Slashdot Mirror

Honestly, I can get pretty pissy about government overreach, but this isn't that.

The war on drugs was doomed to failure from inception because they were trying to legislate a morality that most Americans are ambivalent about or are actively in disagreement with. Over half of all Americans are (or were willing to be temporarily) on the illegal side of that war: https://www.drugabuse.gov/publ...

Consequently, the LEAs wound up in a game of whack-a-mole, where they arrest a dealer and a new one pops up in his place before he gets arraigned. And, as an ex-con, I'm here to tell you that they are good at arresting dealers. I met a lot of drug dealers inside. Of course, for a lot of cops, this is just job security, so they don't really mind.

NN is different because the number of offenders is vastly smaller and the violations are exponentially harder to hide (this is the problem with crimes that actually have victims). Additionally, because the network operators' money is actually already in the banking system, they have much more to lose.

As to whether we fare better behind NN regulation or NN law, I don't know. Legislation is probably less prone to abuse, but it is also much slower to respond to changing market conditions.

Acetaminophen/Tylenol/Paracetamol is NOT easier to overdose on.

Fentanyl has an LD of 3.1 mg/kg in rats, and 0.03 mg/kg in monkeys.
Tylenol has an LD of 338 mg/kg in mice (oral); 1944 mg/kg in rats (oral).

I.e. It is much easier to OD on fentanyl. BUT... and this is the part people don't IIRC...

There ARE more OD's on tylenol than on fentanyl... primarily cause it is so common and cause a lot of those happen with small children, due to their weight ratios being more favorable for an overdose.
BUT... and it's a big one... nearly all those overdoses on tylenol ARE NOT FATAL.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-en...

Paracetamol overdoses

About 50,000 people are admitted to hospital each year in the UK due to overdosing on paracetamol
According to the Office of National Statistics 219 deaths in 2016 were linked to paracetamol, up from 182 in 2012
Pills are usually 500mg, and over-the-counter purchases are restricted
The British Medical Journal says any dose of more than 4g or 75mg/kg over 24 hours for an adult is classed as an overdose
Overdosing on the drug can seriously or fatally damage the liver
Intravenous acetylcysteine is used to treat overdoses and treat hepatotoxicity

Also, if you're munching 500mg tablets four times a day to kill the pain or fever, you're already half way to what constitutes an overdose - though it is clearly FAR from an LD, even in mice.
I.e. People are "overdosing" on tylenol in a very "better safe than sorry" use of the term "overdose".

Meanwhile, DEATHS from overdosing on fentanyl in the US and its analogues has gone up from ~6000 in 2014, ~10000 in 2015, ~19000 in 2016 to ~29000 in 2017.

But have no fear. Trump has the best vaguely human-shaped leftover protoplasm working on it.
And it has already found the cure! Amazingly - it's ice cream and fries! Whodathunkit!

It's really tragic actually...
To think that thousand of lives could have been saved if only someone got those people to a McDonald's in time...
Who knew it was really that simple?

Drugs in general, and opiods in particular, are not the problem. Drug abuse is a symptom of deeper issues like isolation, depression, and hopelessness. It's literally self-medicating. This is not an epidemic among healthy, well-adjusted adults with stable incomes and functional social support networks. There is some of that, to be sure, but not an epidemic. It's impoverished areas of the country among people who have given up and feel left behind that are hardest hit. And again, drug abuse is a symptom of that.

The overwhelming majority of people don't become addicted to their prescription painkillers. All available evidence supports this. Of course corporations are greedy, and they need regulation, but opiods are the best treatment currently available for pain management, and if you've ever needed them, you know they are the difference between agony and relief. Limiting their availability or doctors' ability and discretion in prescribing only harms people who genuinely need them. Addicts will find a way regardless. Should we have support systems in place for those who do? Absolutely. But demonizing the supply side misses the point entirely.

For some reason, most people understand that brewers and distillers -- despite their much heavier advertising and glamorizing of alcohol than, say, opioid manufacturers of fentanyl -- don't create alcoholics, and that prohibition just made the problem worse, but everyone wants to believe that it's completely different this time. Because opiods. Yes, it's a compelling and easy-to-believe story that "big pharma" is responsible, but it doesn't really make sense at the end of the day. If manufacturers and prescribers were responsible, we might expect to see people with the most access to healthcare and the most dollars to spend have the most problems as a percentage of the respective demographics, but the reverse is true.

Nobody wants to talk about the socioeconomic drivers of addiction, because it means a) admitting a problem with the social structure in our country, b) it's hard to generate the same emotion and outrage about underprivileged segments of society as a story about a big bad enemy does and c) it's a much more difficult problem to solve.

I came across this in looking for supporting data, and it seems to be a good description of the real problem: https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/a...

See also:
https://jamanetwork.com/journa...
https://www.drugabuse.gov/abou...

In 2011, more than 17,000 Americans died from opioid prescription overdoses. That same year Cardinal Health, the second largest distributor, started pushing back at Joe Rannazzisi. The companies' attorneys went over his head and called his bosses at the Justice Department, who called in Rannazzisi to have him explain his tactics.

JOE RANNAZZISI: And it in-- infuriated me that I was over there, trying to explain what my motives were or why I was going after these corporations? And when I went back to the office, and I sat down with my staff, I basically said, "You know, I just got questioned on why we're doing-- why we're doing what we're doing. This is-- this-- this is-- now this is war. We're going after these people and we're not going to stop.
[...]
Rannazzisi says the drug industry used that money and influence to pressure top lawyers at the DEA to take a softer approach. Former DEA attorney Jonathan Novak said it divided the litigation office. He said in 2013, he noticed a sea change in the way prosecutions of big distributors were handled. Cases his supervisors once would have easily approved, now weren't good enough.

Drugs, they've never killed anyone. - Rujiel

Drug Deaths in America Are Rising Faster Than Ever: Drug overdose deaths in 2016 most likely exceeded 59,000. This is greater that the peak car crash deaths, HIV deaths, and gun deaths.
Drug related Homicides accounts for more far more Americna deaths any any war. Thousands are killed in feuds between gangs and dealers looking to expand or protect their drug trade.
People die every day form drug driving.. I know someone who who was completely totaled just last year because of a completely "non-violent drug user". 1 death and 2 others who are never going to recover fully. Statistically, it would of been better had this "non-violent offender" just decided rob a bank at gunpoint.

You think that the government would be less bloated?

Would it mean more government employees? Perhaps, it'd have to, to supplant the insurance company drones to some extent.

We are talking about the government.

Good for you.

They created the concept of ineffectual bloat and then expanded, enhanced and perfected it.

Oh, so they've done a good job then?

The government home of the $50,000 hammer.

A myth, actually, and you have to ask yourself, why you believe that the 50,000$ hammer wasn't sold to the government by a greedy entity even if your myth wasn't a lie?

No, private industry with a profit motive will always be more efficient than government bureaucrats with no motive at all for efficiency and service.

We don't want efficient healthcare, we want effective. So far, the private industry is killing over a quarter million from medical mistakes in the US.

Take a look at the deadly mess that is the VA and tell me single payer is better.

Take a look at the deadly mess that is the private medical industry, and tell me that it is better.

Not to mention fraud, prescription drug abuse, and denial of coverage. Go ahead.

That's the problem people like you have, you think that nobody knows about the crap in your average hospital, you just fume and snort about the VA, the VA, the VA! and yet you don't realize that the reason the VA is ignored is because 99 out of 100 people really don't care about the VA, or experience its services, or that they actually are subject to reports that your average hospital isn't. That's right, the VA is just used to look bad, that's all, you don't care about fixing it.

Somebody always pays, even if it's only the state having to collect and cremate the corpse

Cost for cremation is roughly $1,000, all costs included. Cost to treat someone for drug use, for one year, is roughly $4,700.

Cost benefit analysis says it's cheaper to not treat. As we see every day in Detroit and Chicago, letting the users and dealers kill each other off saves the taxpayers money by not having to jail them.

Forgot to cite my source: https://www.drugabuse.gov/publ...

The point is you are missing the point. Heroin use/addiction is on the rise in the US in large part because of Oxycontin. Perdue Pharma convinced doctors it was safe and non-addictive (wrong on both counts) and had made over $30B doing it. Thousands of unnecessary prescriptions were written causing many to become addicted. The Gov cracked down on pill factories making it hard to get thus those severely addicted turned to heroin (much easier to get). Just peruse the graphs and they will tell the tale:

https://www.drugabuse.gov/abou...

Many of the stories are some variant of: car accident -> oxycontin pain medication prescription -> addiction -> heroin user. You don't start out using heroin cause your wife left. And in many cases, treating addiction actually does fix most of those other problems you mentioned. Maybe as you say drugs weren't the problem to begin with but for an addict they certainly dwarf all other problems they may have had. Please take a second look at all of your preconceptions to help the shift of public opinion away from drug wars and towards drug treatment.

The thing is, most of the shit isn't from guns. CDC leading causes of death in the U.S., page 41. Skipping all the disease deaths we get:

41,149 - suicide (21,175 of them by firearms, about 2/3 of all firearm deaths)
38,861 - accidental poisonings and overdoses (passed traffic accidents recently)
37,908 - (land) motor vehicle accidents (nearly 3/4 alcohol-related)
30,208 - accidental falls (mostly among the elderly)
16,904 - other accidents
16,121 - homicide (11,208 by firearms)
4,587 - Other undetermined events (281 by firearms)
3,391 - accidental drowning
2,768 - complications from medical and surgical care
2,760 - accidental fire
1,569 - water, air, space vehicle accidents
1,000 - other land transport accidents
516 - killings by law enforcement (usually by firearms)
505 - accidental discharge of firearms
15 - war

Now, compare that list to what you see the press covering. Suicides, drug overdoses, motor vehicle deaths, falls, drownings, medical complications, are vastly underreported. Firearms (which I've put in bold), air transport accidents, killings by law enforcement, and war/terrorism deaths are vastly overreported. (IMHO fires are reported about the right amount - fires make good video).

Roughly 2/3 of the firearm deaths are from suicide. But firearms account for roughly half of suicides. So you can make a pretty convincing argument that the people who shot themselves probably would've figured out some other way to successfully kill themselves if guns weren't available. So you shouldn't attribute these deaths on firearms.

That leaves the 11,208 firearm homicide deaths up for debate. Which certainly is a topic worth debating. But its importance falls far behind suicide, drug overdoses, motor vehicle accidents (mostly drunk driving), falls (this one is debatable since it's mostly elderly who are killed this way), and other types of accidents. As a whole, these things are 11.7x more likely to kill you than homicide by firearm.

In other words, firearms homicides comprise less than 8% of the shit in the shit sandwich. An objective, statistical approach to reducing the preventable non-disease death rate in this country would prioritize reducing these other causes higher than tackling firearms homicides. The overdose death rate in particular is very troubling, since it's roughly tripled in the past 15 years. This increase accounts for twice as many lives lost than would've been saved if we'd somehow managed to eliminate all firearms homicide deaths. Yet the press practically ignores this compared to firearms homicides.

Yesterday, June 1, there was a gun-related murder-suicide at UCLA. Two people were killed. There were no other incidental injuries.

Yesterday, June 1, there was also a concert where 2 people died and 57 were hospitalized. Right now they think it was drug-related - either overdoses, or bad synthetic drugs.

By any objective measure, the second story is a bigger deal than the first one. The first story made the national news and was the headline on most news sites (883,000 articles on Google News). But the second was pretty much limited to local news (9340 articles on Google News - Fox was the only news service to carry it nationally). Drug overdoes deaths have more than doubled in the last decade, and at 47,000 per year have now become the leading cause of accidental death in the U.S., passing auto accidents at around 33,000.

The media exerts considerable bias in the stories they choose to cover. They don't like guns, so they carry a disproportionate number of stories about gun violence. They like drugs, so they regularly ignore stories about the growing drug abuse problem. The stats I linked to above probably come as a complete surprise to most readers, because the media simply hasn't been giving it as much attention as it deserves, concentrating instead on publicizing their their other pet "issues." You can either believe whatever the media spoon-feeds you. Or you can educate yourself, do your own research, and figure out where the true problems are.

Drug abuse deaths have more than doubled in the last decade. They've now passed car accidents as the leading cause of accidental death. This is probably the biggest scourge in the U.S. this century, and most people are clueless it's even happening because the media isn't reporting it.

Yesterday there was a murder-suicide at UCLA which left two people dead and ended with no further incident, and a concert where 2 people died and an additional 57 were hospitalized after apparent drug overdoses. By any objective measure, the second is the bigger story. But the first made national news and was the biggest headline of the day. The second was only local news, with Fox the only national news outlet carrying the story according to Google News. Because a disproportionate number of people in the media think "guns bad, drugs good," and promote the gun death stories while suppressing the drug death stories.

What real good comes of these periodic surveys? What actions are taken as a result? What policies change because of this?

None, none, none.

Seems to me that it is merely an opportunity for a bunch of academics and Narcissistic Pedants to go around clucking about how some people are Stuuupid and don't believe evolution.

Does it really affect you? How about Anti_vaxxers? People who as a whole, are left leaning hippies. Yet, we don't see the wholesale derision of the Hippies for holding anti-vaccine beliefs.

How about Stoners? They (and most of Slashdot) will defend smoking weed all day long and deny that it's harmful. Yet It's known to makes you stupid.

Give it a rest. No one really cares if people believe in evolution of not. If you want to seem really smart, as them about Gravity Waves and then cluck about how smart you are when they can't explain them.

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, it can be mildly addictive. Their claims are modest, and credible.

        http://www.drugabuse.gov/publi...

It's difficult to estimate the frequency of contamination of marijuana with other substances. But fairly frequent contamination is documented in "Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential", By Ethan B Russo

        https://books.google.com/books...

Ethan cites Johnson's old study of 8000 samples, with a wide array of contaminants, including tobacco and PCP. Johnson's study was from 30 years ago: an article in the Smithsonian magazine from March, 2015 cites the increasing levels of heavy metals and mold in modern marijuana:

          http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...

So I'm afraid that the idea that pot is automatically uncontaminated and therefore safer than tobacco is ill-founded. It may be _less_ harmful, and have a _lower_ level of contamination. But it's apparently quite frequent to find things in actual testing that should not be in pot for human use.

Something seems odd about the health-related care for drug use number. It seems much too high. I did a google search and this is the first thing that came up. The NIH drug abuse guys put the number at 11 billion USD, which seems more likely to me, given that most illegal drug use is just cannabis.

Something seems odd about the health-related care for drug use number. It seems much too high. I did a google search and this is the first thing that came up. The NIH drug abuse guys put the number at 11 billion USD, which seems more likely to me, given that most illegal drug use is just cannabis.

A direct cause means, if I take action A, then the result is B. There is no other factor that influences the process. If I drink a quart of concentrated sulfuric acid, nothing about my mental state, previous training or knowledge or physical ability will change the resulting course of events.

An indirect (or if you'd like some finer shades of grey, Proximate, Unforeseeable, and Remote Causes) cause is one that is a contributing factor. Some small number of people who ingest cannabis, when combined with OTHER FACTORS, do things that are stupid, or possibly dangerous or deadly to themselves or others. Tens of thousands of people ingest cannabis every day, without jumping out of windows or hurting themselves or others in any way. Actually, "tens of thousands" is probably a very low estimate. According to a 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, there were 19.8 million past-month users.

If cannabis use was a direct cause of people jumping out windows, or harming themselves or others, why are there so few such incidents when compared to the rate of usage?

Cocaine is really difficult to overdose on, especially at such a young age. People who die from cocaine usually have a heart attack and are usually close to having one anyway. "Pills" is overly general. Opiates (oxycontin, heroin, morphene, fentanyl) are 99.9% of the overdoses that affect otherwise healthy people.

The actual overdose rates don't seem to support that on the surface, unless heroin is almost exclusively being used by healthy people, and cocaine is being used almost exclusively by physically frail individuals. http://www.drugabuse.gov/relat...

And basically the same things are pushed by people that drink and drive..... Sure there are some that might be able to drive without causing problems, but there are many that cannot.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publi...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

There have been many studies, and partly what you say is accurate.. it's very common for people being high driving slower.. But driving is not only avoiding causing a crash but trying to stay out of crashes that other people might cause.... And here we have the same thing as with alcohol, some people can drive, but some that cannot...

24 hour grace-period should be good for all smokers...

Despite the myth of drugs being addictive rather addiction being a disease or addiction being a triggerable personality trait or addiction being a response to misery or all the other perfectly valid models of what addiction even IS, it's important to understand that only 23% of people who use heroin are addicted: http://www.drugabuse.gov/publi...

Yes, it's more addictive than cannabis. But the dangers associated with it are mostly societal and political. See The Myth of Drug-Induced Addiction: http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/.... There is nothing wrong with recreational use of ANY drug. You just don't hear about the 'chippers' and responsible self-medicators because they aren't going out commiting crimes to fund their recreation.

Also, tolerance&dependence != addiction. Addiction is psychological. SSRI users are tolerant and dependent. They're not junkies. Even most heroin users are chippers not junkies according to the US government above---and they have the most reason to artificially inflate that number!

Also, doctors like this http://drpullen.com/cant-find-... are a pretty clear indication that all drugs should be available OTC if only because they stonewall fucking pain patients who obviously need analgesics.

All of this pisses me off so much because we COULD be reasonable about drugs and recognise them as a tool that people can and will use and teach people how to use them responsibly, but instead we'd rather persecute them and deny ourselves perfectly good problem management and solving tools in the process.

(I'm glad I'm dying soon and won't have to put up with this world much longer.)

Did you actually do any research?

On the other hand, younger people are more likely to ... develop a debilitating mental illness ...

The likelihood of developing a mental illness increases with age

"According to a rigorous health survey conducted by the CDC in 2004, an estimated 25 percent of adults in the U.S. reported having a mental illness in the previous year. Lifetime prevalence rates of mental illness in the U.S. were around 50 percent when measured back in 2004. That means in a family of four, one of you likely has a mental illness.

However, mental illness is greatly weighted toward our senior years, when things start looking pretty bleak.

On the other hand, younger people are more likely to ... develop a debilitating substance addiction ...

use of illegal drugs is increasing in the 50+ group. In other words, the older you are, the higher the risk.

On the other hand, younger people are more likely to ... commit suicide ...

The first peak in suicide rates is 15-24 years old. Given that you're not hiring high school or junior college students, we can ignore this group. Suicide rates drop for the next age cohort, and then increase with age. Specifically, suicide rates are highest for women aged 45-54, and for men aged 75 and older.

Also, men are 4x more likely to successfully commit suicide, so to continue your line of thought, maybe employers should only hire women :-)

Plenty of people get caught driving high, especially when they run into other people due to being intoxicated.

Some quotes from DrugFacts: Drugged Driving

"One NHTSA study found that in 2009, 18 percent of fatally injured drivers tested positive for at least one illicit, prescription, or over-the-counter drug (an increase from 13 percent in 2005)."

"After alcohol, THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), the active ingredient in marijuana, is the substance most commonly found in the blood of impaired drivers, fatally injured drivers, and motor vehicle crash victims. Studies in several localities have found that approximately 4 to 14 percent of drivers who sustained injury or died in traffic accidents tested positive for THC."

"A study of over 3,000 fatally injured drivers in Australia showed that when THC was present in the blood of the driver, he or she was much more likely to be at fault for the accident. Additionally, the higher the THC concentration, the more likely the driver was to be culpable."

Infographic: http://www.drugabuse.gov/sites/default/files/druggeddriving01.jpg

Your assertion that people don't OD on marijuana has little to do with what happens wrong when people use drugs and endanger others' lives.

Plenty of people get caught driving high, especially when they run into other people due to being intoxicated.

Some quotes from DrugFacts: Drugged Driving

"One NHTSA study found that in 2009, 18 percent of fatally injured drivers tested positive for at least one illicit, prescription, or over-the-counter drug (an increase from 13 percent in 2005)."

"After alcohol, THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), the active ingredient in marijuana, is the substance most commonly found in the blood of impaired drivers, fatally injured drivers, and motor vehicle crash victims. Studies in several localities have found that approximately 4 to 14 percent of drivers who sustained injury or died in traffic accidents tested positive for THC."

"A study of over 3,000 fatally injured drivers in Australia showed that when THC was present in the blood of the driver, he or she was much more likely to be at fault for the accident. Additionally, the higher the THC concentration, the more likely the driver was to be culpable."

Infographic: http://www.drugabuse.gov/sites/default/files/druggeddriving01.jpg

Your assertion that people don't OD on marijuana has little to do with what happens wrong when people use drugs and endanger others' lives.

I pushed the "stupid" button as soon as I read that. You can't just compare something to "drugs" - because different drugs work differently - and have differing levels of addictive qualities for very different reasons. For example, diploids (like Heroin) jack with your dopamine levels and are highly addictive, whereas stimulants (like cocaine) or depressants (like alcohol) can have very different affects in different people due to things like genetic factors, and mechanisms for ADD (which affect how stimulants affect you) - but in general are less addictive. Then there are things like tobacco that aren't "drugs" - but are also highly addictive.

So in other words...WTF??

(P.S. I'm not really educated in any of this kind of stuff and don't really know what I'm talking about - so don't bother correcting me)

You don't need a correction, you are spot on. Just for reference, take a look at this. To put it briefly, addiction is a change in chemistry within your brain. If you think of your brain as a precision instrument that requires a chemical balance to function properly, drugs change that balance and your brain adjusts to compensate. This is the reason why we get people addicted to alcohol, cocaine, tobacco and even caffiene. Even worse, some of those changes are so drastic it makes the withdrawal symptoms so severe that many people just cannot take it.
  Looking at this study, the only word that comes to mind is "Bullshit". For oreos to truly be addictive, they have to fundamentally change our neural chemistry. Add something like MSG or THC to it if you want an addiction, otherwise it's simply the better reward (calories/fat/sweet). Given the options available, and since rice cakes are made of famine and sorrow, who wouldn't pick the oreo?

Out here in the Wild and Woolly World of America, we sell all sorts of dangerous things that can kill you if you breath them - we laugh at silly things like helium (and especially nitrous oxide). Hell son, we'll even sell you a gun.

We can do this because we're exceptional. We're Americans. We can do things that nobody else in the frikk'in world can do.

Like shut down the entire government over health care.

USA! USA! USA!

It is estimated that only about 23% of people who use heroin become dependent on it.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana

I cite NIDA who says that marijuana users suffer from severe memory problems, social problems, lowered IQ and much higher risk of heart attack. You literally are deluded for using it.

You, sir, stand as vivid evidence for the need of an intelligence test to enable the voting privilege. I suggest you permanently cease using Faux Newz as your primary information source,

I have little to no interest in Fox News, Huffington Post, talk radio, and other such dumbed-down media. On the other hand, the National Institute on Drug Abuse has something to say on the dumbing-down effects of marijuana.

take up a great hobby like knitting or perhaps crocheting

According to my grandmother, it was a man that taught her to crochet. I think it's a little boring myself, but it would certainly be a better hobby than pot.

and never, ever breed.

Surely you do not feel so threatened by my manliness as to make a comment like that.

How many people do you know that have tried heroin and not gotten addicted?

Because why trust statistics when we can share anecdotes instead?

According to the NIDA it is estimated that "about 23 percent of individuals who use heroin become dependent on it".

According to the 2011 Monitoring the Future" report about 1.4% of 12th graders have tried heroin at some point within their lifetime (which is a lower level than the late 90s but has been stable since 2003).

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_cannabis

But of course, that's all lies and false propaganda right?

Considering that your first link is to the official Government Office of Anti-Drug Propaganda, and the second one explicitly denies that any conclusive evidence regarding marijuana use and long-term ill effects exists? I'd say it's more a test of your own gullibility than the veracity of your cited sources.

Hey, I've got this bridge for sale in NYC, perhaps you're interested in purchasing it...

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_cannabis

But of course, that's all lies and false propaganda right?

Reference please?

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/infofacts/hallucinogens-lsd-peyote-psilocybin-pcp

Most users of LSD voluntarily decrease or stop its use over time. LSD is not considered an addictive drug since it does not produce compulsive drug-seeking behavior. However, LSD does produce tolerance, so some users who take the drug repeatedly must take progressively higher doses to achieve the state of intoxication that they had previously achieved.

I don't have the time to dig up a scientific paper but the article does have sources at the end.

Honestly, you have to be convinced of the logic of his argument? http://www.med-help.net/DrugAbuse.html http://teens.drugabuse.gov/mom/tg_effects.asp You want any more do a brief Google search. Look, I used to...have a friend who was an abuser, years and years ago. There are any number of personal experiences...of his, where I saw an addict switching between crack and meth, then break out the Riddlin if that's what was around. An addict goes for the high, doesn't matter how he/she gets there.

who uses a cigarette lighter socket for cigarettes any more???

You can always look at: http://www.ghb-information.com/ghb.htm http://dancesafe.org/documents/druginfo/ghb.php http://www.drugabuse.gov/Infofacts/RohypnolGHB.htm l http://www.drugabuse.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol16N2/Conf erence.html

You can always look at: http://www.ghb-information.com/ghb.htm http://dancesafe.org/documents/druginfo/ghb.php http://www.drugabuse.gov/Infofacts/RohypnolGHB.htm l http://www.drugabuse.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol16N2/Conf erence.html

The results of the studies corroborate those of previous driving simulator and closed-course tests by indicating that THC in inhaled doses up to 300 g/kg has significant, yet not dramatic, dose-related impairing effects on driving performance (cf. Smiley, 1986). Standard deviation of lateral position in the road-tracking test was the most sensitive measure for revealing THC's adverse effects.

Wikipedia, NIDA, the National Cancer Institute, American Society of Addiction Medicine, and the Merck Manual all seem to like my assessment of the term as deprecated.

Get over it, the term is obsolete.

Source: Jack E. Henningfield, PhD for NIDA, Reported by Philip J. Hilts, New York Times, Aug. 2, 1994 "Is Nicotine Addictive? It Depends on Whose Criteria You Use."

While I'll admit that the chart and graph on the page seem to support your claim, drugwarfacts.org doesn't offer any source for the data in the chart (and graph). Especially considering the title of the (nine year old) NYT article, I'll have to remain doubtful of your claim that tobacco is more addictive than heroin, but I would love to see the data from NIDA that backs up your claim.

Your next claim--that heroin is less deadly than tobacco--is even worse. The link you provided lists the total number of deaths per year for heroin and tobacco. Fair enough, since they report 430,700 tobacco deaths and 16,926 deaths due to all licit and illicit drugs. But your claim is on the danger to an individual. Here's a quote from NIDA:

Heroin abuse is associated with serious health conditions, including fatal overdose, spontaneous abortion, collapsed veins, and infectious diseases, including HIV/AIDS and hepatitis.

I can't remember the last time I heard of anyone dying from a fatal overdose of nicotine--and I've known a number of chain-smokers. I think the low number of deaths due to illicit drug use means our policies work.

Your final claim concerns additives to heroin: the health concerns NIDA is referring to here are for the heroin itself--the NIDA website lists the dangers posed by the additives, and they are serious. However, the fact that the additives are dangerous does not change the fact that the heroin is dangerous, too.

I'm not against the legalization of some drugs which are currently illegal, but I am against distorting the truth. Oh yeah, and my .sig is from "The Kids in the Hall;" it doesn't mean I'm a junky.

<mumbles>I don't know why I bother, some people just cannot have their minds changed.