Slashdot Mirror

If we take something obvious like starvation, its extremely rare in the USA (as an example) and in almost all western countries.

So low that it doesn't have its category in USA yearly deaths. Probably below HIV which is 6500 per year according to this : http://drugwarfacts.org/chapte...

And to cover the extremes, according to this study, there was no increase in starvation related deaths during the great depression either. http://www.pnas.org/content/10...

However there was an increase in Suicides, so that should be calculated, but also negligible compared to starvation in communist/Marxists countries.

Also notable is the great depression was not caused by free markets, but government manipulation of these markets. One of the worst being the creation of the Federal Reserve.

Now, I agree, I'll have to dig and dont have time right at this moment to see if there are studies that cover historical deaths that could be related to capitalism. But the truth is, it is unlikely that you can calculated them, because capitalism creates wealth. Im not sure what kind of deaths you could count as being directly related to capitalism, that you would not also find in a socialist system.

Which is why Im concentrating on starvation... because it is obvious. Others would be direct killings of people who do not follow the "party" line in communist China, Russia, etc...

It sounds to me like you haven't really gotten very familiar with the available literature on drug treatment, but this site will give you all the references you'd ever want: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cm...
The U.S., being one of the most conservative countries, looks down on methadone treatment because it goes against the puritanical ethic of abstinence in all things. That's purely based on dogma though, and we continue to employ ineffective, outdated, unscientific treatment methods because of that dogma. In reality, methadone has such a high efficacy that in any other context (imagine a drug that cured >90% of cancer, or heart disease, or depression) it would be considered a miracle treatment.

Let me quote you from earlier:

What mostly matters, to them, is what they're *feeling*. It doesn't matter much whether it works or not, it's mostly about the emotions, the math is beside the point.

That sounds a lot to me like you're disparaging liberals for relying on feelings. Which is why I pointed out the illogical, feeling-based positions that conservatives like yourself hold. You're living in the metaphorical glass house of emotionally-driven ideology, and throwing stones at liberals in the sense that you are criticizing them for using emotions to drive their policy positions.

I don't think it's wrong to care. But I think it's wrong to put ideology before factual evidence. And especially wrong to criticize others for doing it while you yourself are just as bad or worse. No matter how much you care, no matter how much you believe you are right, if the evidence shows that you're wrong you need to revise your position, or at the very least admit that your position is irrational.

• Missouri: Of 38,970 applicants, 48 positive drug tests. Percentage: 0.03%
• Utah: Of 9,552 applicants. 29 positive drug tests.Percentage: 0.29%
• Kansas: Of 2,783 applicants, 11 positive drug tests. Percentage: 0.39%
• Mississippi: Of 3,656 applicants, 2 positive drug tests. Percentage: 0.05%
• Tennessee: Of 16,017 applicants, 37 positive drug tests. Percentage: 0.23%
• Arizona: Of 142,424 applicants, 3 positive drug tests. Percentage: 0.002%

Source: http://thinkprogress.org/econo...

• In 2014, US population: 318.9 million.
• Illicit and Marijuana Drug Use During 2014: 44,157,000.
• Percentage: 13.84%

Source: Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. (2015). 2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed Tables. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Rockville, MD, - See more at: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cm...

> The fact that something so debilitating, so damaging to the user's health, is sold over the counter while other less harmful drugs are strictly regulated says a lot about the true functioning of the FDA.

Wait, what, we're not talking about Alcohol ? :-)

* Hard to Others + Self

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cm...

Overview of Basic Data

(Number Of People Serving Time For Drug Offenses In US Prisons)

Federal: "Between 2001 and 2013, more than half of prisoners serving sentences of more than a year in federal facilities were convicted of drug offenses (table 15 and table 16). On September 30, 2013 (the end of the most recent fiscal year for which federal offense data were available), 98,200 inmates (51% of the federal prison population) were imprisoned for possession, trafficking, or other drug crimes."

State: "Drug offenders comprised 16% (210,200 inmates) of the total state prison population in 2012. Twenty-five percent of female prisoners were serving time for drug offenses, compared to 15% of male prisoners. Similar proportions of white, black, and Hispanic offenders were convicted of drug and public-order crimes."

What country are you from?
Here in America it is the cause of millions of arrests, up until very recently New York City used 'Stop and Frisk' as a way to target groups particularly for marijuana
In much of the rest of America, any time that a person is pulled over they and their car are searched 'to check for weapons'

Here is a piece of info from the ACLU:
"According to the ACLU’s original analysis, marijuana arrests now account for over half of all drug arrests in the United States. Of the 8.2 million marijuana arrests between 2001 and 2010, 88% were for simply having marijuana. Nationwide, the arrest data revealed one consistent trend: significant racial bias. Despite roughly equal usage rates, Blacks are 3.73 times more likely than whites to be arrested for marijuana."
https://www.aclu.org/gallery/m...

Here are numbers from the FBI identifying over 600,000 marijuana possession arrests a year:
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cm...

I don't think so. In university some pharmacy or chemistry guys could scrounge pure ethanol. (98 or 99%.) Screwdrives with that were nasty.

But nobody became addicted to that after 1 or 2 dozes, have they? Heroin, on the other hand, is so addictive, a decent percentage of humans get hooked after only a few dozes.

Yep, any human who only has a few dozes, immediately becomes addicted to sleeping for the rest of their lives.

I don't think so. In university some pharmacy or chemistry guys could scrounge pure ethanol. (98 or 99%.) Screwdrives with that were nasty.

But nobody became addicted to that after 1 or 2 dozes, have they? Heroin, on the other hand, is so addictive, a decent percentage of humans get hooked after only a few dozes.

If that was really the case then people who were given morphine drips in hospitals would have high rates of addiction after leaving the hospital. But this doesn't happen. People who get addicted to Opioids either are in constant, on-going pain (due to injury or other reason) or are purely recreational users who are likely responding to external stresses. Basically, the entire model of addiction you are using is wrong and the numbers on addiction bear this out quite clearly. And before you tell me about "soldier's sickness" after the Civil war, remember that most of those soldiers had on-going, serious pain management issues (due to missing limbs and poor quality surgery at the time). This is why our "war on drugs" has been such a monumental failure, our basic model of addiction is wrong and leads you to believe non-sense (like your post). Heroin is certainly addictive but addiction is a response to stress and pain, not a moral failing or a bio-chemical crutch. A better model is provided by the Rat Park research. Policy using this model as a basis will be much more effective if for no other reason than its a far more accurate model of how humans behave than the practically medieval way we deal with addiction right now.

I don't think so. In university some pharmacy or chemistry guys could scrounge pure ethanol. (98 or 99%.) Screwdrives with that were nasty.

But nobody became addicted to that after 1 or 2 dozes, have they? Heroin, on the other hand, is so addictive, a decent percentage of humans get hooked after only a few dozes.

Pretty much everything you say in your comment is wrong. Heroin is much more addictive than alcohol. (That same link shows that a survey of medical experts rated heroin as twice as physically harmful as alcohol.) People do die from heroin withdrawal. The long term effects of heroin use include gangrene near the injection site.

It may not be a 'good' idea. It may simply be less bad that keeping them criminalized. Addiction is a medical diagnosis and it makes more sense to keep it in the medical sphere than the criminal one. Being addicted to anything is bad for you (that's inherent in the term). The consequences of that addiction can be modified by decriminalizing the drug (but keeping it regulated). Nobody but nobody is suggesting that we just drop cocaine packets from the sky. Well, perhaps a few folks might like that.....

I'll buy that. Arresting people for merely using drugs is probably not a good strategy. They should be enrolled in addiction prevention programs instead. But dealing such drugs should remain illegal, IMO. If it's illegal to buy penicillin or ketamine without a prescription from a doctor, I don't see why it should be legal to purchase drugs such as heroin.

Citation please.

"It is estimated that 32% of tobacco users will become addicted, 23% of heroin users, 17% of cocaine users, and 15% of alcohol users." So I was a bit off. It's more like 1.5x. And you are right, nicotine is more addictive. But according to a survey of psychologists and medical providers, heroin is 2x as physically harmful to the user as alcohol or tobacco, so I still think that it deserves special status.

According to the link below, approximately 5% of people in state prisons in 2012 were incarcerated for possession with no other crime. http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cm... I think it is highly dependent on where you live and the color of your skin. There is a huge racial disparity in police letting offenders off with a warning.

Heavy pot use linked to memory loss, schizophrenia link

Wrong.

[regulation] affected people of all sexes, races, classes, and ages

Read up on the current state of affairs.

25,692 alcohol induced deaths per year in the US. 11,078 firearm homicides in the US.

Vehicle related deaths are greater than either despite car safety features greatly improving the survivability of collisions over the last 20 years. Although finding statistics (probably gathering accurate ones also) is very difficult I would be willing to bet the number of serious injuries and monetary costs of vehicle collisions dwarfs either alcohol or firearms. I think driving is more applicable to your argument than either guns or alcohol.

> That is because alcohol isn't a drug.

LOL. Wut??
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Addictive_Properties

I concur with your point that the majority of people against drugs are hypocrites. 'Sure, Caffeine, Nicotine, and Alcoho are all "fine" but those OTHER drugs are "bad".'

Oh boy, what rubbish. Let's address some of your points:

1. You failed to show a correlation between drug prohibition and incarceration. Do we have substantially more people in jail *because* of the war on drugs? If so, prove it.

2. It doesn't matter that everyone consumes drugs at the same level (to be proven, where is your source?). What matters is who deals and distributors said drugs. I highly doubt that as many white people distribute drugs as other ethnic groups and it makes perfect sense to dish out longer jail time to distributors than users. So what are you really complaining about here?

3. There is a reduction (on a gross-level, not net), but the population is increasing and drug distributors are better funded than people enforcing the law. Are you implying that ineffective drug enforcement means we should give up altogether? Sex trade and child labor is on the rise too, should we stop trying to curb those crimes too?

4. I'm not going to argue for/against this.

5. I'm sure terrorism had nothing to do with it. The world is changing my friend, drugs are only part of the problem.

6. I'm not sure what you're referring to here. The DEA and main police force are separate beats. I trust my local police force just fine, thank you very much.

7. Last time I checked, drug use was illegal (and enforced as such) in most countries around the world, so I have no idea what you're referring to.

8. Poor logic. Again, should we legalize all form of criminal acts for fear of what the black market will do? Laws exist for morale reasons. Selling drugs is like selling Alcohol to a known Alcoholic. It is highly addictive and prays on people's weakness.

9. Many people experiment, but most move on and hold nothing but respect for law enforcement. Most people don't smoke pot and do crack through the rest of their life.

10. That's a problem that affects all felons. Where do you draw the line? Shouldn't we try to improve the life of *all* felons? Why the focus on drug felons alone?

Obviously you failed to watch the debate.

1. 50% of the Federal inmates, 25% of state inmates for drug offenses: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs

2. You're just being racist.
http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/07/study-whites-more-likely-to-abuse-drugs-than-blacks/
http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/06/19/race-drugs-and-law-enforcement-united-states#_Part_I:_Race

A recent study in Seattle is illustrative. Although the majority of those who shared, sold, or transferred serious drugs[17] in Seattle are white (indeed seventy percent of the general Seattle population is white), almost two-thirds (64.2%) of drug arrestees are black.

3. I don't even understand you're point in the first sentence. It's totally incoherent. The second, about the sex trade, completely misses the point because the number of people who use prostitutes is vastly smaller than those who use drugs. The drug war is like outlawing french fries -- sure, they make you fat but so many people use them, it's pointless to push against the tide. The same cannot be said about prostitution. If we ever get to the point that is the case, then we can address that -- right now, it's just off topic. A diversion.

5. As Greenwald pointed out in his debate, the egregious civil liberties violations of the last decade, first took root in the drug war.

6. Google "drug war militarization of the police force" and pick an article: https://www.google.com/search?q=drug+war+militarization+of+the+police+force

7. Again, you totally didn't watch the debate

Do we have substantially more people in jail *because* of the war on drugs?

Are you serious?.

-jcr

Do you think that by legalising drugs, people would immediately jump at the chance and start using?

Look at the countries like Netherlands. Here's an interesting statistics for you: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/netherlands_v_us#sthash.JwgR5Pg9.dpbs

It's similar to countries that have legalised prostitution. It happens, but to similar extent like the rest of the world. It's just regulated and kept out of the slums (for the most part).

I mean I agree it's stupid, but it has zero effect on me or anyone I know.

That's what we call observation bias. If the people you know had gotten caught with drugs and jailed, then you probably wouldn't know them.

There's a lot of people, a significant percentage of the US, who get lost in the drug war. I gather it's something like 300-400k in jail solely for drug related offenses (something like half of all federal prisoners plus about 20% of state level prisoners). In addition there's a lot of people on parole for such offenses.

In addition to prison time, there are other fines (assets used in commission of drug related offenses are routinely seized and sold off by police departments and governments) and punishments (such as being unable to vote, if you commit a felony).

It's worth noting that certain ethic groups, particularly, African Americans make up an inordinately large portion of this population.

I don't think it's fair to them that they should suffer from the various heavy criminal or social penalties for getting caught when so many others do not. It's a sort of bizarre anti-lottery where those caught lose out on many opportunities in life for the sole reason that they were the ones who got caught and couldn't get out of it.

How exactly would your theoretical honeypot work? Only buyers need to provide anything remotely identifiable (e.g., shipping address). Do you think the DEA cares about going after kids who buy $100 worth of LSD?

Considering that arresting end users is pretty much the DEA's bread-and-butter, I'd say yes, yes they do.

From above link:

(2010 - crime - drug manufacturing arrests) Of the 1,638,846 arrests for drug law violations in 2010, 81.9% (1,342,215) were for possession of a controlled substance. Only 18.1% (296,631) were for the sale or manufacture of a drug.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Forfeiture

Around here (in the U.S.) the police put stickers and lights on seized autos and use them as cop cars. Somewhere along the line we gave them the ability to take our stuff and use it because 'drugs are bad m'kay'.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Forfeiture

Death Statistics:

Cardiovascular diseases:
779,367

Malignant neoplasms:
568,668

Lack of Health Insurance:
44,789

Drug induced:
37,485

Suicide:
36,547

Motor vehicle accidents:
36,284

Septicemia (infections):
35,587

by Firearms:
31,224

Accidental poisoning:
30,504

Alcohol induced:
23,199

Homicide:
16,591

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV):
9,424

Viral hepatitis: 7,652
Cannabis (Marijuana) 0

And of course, Tylenol, which can be very easily overdosed, and is available to children

And of course candy (and breakfast cereals), which cause diabetes and heart disease and which is sold and marketed to children.

Reference:
http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

Nonsense. It is like saying that if the police catch me selling several bags of drug, they should leave me free (and let me keep the drug) until the trial finishes.

No.

It's like if the government stopped you and seized your property and either kept & used it or sold it, keeping the proceeds, without any due process or determination of guilt required. ...Oh, wait.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Forfeiture

Strat

I'm sure the parent to your post meant what he said as a joke, but you raise a very good point. According to what I've been able to find, well over 600,000 people cross the U.S.-Mexican border every day. I don't know what a legitimate statistical study would uncover, exactly, but I think it's reasonable to guess that far more people will die of cancer because of this than will die from terrorist attacks. Even if someone is going to argue that this is really directed at the drug war more than anything else, I still say the numbers are not likely to justify the cost in cancer. Certainly, no amount of marijuana confiscated because of this can justify the use of these scanners, because the marijuana deaths per annum is zero.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Jails#Average You don't go to jail for 10 years, on average, for even violent felonies. Try doing a bit of research before you post. It'll makes you sound less American. ;)

Unregulated marijuana on the black market is much more likely to be cut with meth or some other non-marijuana drug. It's also much more likely to be sold by someone selling meth, heroin, crack, or oxycontin than a pack of marijuana at a convenience store next to the Marlboros would be.

Gateway drug? Well, maybe, but I've never seen a definitive study. Gateway drug dealers? Yes, definitely. I've seen this happen.

It seems very few medical marijuana patients in California go on to harder drugs by proportion. a study done through the University of New Hampshire says that the so-called "gateway effect" is probably less harmful to teens than getting stigmatized by a pot arrest, since unemployment in a person's twenties is a bigger factor in the use of other drugs. (Yes, that's a link to a pro-pot site, but they cite the sources.) There is other evidence that any gateway between marijuana and harder drugs is small, possibly smaller than that of underage drinking and cigarette use, and that it may have more to do with marijuana sharing its illegal status with other drugs than anything else.

Likewise, illegal prostitution is much more likely to involve violence, disease, robbery, theft, kidnapped or runaway workers, underreported income or tax evasion, and other problems than legal and regulated prostitution. Leaving it illegal is like inviting these problems upon the whores and their clients.

Both issues also use more law enforcement time and budget that could be going to either helping with real crime and combating drugs that are actually really harmful like crystal meth. Maybe even some of that budget could be saved. They also lead to other problems for the government like more undocumented workers, more problems collecting taxes, more incarceration costs, more court costs, more public health problems, more money laundering, etc.

In fact, if the government is actually concerned about terrorists using drugs and hookers to get money, they should make all that business show up on audited books. It's just the right thing to do for the safety and security of the American people.

Also, get it off the street corners and into registered brothels or call-out services. Kids see those street hookers, and ask Mommy what they're doing. Think of the children!

On the one hand, they tried to remove an employee in a critical job who had been linked - via a Facebook comment - to drugs.

That "link" reminds me of the link between pot and hard drugs.

the effects of addiction of the worst (coke. meth, heroin) is far worse the effects of the war on drugs

No, they aren't. The effects of heroin addiction are constipation, and withdrawal that makes you feel like you have the flu when you don't get your fix. The effects of the War on (Some) Drugs is innocent people being gunned down in blitzkrieg raids, the highest incarceration rate on the planet, the continual erosion of civil liberties, and paranoia in people -- like yourself -- who are unfamiliar with the drugs in question.

i'm glad your victorian upper middle class examples...

Richard Pryor was "victorian upper middle class"?

yes, i am willing to lock away mafioso who don't care about destroying lives in order to get a buck, i have no problem with that

Except of course those are a tiny fraction of the people you're locking up. You're locking up recreational users who aren't hurting anyone, junkies who are harmless so long as they can get their fix, and small time dealer who are no more heartless than the guy at 7-11 who sells cigarettes and booze.

you apparently are happy with millions of lives destroyed because you have no appreciation what easy access to a highly addictive substance does to people and the freedom it destroys. you should be ashamed

Friend, I'm from Baltimore. Don't tell me what easy access to highly addictive substance does; abut 10% of the adults in the city are heroin users. Most are harmless. For the rest, prohibition only adds to their problems, while it pumps up the murder rate and corrodes the morale and ethics of local police.

It seems there may be a kernel of truth in this whole decriminalizing debate.
Look at f.e. statistics of cannabis use, in particular a comparison between the USA and the Netherlands. Where do you think the lifetime prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+) is higher?

If you answered: "Netherlands of course, it's legal there", I'd like to refer you to http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/67 Point 8.

Usa 36,9% vs 17,0% in the Netherlands.
Maybe it's time to rethink some strategies to combat drug use. The current ones don't seem to work very well, at least from my point of view. But, alas, I'm no politician and therefore lobbyists don't pay me lots of cash to state their point of view.

You are not making any sense. There are 5 times more white drug users than black drug users, yet black users are sent to prison at 13x the rate of white users. Both are breaking the law, but only black drug users are incarcerated. I really can't understand why you refuse to see the double standard. That's not "some" enforcement bias. That's injustice.

I'm not sure where those statistics came from, so I ignored them. The article you cite lacked a source for that tidbit.

Have no fear, I ran out and Googled it a bit, and didn't find any substantiating data. All I found was this (cite number 2). which doesn't back up the claim that whites use more drugs than blacks. Though yes, blacks are incarcerated at a significantly higher rate than whites. Though there still is some gap here, since the study isn't clear at the other circumstances. Type of drugs, previous record, and activity leading to the arrest are also significant factors, and missing factors, in these statistics.

So why aren't the affluent neighborhoods patrolled with the same zeal? Because the affluent citizens, who have much more wealth and power, wouldn't tolerate it, and so they're allowed to play by different rules.

In part you are correct, though somewhat unnuanced. Enforcement patterns are dictated by more than race. Where there is more crime, especially the type that more effects the ghettos, there are more cops, and stricter enforcement. Having a gang task force operate a sting in the affluent neighborhoods would be a waste, but having them operate at a high level in poorer, gang infested neighborhoods makes sense, no matter the ethnic breakdown.

Also, discrepancies here are not necessarily racial, but rather based on socio-economic status. I live in an town where areas of the town are stricken with rampant meth-amphetamine usage. The areas where this is most concentrated are largely poor white neighborhoods (with some overlap with Hispanic neighborhoods, though it is still mostly a white problem in these too), in these neighborhoods you would not want to walk outside at night. These neighborhoods also have a large police presence. If you drive through, and are in a nasty looking car, you have a higher probability of being pulled over than if you were in a richer place.

The police look for drugs in x neighborhood because drugs are a problem in x neighborhood.

Yes, there is a bit of racial issues involved, but it isn't the whole story.

And polls mean what, exactly, when the vast majority of news sources that educate the public on the subject are inherently conservative corporations that have a vested interest in ensuring that marijuana remains illegal? The Drug War is a useful tool of social control, and also happens to be good for big business, along with prisons and prison labour. I would wager that poll statistic would change rather quickly if the basic facts on marijuana and crime/incarceration became better known.

And polls mean what, exactly, when the vast majority of news sources that educate the public on the subject are inherently conservative corporations that have a vested interest in ensuring that marijuana remains illegal? The Drug War is a useful tool of social control, and also happens to be good for big business, along with prisons and prison labour. I would wager that poll statistic would change rather quickly if the basic facts on marijuana and crime/incarceration became better known.

- Among other incidents, at the school with the largest number of African-American students in the Ivy League, nooses and racial epithets have been anonymously scattered around professors' offices.

- Differential prosecution and punishment of drug offenses and other minor nonviolent offenses (with black men incarcerated at eight times the rate of white men).

- Black Americans were specifically targeted to receive sub-prime loans, even when they could have qualified for prime-rate loans, with a differential result that probably pushed a lot of African American families into losing their homes. (another on higher rates: here.)

- The USAF considers it still necessary to actively recruit minorities into the officer corps, which is over 80% white.

I could go on, but I've done enough research for you so far. Similar results can be found for differential treatment of other minorities, as well as women (who are actually a slim majority, but still the disempowered group).

Note that these are mostly instances of institutionalized racism or sexism -- where there is officially no difference on the law books or in the policies, but organizations still have cultures that privilege whiteness and maleness, and corresponding values and attitudes, above women and people of color. This is the kind of racism and sexism that is alive and well today, but is all the more insidious, because most of us white males are trained not to be even remotely aware of its existence, or (when confronted with it) to brush it off as isolated incidents, a few bad apples, etc. The biggest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist, as they say.

Also, this is all without getting into stereotypical portrayals in the media. For instance, when was the last time you saw a movie with an Asian American hero who didn't either (1) know kung fu or (2) flail helplessly in the clutches of his own geekery? When have you seen an Asian American love interest? (Outside of Harold & Kumar, which was explicitly intended as a corrective to that attitude in media portrayals). Have you ever noticed that if there's a black character in an action movie, he's almost certainly one of the first to die, and nearly guaranteed to be dead by the end? (c.f. Battlestar Galactica, with plenty of other instances easily discoverable). I won't go on, but these sorts of cases have a powerful effect on society's perception of people of color, and on PoC's perceptions of themselves, too.

Dude, you have serious reading issues. I'd have that looked into.

How you can think onthemedia.org is a blog is just beyond me. It's a web site for a radio news/interview show. The page I linked is a transcript of an interview with this guy, who's something of an expert on the issue.

Further reading issues: none of the sources you link says anything like "fake studies ... targeted to make doctors think they are real and therefore describe pills that kill their patients, or at least make them suffer". It's as I said: real information, but cherry-picked.

I'd say the exact point of this, is to make doctors prescribe drugs, with the only reason being profit. Which was exactly my point. :)

You're entitled to admit a mistake (we all make them) but not to spin that admission as an what-I-really-meant. When you accuse people of publishing "fake studies" that "kill" you're spouting bullshit.

Well, at least it's original bullshit. I apologize for accusing you of spreading somebody else's bullshit.

What's really ironic is your little jab a Wikipedia. At least they admit they have a problem with people posting fourth-hand information and are trying to do something about it. You, on the other hand, do the exact same thing and refuse to admit what you're doing. That makes you as dishonest as any drug company flack.

Two of the most addictive and dangerous drugs, liquor and cigarettes, are legal, and regulated by the government.

All the other "bad drugs" are unregulated, untaxed, and criminalized.

Why?

Surely it's not to support a massive prison industry, create a culture of fear, prop up the liquor and tobacco industries, or continue to suck tax dollars into a war (one of many) that's been declared lost decades ago.

Actually, I think you completely misunderstand why many people want drugs like marijuana legalised.

It's not just so you can light a joint any time that you want without risk of being caught. There are a lot more important issues here.

It's because the current system is harmful, wastes money, and doesn't work. It's got sweet FA to do about taking the drugs themselves to solve society's problems. It's about legalising drugs in order to solve problems the Drug War and prohibition creates. It's about solving the issues of: wasting public money in a drugs war that has had no tangible effect; treating drug users as criminals and overburdening the prison population (not to mention the cost of incarceration, the cost to the economy, and the social costs as well); it's about focusing on the real issue, which is addiction and rehabilitation.

Sit down and read through this website and hopefully you'll understand why the War on Drugs is bogus, and why marijuana (at the very least) should be legalised. I, myself, take the view that the Dutch model is the way to go (so I go further than just legalisation of marijuana).

Incidentally, in my opinion it's not that the voting public don't want it, it's that it's not an issue on the agenda in the media itself, which shapes the opinions of the voting public (never mind that the US government and certain banks have and continue to make extremely large profits as a result of drugs). The "War on Drugs" has been and is extremely lucrative for big business, and for the government, in terms of profits and control, and that's one of the underlying reasons why the myths of the dangers of legalising drugs like marijuana continue to dominate discourse.

If I grow my own organically, I know what is in it.

Find me a credible source showing any significant number of deaths caused by marijuana as the primary source.

Prescription drugs kill more people annually than cannabis.

Let me say that again so you understand. Legally prescribed drugs, ones that are LEGAL by definition kill more people each year than marijuana.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/28281668/

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

State prisons held a total of 1,274,600 inmates on all charges at yearend 2004. In absolute numbers an estimated 633,700 inmates in State prison at yearend 2004 (the latest year for which offense data is available) were held for violent offenses: 151,500 for murder, 178,900 for robbery, 129,400 for assault, and 153,800 for rape and other sexual assaults. In addition, 265,600 inmates were held for property offenses, 249,400 for drug offenses, and 88,900 for public-order offenses.

Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, Couture, Heather, and Harrison, Paige M., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2006 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, December 2007), NCJ219416, p. 24, Appendix Table 9.

1.2 million people in state prisons, .6 million in for violent offenses, and you'll see that it's around half.

Federal prisons were estimated to hold 176,268 sentenced inmates as of Sept. 30, 2006. Of these, 16,507 were incarcerated for violent offenses, including 2,923 for homicide, 9,645 for robbery, and 3,939 for other violent crimes. In addition, 10,015 inmates were serving time for property crimes, including 519 for burglary, 6,437 for fraud, and 3,059 for other property offenses. A total of 93,751 were incarcerated for drug offenses. Also, 54,336 were incarcerated for public-order offenses, incluging 19,496 for immigration offenses and 24,298 for weapons offenses.

Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, Couture, Heather, and Harrison, Paige M., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2006 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, December 2007), NCJ219416, p. 26, Appendix Table 13.

These facts and others at http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/62

176k people in federal prison, 16k for violent offenses, and it's about 90% of the people who are in for non-violent offenses.

It's also very trivial to get charged with a violent offense, the sad reality is. Often police add on resisting arrest/misdemeanor assault on a police officer (in at least one jurisdiction I've lived in - DC - the crimes are the same) to just about any arrest where the person made any attempt at all to get away.

The ridiculous prison industrial system that exists also creates a culture where violence makes more sense. If you're risking going to prison for decades, life, or more, for a nonviolent offense, you might as well use violence to get away. After all, if you aren't rich enough to afford a lawyer, being a good person - or even being innocent - might not keep you out of prison.

Your comment is under rated. That is exactly the point. Also, overdose typically means "died from" not "took more than recommended dose", sometimes "severe complications from". Aspirin was a miracle in its time, but there are a significant number of people that react very badly to it, from those at risk of ulcers (high stress, heavy drinkers) to those with normally low blood pressure can suddenly find themselves in a very slow painful death. If you look at "causes of accidental death" in this country, "non steroid anti-inflammatory overdose such as aspirin" accounted for ~7,600 deaths in 2000. Compare this to 17,000 for all illicit drug related and incidental deaths and 32,000 for prescription drugs and it is pretty revealing. OTC drugs are not even on the chart, yet just asprin is. Compared to many things, Aspirin is much more dangerous than people give it credit for.

Contrary to what our high school health classes teach us, many people who try or end up using these "highly addictive, highly inebriating" substances you refer to have no problem holding a job, relationship, or anything else. Legal drugs cause way more impediments to our freedom such as the freedom of life.

You sound like you either never tried drugs but are biased against them for some reason or you did try drugs and were immediately addicted to them. Either way I would suggest you do more research and see how all drugs, substances, etc are affecting people. If it's too much temptation then don't be around drugs. We all can choose not to put a substance into our bodies. Anything less and we are a slave, and our freedom doesn't matter anyway.

Ahum that had much more todo with the historical context in which these numbers come from. You know the seventies with the hippies. It is a well established fact that drugs usage in the Netherlands is considerable lower than the European average or the USA for that matter. See http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm for some hard numbers.

Marijuana is not a schedule 1 drug, and it's not a felony to smoke it.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Marijuana is a schedule 1 drug according to the DEA: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html . Perhaps you meant to say that it's utterly absurd that a drug like marijuana is in the worst schedule of drugs, despite the fact that marijuana is less addictive than alcohol, and has caused zero confirmed deaths since the dawn of history, compared to thousands of fatalities per year for aspirin overdoses. http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm

But you're right, smoking isn't a felony. Smoking usually requires possession, though, which is a misdemeanor or felony depending both on the amount and on the presence or absence of an elusive quality called "intent to distribute". Sadly, police officers have been caught planting this evidence on innocent people:

http://wcbstv.com/local/Undercover.NYPD.Officers.2.759420.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070427/ai_n19063646

Read point 5.
Federal prisons were estimated to hold 176,268 sentenced inmates as of Sept. 30, 2006. Of these, 16,507 were incarcerated for violent offenses, including 2,923 for homicide, 9,645 for robbery, and 3,939 for other violent crimes. In addition, 10,015 inmates were serving time for property crimes, including 519 for burglary, 6,437 for fraud, and 3,059 for other property offenses. A total of 93,751 were incarcerated for drug offenses. Also, 54,336 were incarcerated for public-order offenses, incluging 19,496 for immigration offenses and 24,298 for weapons offenses.
That's just federal, here's states:
According to the American Corrections Association, the average daily cost per state prison inmate per day in the US is $67.55. State prisons held 249,400 inmates for drug offenses in 2006. That means it cost states approximately $16,846,970 per day to imprison drug offenders, or $6,149,144,050 per year.
The reason there are so many incarcerated and it costs so much to keep them so is the drug war tbh, and it's spectacular failure and completely unlawful basis.
"I, as a responsible adult human being, will never concede the power to anyone to regulate my choice of what I put into my body, or where I go with my mind. From the skin inwards is my jurisdiction, is it not? I choose what may or may not cross that border. ...I am the sole legal and spiritual government of this territory, and only the laws I choose to enact within myself are applicable." - Alexander Shulgin, PHD, Chemist & Author

it doesn't even compare to commercial drugs.

You are quite right. From: Drug War Facts

Deaths per year in the U.S. attributable to:

Cigarettes ~ 430,000
Alcohol ~ 80,000
Prescription Drugs ~ 30,000
All illicit Drugs ~ 17,000

Yes indeed, illicit drugs have a lot of catching up to do.

Hey, your point of view is fine, and I'm not trying to take it away from you. Sure, it certainly could be racism. I wasn't there and I'll never know. All I'm saying is that there are always multiple ways to read the signs, and based on the story the way you told it, I can read that as possible jury nullification. I'm just reading your words and interpreting, which is all I can do anyway. And as I'm in a verbal mood, let me tell you why I think so.

Have you ever seen Rashomon ? What you saw in the courtroom differs from what your fellow jurors saw. Each one's view is refracted by the lenses of our upbringing, social context, desires, and so on. This distorts our perceptions of reality; it affects our observations and opinions. So it's easy for me to imagine hypothetical fellow jurors wearing lenses such that they would literally see the trial differently, say the words you quoted, and argue for acquittal, yet without being too motivated by racism -- even if they could not spell ``nullification.''

For one, a lot of people know that the war on drugs is a hypocritical monstrosity. Why does the CIA get to deal cocaine in Los Angeles, and produce opium in Central Asia, but that right is not extended to the citizens themselves? And seriously, how does the Commerce Clause apply to homegrown, home-smoked pot? Common sense revolts. If you ask me, the war on drugs is a perverse load of vile unconstitutional bunkum. No, I do not want to live near a crackhouse, but also I won't complicitly abet this absurd ``war.'' I don't have to accept one or the other: I want constitutional justice and social justice. I don't believe I have to give up one to get the other.

I could write a screed about the three-strikes rule also, but I'm less passionate about that one (I agree with SCOTUS, it's within states' rights). I think it's unjust too. If I had friends and relatives locked up for decades under three-strikes I would probably be hot under the collar about it as well.

There are a lot of people, even among the poorly educated and underclass, who are aware of the injustices of the present system. The idea of nullification is very simple: give the verdict that you think is right, regardless. When you report that one juror said, ``This is his third strike and I don't want to put him away for a long time,'' then nullification is one way to explain that statement (and so is racism). A juror doesn't have to know the term ``nullification'' to do it.

Drugs (you know what I mean. Illegal Drugs) are NOT legal.

Agreed, illegal things are not legal. But who makes the laws? As a slashdot reader I'm sure you are aware that not everyone gets equal representation in legislatures. Why does minor-league crack possession get you an average sentence of 10.5 years, whereas after $400M of fraud, Dennis Kozlowski might be free after less than 9 years of prison? There's a gap between what's lawful and what's right. How big is the gap? Depends on your lenses.

Drugs are illegal. And so, their sale and use causes problems. Society has a Right, no- a Duty- to try to eliminate these problems.

I agree crack and heroin cause problems. I even think those drugs should be illegal. But everyone is gaming the system, and the people with power game the system the most. Disney extends the copyright term. The RIAA games the judicial system.* Enron and Worldcom cooked their books, till finally they went too far. The FBI abuses USAPATRIOT. Libby gets pardoned, and Rove doesn't even get charged. The President games Article II and the Attorney General denies the existen

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/prison.htm

It's not the vast majority, but neither is it a small fraction.

Ugh. Come on, dude. Google is your friend when it comes to this kind of thing. It is not horribly difficult to find the incident that the GP was referring to. Even if the sources are biased, it serves as a launchpad to discover the truth. As for your "one isolated incident" rhetoric, that also happens to be one of the great things about the internet. You can find out things that some people don't necessarily want you to know. As for what to make of it all, you have to judge the evidence and draw your own conclusions.