are:

Heroin: 23%
Cocaine: 17%
Marijuana: 9%
Psychedelics: 5%

[JustSayNoToNannies]

England had a much less drastic solution They simply treated addiction as a health problem, to be treated by physicians. Addicts would simply go to the doctor to get their maintenance “fix” for a nominal fee, and then go back to their lives. Almost all worked, and had normal lives. Since the cost of the drugs was nominal, the men had not turned into thugs and the women had not turned into prostitutes or thieves.

This approach worked for years ... until the U.S. Government pressured them into discontinuing it — the drugs were made illegal, and hence costly, and the addicts were tossed out of their normal lives (due to the cost of the now illegal drugs). And now England had a drug addictioni problem, with overdose deaths, petty crime to support their habits, and police corruption with drug money profits.

Just another case of lofty motives leading to disasterous results.

You're too generous. The U.S. government may have had lofty motives for the failed policy it has imposed on its own citizens - but to push that policy on another country that had a working policy is clearly a simple case of bureaucratic arrogance and @$$-covering.

[Secret Agent Man]

Meth is more addictive than any of those you listed. That’s a real big one right now.

[Secret Agent Man]

But do you see the total illogic here?

They are addicts. THey go to doctors to ‘get their fix’.

They aren’t fixing anything. These people will be perpetual addicts with the blessing of the state the rest of their lives. They aren’t trying to get them to not be addicts. They aren’t correcting anything. They are enabling the addict for the rest of their lives.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

And whose business is that, if they weren't violating anyone's rights nor becoming burdens on society?

[discostu]

That program is what Keith Richards credits for him being able to survive his years of heroin use. Apparently the program gave only only top end pharmaceutical grade, very clean. I won’t go so far as to say it’s actually a good solution, but it does show once again that the primary source of the problems of drugs comes from the illegality.

[Secret Agent Man]

Did you even read my posts about this? This is for the people who have demonstrated they cannot handle being on drugs. People that injure, murder, kill, or steal from others because of drugs.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

[Mack the knife:] Almost all worked, and had normal lives. Since the cost of the drugs was nominal, the men had not turned into thugs and the women had not turned into prostitutes or thieves.

This approach worked for years

They aren’t trying to get them to not be addicts. They aren’t correcting anything. They are enabling the addict for the rest of their lives.

And whose business is that, if they weren't violating anyone's rights nor becoming burdens on society?

This is for the people who have demonstrated they cannot handle being on drugs. People that injure, murder, kill, or steal from others because of drugs.

No, Mack's post was about people who were handling it, and the policy that allowed them to do so.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Meth is more addictive than any of those you listed.

Yes and no - addicts who have completed treatment have a higher relapse rate for meth than for other drugs ... but the percentage of dependence among past-year users is actually much smaller for meth (22%) than for heroin (58%), and also smaller than for cocaine (27%).

[Secret Agent Man]

I am sorry, doctors giving people drugs they are addicted to, is not doing ANYTHING to cure them of their addiction.

They will be taking it the rest of their lives if there is no goal to get them clean.

If this is the case why not have all the non-addicts claim they are addicts to get clean drugs and sell them, since they are all paying for them? Why don’t I get free drugs that I need to keep living a normal life? I have severe allergies, why can’t I go to the govt clinic and get free tylenol allergy sinus whenever I need some?

I am talking about doing NOTHING to people who can handle drugs. The addicts get to have as much as they want to the point of overdose - but it will be clean and pure and given by the govt. But they will be in a secure building for their safety and ours. If they decide they want to be clean they get one shot. If they backslide they’re back in the building until they overdose. They’ve proven they want the drug more than anything else.

And really, to use Keith Richards as an example of govt-given drugs to “maintain a normal life” is absolutely the worst example you could ever give. Keith is hardly functional, or “normal”. The guy looked 100 before he was 50. Getting govt heroin hardly affected the toll his lifestyle (that included drugs) took on him. He is hardly the posterchild you want to prop up as being the success story for govt giving people drugs. Seriously. Out of curiousity, are you on government drugs right now? Given that example I have to ask.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

[Mack the knife:] Almost all worked, and had normal lives. Since the cost of the drugs was nominal, the men had not turned into thugs and the women had not turned into prostitutes or thieves.

This approach worked for years

They aren’t trying to get them to not be addicts. They aren’t correcting anything. They are enabling the addict for the rest of their lives.

And whose business is that, if they weren't violating anyone's rights nor becoming burdens on society?

This is for the people who have demonstrated they cannot handle being on drugs. People that injure, murder, kill, or steal from others because of drugs.

No, Mack's post was about people who were handling it, and the policy that allowed them to do so.

I am sorry, doctors giving people drugs they are addicted to, is not doing ANYTHING to cure them of their addiction.

Agreed, it's maintenance not a cure - just as injected insulin doesn't cure diabetes.

If this is the case why not have all the non-addicts claim they are addicts to get clean drugs

I imagine that under that policy doctors questioned/examined patients to try to screen out fake addicts. It's either that, or just sell it in a regulated manner to any adult with the money to pay for it, as we do with the drug alcohol.

and sell them, since they are all paying for them? Why don’t I get free drugs that I need to keep living a normal life? I have severe allergies, why can’t I go to the govt clinic and get free tylenol allergy sinus whenever I need some?

The cost wasn't zero but "nominal" - and my preferred policy would be to have users pay the full cost.

I am talking about doing NOTHING to people who can handle drugs.

I prefer that policy to the one Mack described - but I prefer even the one he described to our current counterproductive policy.

And really, to use Keith Richards as an example of govt-given drugs to “maintain a normal life” is absolutely the worst example you could ever give. [...] Out of curiousity, are you on government drugs right now? Given that example I have to ask.

That was Mack's example, not mine. What drugs are you on that have rendered you unable to distinguish between "Mack the knife" and "JustSayNoToNannies"?

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Rebuttal to “Fact 4” at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2893202/posts