Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Whiff of 'Reefer Madness' in U.S. Drug Policy
NY Times ^ | August 16, 2005 | SALLY SATEL, M.D.

Posted on 08/18/2005 5:15:05 PM PDT by neverdem

Patients arrive broke, busted or abandoned at our methadone clinic in a raw section of Northeast Washington. They are opiate addicts, primarily dependent on heroin, though some take vast doses of street-bought painkillers like OxyContin.

Drinking the pink methadone solution every day prevents withdrawal sickness.

About half of our patients have also spent years on crack or alcohol. Not all have stopped, but at least they have cut back. We see almost no methamphetamine users, but that is a simple accident of geography - the corrosive drug hasn't yet reached epidemic proportions in this part of the country.

The personal ravages of hard-core addiction are enormous, and they translate into vast social costs - crime, violence, incarceration, homelessness, unemployment, hepatitis C, H.I.V./AIDS.

Such an immense burden makes me wonder about the wisdom of federal priorities.

Why is marijuana, of all drugs, the main target of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy?

Answer: the gateway theory of addiction. Start with marijuana, the idea is, and progress to methamphetamine or heroin or cocaine.

To me, the "gateway" assumption, which took root in the 1950's, has a nostalgic, "Reefer Madness" feel. But it is still driving federal policy. The drug czar's office made that clear last month in response to a call from the National Association of Counties "to put the same kind of emphasis on methamphetamine abuse as they have on marijuana." The association had just announced that its 500 members were reeling from methamphetamine-related crime, incarceration and child-neglect.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy defended its prioritization. Addressing "early marijuana use is an effective way of heading off and preventing subsequent movement into other drug use," said a spokesman for the drug czar on National Public Radio.

Is this true? Is the gateway argument a valid justification...

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: addiction; burnouts; dependence; dopers; dorks; dregs; drips; druggies; dude; iforgotman; marijuana; methamphetamines; potheads; stoners; tuneinturnondropout; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 last
To: mysterio
Well, the law is that pot smokers should go to jail. Since you smoked pot, you should go to jail as well. If you continue to believe that pot should be illegal, than you should turn yourself in. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Simple possesion of pot is a misdemeanor. Like getting a traffic ticket.
They don't lock people up for this anymore.

Secondly I never said anything about my views on whether or not pot should still be illegal.

Thirdly I ALREADY told you I stopped my pot habit years ago.

You didn't get ANYTHING right in your post.

41 posted on 08/19/2005 9:06:39 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
Simple possesion of pot is a misdemeanor. Like getting a traffic ticket.
They don't lock people up for this anymore.

All it takes is one little law...

It wasn't until I stopped smoking pot on a regular basis (I smoke on rare occasions) that I recognized how it had been effecting my life, and my mental and emotional state.
That still doesn't address the mental and emotional imbalances you spoke of earlier. You speak of "imbalances" in one instance and a "state" in another instance. These are disparate things, not the same things.
Furthermore, unless you discuss it elswhere, according to you #35 you've suffered no apparent mental and emotional imbalances and a mental or emotional state is so subjective as to not even be worth mentioning.
In one breath you state that everyone suffers...But it does waste people's lives and definitely contributes to mental and emotional imbalances as well...then in the next you state...There are exceptions to the rule when it comes to anything, including the influence of pot on one's personal life.
You can't have it both ways and then hold yourself up as the exception to the rule. Either it does something or it doesn't or you're a walking contradiction.

My mind is much clearer and I handle difficulties and emotional conflicts much more effectively now.
Things that used to bug me and hang me up emotionally for extended periods of time simply roll off my back now.

Oh, that has to be because you stopped smoking weed and has nothing whatsoever to do with the years of knowledge and experienced that you've gained over the last ??? 51 years of your life.
Give me a break. We all learn to better handle difficulties, emotional conflicts, hang ups and things that bug us by simply learing from our mistakes and through our experiences.
You're starting to sound like a pro drug war shill and you've had a built for TV life.

42 posted on 08/20/2005 12:36:06 AM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
Jorge:

A traffic tickets are not misdemeanors. They are "violation," generally not crimes. A traffic record is different then a criminal record. And I don't know about your state, but in my state marijuana possession is the most serious kind of misdemeanor conviction you can get for a first offense and it's a felony if you are ever caught again. In some counties here people go to jail for a first offense. In my county they'll go to jail and get out if they can come up with bond money. Then when they come back to court they'll get several hundred dollars in fines and court costs, or over a thousand if they happened to have a pipe or rolling papers with them when they got caught wit the pot. They'll lose their drivers license for six months. They'll have to complete and pay for a marijuana offenders "treatment" program. They'll be put on probation for nine months and have to pay a monthly fee for that too. They'll get ninety days of jail time hung over their heads to be imposed if they get behind on their fines, piss off the probation officer, don't complete the marijuana offenders program, get caught driving during their suspension period or get in any other trouble. A lot of them end up coming back for probation revocation revocation hearings because we are in a poor rural county and a lot of them can't keep up with the fines, probation fees, and "treatment' costs (I use quotation marks because all the "treatment is is a stupid class they have to take). A lot of others are caught driving because people here tend to live in the boonies ad we don't have any public transportation, not even taxis.

Second offense, even if it's been twenty years since the first offense, or even if your first offense was in some state like California where they do treat it more like a traffic ticket, is a felony. In my county people are generally forced into our tough drug court program, unless they have other things on their record whereupon they'll be given a prison offer by the prosecutors. Our drug court is a crappy program that last a bare minimum of a year although I've never seen anyone graduate that quickly and while in the program these people are required to go to several meetings every week during normal business hours. Most of the people in it lose their jobs and have to go to one of the few places they can work that will work around their drug court schedule, if they can find that kind of work. I guess that's better than one county over where the prosecutor always insists on a stint in prison for a second offense of marijuana possession.

I hate the way people treated for nothing other than smoking pot around here. I imagine you would hate it too if on one of the rare occasions you smoke pot you happened to be in an area like mine or where where they are even harder on pot smokers, and happened to get caught. The laws and the way they are enforced vary considerably from state to state, county to county, and even from town to town. There are a lot of places where you can expect a lot more than just a slap on the wrist.

I just can't believe you are an admitted pot smoker and you still think the stuff ought to be illegal? What, are you just more responsible than everyone else so it's okay for you to smoke pot but no one else should? Do you think it's just fine and dandy for you to break the law? Is there not a problem when we have unenforcible laws that everyone just ignores creating disrespect for the law in general? Does it not matter that there is a huge multi-million dollar industry run especially at the higher levels by organized crime supplying all the people like you who ignore the law? Does it not bother you that those who distribute marijuana also distribute the hard stuff that causes so many problems in this country and that because of that people like you who smoke marijuana are much more likely than others to be offered the hard stuff? Does it not matter to you that because of marijuana's legal status those who smoke it are much more likely to be offered other drugs because they already use one illegal substance and are thus unlikely to report those who would sell them or share with them other illegal drugs that are far worse than marijuana? Does it not bother you that people are fairly severely punished in many parts of this country for doing the very thing that you do? Does it not bother you that many people in law enforcement look on people like you as the enemy? Does it not bother you that we waste billions of dollars in this country every year fighting against pot even though it does little or no good?

How do you justify your position? I don't get it.
43 posted on 08/20/2005 2:05:51 PM PDT by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
You speak of "imbalances" in one instance and a "state" in another instance. These are disparate things, not the same things.

I see no reason why one can't describe a mental condition as an imbalanced state.
You're really splitting hairs here.

In one breath you state that everyone suffers...But it does waste people's lives and definitely contributes to mental and emotional imbalances as well...then in the next you state...There are exceptions to the rule when it comes to anything, including the influence of pot on one's personal life.
You can't have it both ways and then hold yourself up as the exception to the rule. Either it does something or it doesn't or you're a walking contradiction.

Ask anyone who's smoked pot socially for a while.
People are effected to different degrees by pot.

For example I never had any problem driving a car after smoking pot. In fact I would really get into it.

But I had some friends who simply couldn't drive when they were high. They were all over the road.

Most people I knew got really lazy, wouldn't study and did terrible in school when they smoked pot.

But I loved studying when I was high and would get good grades as a result.

There are certain personal character traits that can counter the usual effects pot has on people's lives.
A strong work ethic can nullify the usual lazy, laid-back, do-nothing pot head attitude.

And this is one of the things that makes me a walking contradiction when it comes to pot.

44 posted on 08/20/2005 6:14:40 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Jorge; philman_36

I think you were trying to respond to philman_36's post number forty-one. Mine was forty-three, the one full of typos.


45 posted on 08/20/2005 9:09:59 PM PDT by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
How do you justify your position? I don't get it.
You obviously don't understand that he's an exception to the rules. /sarcasm
46 posted on 08/20/2005 10:48:42 PM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz

Sorry :)


47 posted on 08/21/2005 6:18:26 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
look,the Obvious way to Come to a Rational Conclusion is to Compare Equivalent "Doses" of Alcohol & Marihuana!

The States have Determined that "DUI" occurs above a Certain level of Alcohol Ingestion; A Similar "Level of Marijuana Intoxication" should be ascertainable!

One's Level of "POT INTOXICATION" should be Quantifiable!!

SO,--above a "Given Level of--" "Cannabinol," One CANNOT DRIVE a "Motor Vehicle!!" 'Same as Alcohol!!"

SIMPLE!!

Doc

48 posted on 08/21/2005 7:03:23 PM PDT by Doc On The Bay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Doc On The Bay
look,the Obvious way to Come to a Rational Conclusion is to Compare Equivalent "Doses" of Alcohol & Marihuana!

I don't know. My experience has been that Alcohol and Marijuana have varying effects on different people.

I can be stoned out of my mind on pot and still be very careful and responsible when driving a car.

Not so with alcohol. If I am really drunk I drive like a crazy man. I'm very aggressive and I speed.

49 posted on 08/21/2005 7:29:29 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
The IDIOTS who "Make the Rules," MUST be Given an "End-Point!"

Other than That; there IS NO "End Point!!"

Doc

50 posted on 08/21/2005 7:56:38 PM PDT by Doc On The Bay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Jorge

"Sorry :)"

What would be a lot better than "sorry" is if you would respond at least to the following section quoted from my post to you:


I just can't believe you are an admitted pot smoker and you still think the stuff ought to be illegal. What, are you just more responsible than everyone else so it's okay for you to smoke pot but no one else should? Do you think it's just fine and dandy for you to break the law? Is there not a problem when we have unenforcible laws that everyone just ignores creating disrespect for the law in general? Does it not matter that there is a huge multi-million dollar industry run especially at the higher levels by organized crime supplying all the people like you who ignore the law? Does it not bother you that those who distribute marijuana also distribute the hard stuff that causes so many problems in this country and that because of that people like you who smoke marijuana are much more likely than others to be offered the hard stuff? Does it not matter to you that because of marijuana's legal status those who smoke it are much more likely to be offered other drugs because they already use one illegal substance and are thus unlikely to report those who would sell them or share with them other illegal drugs that are far worse than marijuana? Does it not bother you that people are fairly severely punished in many parts of this country for doing the very thing that you do? Does it not bother you that many people in law enforcement look on people like you as the enemy? Does it not bother you that we waste billions of dollars in this country every year fighting against pot even though it does little or no good?

How do you justify your position? I don't get it.


51 posted on 08/22/2005 6:49:12 AM PDT by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
What would be a lot better than "sorry" is if you would respond at least to the following section quoted from my post to you:

Fine then. If you insist.

I just can't believe you are an admitted pot smoker and you still think the stuff ought to be illegal.

I said I smoked pot regularly for at least 20 years and only smoke occasionally since. (I've only smoked pot once in the past year)
The idea that just because I've smoked pot I MUST be for legalizing it is silly.

I've done cocaine and herion too. Should I support legalizing them too?
I've driven drunk, I've been involved in vandalism of property and violent behavior. I was a thief for many years as a teenager.

You actually think that just because I've done these things means I must support legalizing them?

Sorry, but my concept of right and wrong transcends the scope of my personal behavior and self discipline.

There's more to life then finding ways to justify your faults.

52 posted on 08/22/2005 4:18:06 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Drug use, where NYT Liberals and FR Libertarians come together and shake hands.


53 posted on 08/22/2005 4:19:07 PM PDT by G32
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G32
Drug use, where NYT Liberals and FR Libertarians come together and shake hands.

Sally Satel is a psychiatrist and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a co-author of "One Nation Under Therapy."

54 posted on 08/22/2005 4:29:11 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: G32
Drug use, where NYT Liberals and FR Libertarians come together and shake hands.

Your brothers-in-arms.

55 posted on 08/22/2005 4:40:48 PM PDT by tacticalogic (Say goodnight, Grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

Quite the provocative tagline there...


56 posted on 08/22/2005 4:44:03 PM PDT by Shazbot29 (Light a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day; light him on fire, he'll be warm the rest of his life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
Thanks for the non-responsive answer.
57 posted on 08/22/2005 8:16:47 PM PDT by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson