We should, though we should change the contours of the battle. The original post in this thread cited statistics about U.S. federal and state incarceration. I agree that this is wrongheaded and too simplistic as we need to move more towards a mandatory treatment model. Why do I say this?, because of Ted. He posted an interesting PBS link that contains an interesting interview with an expert about treatment and drugs. Very rarely will people voluntarily enter such programs, let alone actually complete them. Nor can we expect them not to as items with addictive properties, and harder drugs which permanently re-wire the brain make a mockery out of voluntary programs. What we need is sentencing to state correctional-treatment centers that emphasize more of the latter than of the former. Treatment can be successful,especially with follow up treatment upon release. What we need is a more treatment oriented system, with a correctional aspect to give it more "teeth" in regards to mandating treatment.

We also need to change the drug war by decriminalizing certain amounts of marijuana and other soft drugs, leaving education campaigns and other efforts to fight the war on this front. Let's be honest, marijuana does have some medical benefits. It also has a has killed NO USER as a primary cause as opposed to other major medical medicines in use. Some researchers say they've proven that marijuana is a gateway drug to harder drugs while other researchers claim to have debunked the whole gateway theory. I think the researchers need to go sharpen some pencils and put another wad of tape between the eye glasses and here's why.

We could wipe out the illegal market for marijuana and other minor drugs by simply legalizing them. No harsh laws against possession, no profits for sellers and others of their ilk. By putting the sellers out of business, we can then focus on prevention and education efforts. Why is it that some high school and college kids dabble in using marijuana and move on in life while people like Conserv_Pat wear Grateful Dead t-shirts, listening to Pink Floyd albums in their parent's basement, with a huge "Bonghits for Jesus" banner in his room? It isn't a matter of hypocrisy as it is about culture and moving on. Obviously, the college kids who try it and then move on prove that it isn't terribly addictive or dangerous as say heroin or cocaine. On that basis alone, we should decriminalize and go along with the libertarian notion of not worrying about cancer stricken grandmothers hitting the bong or aged hippies toking it up in the privacy of their own home.

BTW-I'm teasing about Conserv_Pat, we are cool like that.

When it comes to harder drugs such as cocaine and heroin, we do need to maintain and reinforce our interdiction and multi-national efforts to combat the drug trade.

In the end, we need to admit that the battle to prevent minor drug abuse is a joke and that we need to rethink our strategy. A responsible and caring government would recognize an individual's prerogative, while trying to provide the individual with the best information possible to influence their life. When it comes to hadrer drug, it would be simply crazy to allow heroin or cocaine into the country and to have a live and let live attitude about it. Are we our brothers keeper? What is the responsibility that you and I have to each other and to our fellow neighbors? I believe that when people are hooked and have lost a bit of reason due to their addiction, that it is imperative that treatment centers and the legal system to back that up, step in. I believe that we owe it to our neighbors and to one another to provide the best information possible that we can, while providing a more gradual involvement should things escalate and become worse. A government that would throw people away and that just writes people off as "Well, you can do whatever you want, I have my life." shows some serious signs of fraying. Where is the connectedness? What is it that makes us united? Sadly, it is issues like this that I wonder if we are truly tethered to one another like we should be.



This is a very interesting question. I believe the punishment for selling should be much more severe than personal use. Though the interesting question is-at what rate of weight should we consider it personal or for trade? If I have three full baggies, I'm I necessarily going to use it? How would we prove that? I think it could be worked out, though the rate to allow personal consumption should be pretty small.

Seamus- to answer your questions- I absolutely favor sane regulation of a drug, for purity, to keep it from minors, taxing etc

JUST the same as firearms- I don't favor thier confiscation, but I do favor some regulations as well.

Regulation is completely different than total criminilization

I would say the constitution protects our freedom to injest anything an adult feels he/she wants to- up to and including suicide, as much as freedom of religion, freedom of expression and even more than freedom of owning a firearm.

Deciding what we can and can't ingest is one of the most intrusive things a goverment can do, this side of deciding who and who can't be married.

Of course legalizing drugs would cause an increase in their use. By how much, is a difficult question.

Leaving that aside, that legalizing drug use would cause drug use to go up is an argument for legalization, not against it. Clearly there is welfare loss if people are not at liberty to do something that (1) they would like to do and (2) causes no obvious or direct harm to anyone else. However harmful the use of drugs may be, this harm is restricted to the person taking them. That a person aware of these harms nevertheless decides to take drugs fully demonstrates that he considers the immediate pleasure more important than the consequences. And it is his preferences, not ours, that should prevail in matters that touch almost exclusively upon his welfare.

We can wring our hands over the harm that a man's taking cocaine does to his family, but that is not the sort of thing that customarily causes us to restrict the liberty of citizens. No doubt a man's smoking, drinking alcohol, and committing adultery are injurious to his family, but we do not have laws against these things for the excellent reason that there is a liberty interest in letting people do pretty much as they please, within the bounds of civil order.

Alcohol and tobacco are certainly harmful substances, and each is at the root of vast public health problems. I recently heard on television that studies have shown that both drinking and smoking tobacco are more harmful to a person than smoking marijuana or taking cocaine. Yet we do not restrict their use. There is no consistency in this, and it should end.

It should end for the reasons that it is a gross abuse of liberty and a vast waste of the resources of the justice system, which were much better occupied in other ways.

You wrote earlier:

"Dr Friedman himself summed up his philosophy with three words: "free to choose". the problem with hard drugs is that they leave those addicted to them utterly unfree to choose."

There are many forms of behavior which tend to reduce a person's capacity for subsequent choice. Notable are drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes. Yet we do not send people to jail for doing those things, and for good reason. So much as signing a contract restricts subsequent choice, for heaven's sake. The social object is not to maximize everyone's lattitude of action at all times, but to make sure that, in principle, the key decisions are made by the people these decisions affect, not imposed by power.

The degree to which a cocaine enthusiast is unfree to reduce his consumption of that substance is highly debatable. But whatever restriction lies upon his choice is one that he himself accepted when he undertook his original consumption. Since the consequences lie with him who decides, there is no justification for the intervention of the state.

You also wrote:

"moving on to 'neighborhood effects' (a bugbear of Friedman's), hard drug use also leaves residents of the communities unfree to avoid the inevitable blighting of their community. of course, those communities most adversely affected are those of the poor, a group neither Dr Friedman, nor William F Buckley (another legalization advocate), spent a lot of time rubbing shoulders with."

These are the effects of prohibition, not of drug use. Are there any neighborhoods similarly "blighted" by alcohol use? Not now, but there were during Prohibition. Of course, that there are poor neighborhoods is not something that will be repaired by legalization. But at least it will debilitate the gangs, remove a vast source of criminal revenue, and eliminate the pretext of so much violence -- just as the repeal of Prohibition did. I don't like the bulk of Friedman's or Buckley's politics any more than you do, but I join them in their argument that it is very good thing if people are at liberty to make their own choices in matters important to their own happiness.

Sorry, but can you give a single data point on hallucinogens causing crime sprees?

See, most drug users get high, and then proceed to sit around on their couch. The problem sometimes arises when one needs more drugs. Since heroin, cocaine, and crack can get very expensive, if one wishes to be perpetually high, sometimes the users resort to crime, in order to fund their addictions.

I know of no drug (okay, maybe meth) that actually causes the user to go on a "crime spree", least of all hallucinogens, which in my youth cost about $5 a dose, and were thus cheaper than alcohol.

The fact that we have legal drugs that are now public health problems (alcohol and tobacco) should not be reason to legalize even more dangerous addictive drugs. As you know the tobacco companies have been charged with giving states many billions to repay them for the medical costs associated with the use of tobacco. Certainly newly legalized drugs would not try to hide the potential harm they can do and would not be willing to pay as tobacco does.

You assertion that the person can/should be allowed decide to use harmful drugs does not satisfy me. Those who become addicted are a burden to society and their families. If they lack the money to buy the now “legal” drugs such as cocaine they become a danger to society as well. When they get sick we cannot just say “oh well you chose to use the drug” - we are forced to deal with the consequences and costs and drugs such as cocaine (esp. crack version) and meth are more harmful than alcohol or tobacco. Thus having “more” users means more medical and social problems by definition.

I would favor the Dutch scheme to legalize the less addictive and harmful drugs and restrict the rest. IMO the point may be moot in any case. Marijuana was legal in the 20s and after Prohibition the alcohol industry, intent on limiting competition for their product made sure that it was not re legalized with alcohol. That industry is much more powerful today and if you think that both parties in Congress are immune to pressure form this powerful industry you are wrong. The best we can ever hope for is the decriminalization of marijuana.



You are correct in most of this. Certainly taking away the billions in drug income will reduce violence to some extent as the worst of the thugs will no longer be able to afford high quality firearms. You may be a little optimistic though in that the “gangs” will just move on to other profitable criminal enterprises and the poor (dealers) of the inner city will now be forced into other types of crime to support themselves and their habits. Crime that would effect the neighborhood and surely spill out to surrounding neighborhoods.

But that is preciscely what happened when Prohibition was ended Ted- there was no money in illegal alcohol anymore- criminals had to move on to something else.

Without illegal drugs- there would be no source of income for terrorism today, no columbian drug cartel, The entire world would be a much, much safer place.

CR I agree for drugs like marijuana and even mescaline but not for the more harmful drugs like cocaine and meth. The “cost” of making them legal in health care alone could be staggering – little doubt this is the reason no country in the world legalizes them. Same goes for most of the “prescription” drugs.

How in the world do you think that the social costs could actually be HIGHER for those things than it is now? How much do you think prisons cost in comparison to hospitals? I can tell you- a hospital here went up with a 76 bed capacity for 43 million dollars- a 55 bed prison facility will go nearly 75 million. Maintenance on the prison is higher, and so are the labor costs.

I dont' think you realize how much we already spend on this/ and how much we would save by going to "social services" rather than "criminal services"

BTW Ted - did you happen to watch the Penn and Teller episode that I linked?

Hospital stays are over $1,000 a day. You do the math. And right now the majority of the “hard drugs” abuse is in the inner cities. Making all drugs legal spreads the use and consequences far and wide and, as I said, no country has even done this. Let’s let the Dutch try it first and let’s give their plan a try.

No I missed the link. Please repost.

Thanks

A 2006 UCLA studies affirms CruisingRam's point about treatment being cheaper than imprisonment. It saves twice the amount of money, at leat in California. A similar study in Texas calculated that in transferring 10,000 inmates to treatment programs, 1 billion would be saved. In New York, big bucks would be saved as well.


Real Reform 2004

Treatment is more expensive than jail?, it appears that treatment provides more bang for the buck.

I agree – treatment as opposed to jail is better. This does not mean IMO that legalizing drugs would be cheaper than treating abusers or jailing them – it could be more expensive then both.

And how do you figure the way we do it now is going to be less expensive than decriminalizing the drugs ? Notice I am making a distinction between legalizing and decriminalizing please.

I do think large scale smuggling should be prosecuted harshly BTW, though I am somewhat of a fence sitter on outright distribution with goverment oversite of the "hard" drugs- generally, on the hard drugs- I am more in favor of decriminalization for personal use more than outright legalization.

That part is more of a conflict as well in myself- knowing that goverment regulation of things like cigs and alcohol do force the manufacturer to have some quality and purity standards.

I agree treatment is better than jail in many cases. “decriminalizing” IMO means more addicts and more people who need the “treatment” and will have future health issues – not to mention financial issues.




And. “decriminalizing will not allow for a “standard” so all you get is more dealers (lower prices) and more users – some of whom will die from bad product.

Ted, since when does the U.S. government supply free medical care for just anybody? I find it most amusing that you, who argue against single payer health care elsewhere on this forum, here assume that the U.S. has a health care system as comprehensive and far reaching as that of the old Soviet Union. Legalize drugs, and there is no guarantee whatever that anyone hooked on them would get any particular level of medical treatment.

You know, alcohol is an an extremely serious and proven drain on the public heath; so is tobacco. What you call "more serious" drugs don't cause more than a fraction of the damage caused by those drugs, chiefly because they are very widely used.

Further you ignore the cost to liberty in your reckonings. The very same arguments that you use to argue for drug prohibition could be employed, with even more force, to advance the prohibition of alcohol. We don't do that for the simple reason that we prefer to live in a society where people are responsible for their own actions and the government does not take it upon itself to be their protector or parent. It astounds me that you claim to be a "conservative," yet come here to advocate that Big Brother has a responsibility to watch over and take care of, and punish if we misbehave, all of us little brothers. You think you advocate "small government?" Guess again, pal. This endless drug war is a gravy train for hundreds of thousands of cops and judges and prison guards and bureaucrats, and grossly abusive of liberty. Small government, indeed!

Vladimir- though I agree with most of your sentiments, I have to stand up to the comment "gravy train"- maybe some dudes at the top are ridin' that train- but the every day folks- they are having real problems due to resource wasting on these issues. That is why it is called "unenforcable"- because, well, why bust a pot smoker instead of a rapist> OR a drunk driver?

It takes 8 hours, on average, for one cop to process one drunk driver.

As you can imagine- if a cop wants to stay in the station that day and do paperwork- he coul drive out of the station, and, if he is good, could find a drunk driver in about 30 minutes or less, have him bagged and tagged and to the station in 30 minutes - and still gettin' an hour or two of over time.

When folks say "there out to be a law"- they rarely say " wow, is stopping "eww" worth that much money"?

Ted reallly can't grasp how much more a drug war costs than a health problem- for on thing- you don't treat poeple for five years, in patient - you know, a once a week Drs visit to stay in recovery, meetings (which costs, what, 40 bucks for coffee and the room- for 40 poeple? )

There would be a double big money no whammy if we made lighter, recreational drugs outright legal, with consequences for bad behavior while high (just like liquor), and decriminalizing the harder stuff, and offering free treatment programs, and even free paraphenalia, how much money we can save, in so many ways, and how many more lives we could save as well.

Wipe out the vice and drug divisions out of the police departments, and OMG would the streets be safer places- why? For one thing, all the resources we use for hunting drug dealers can go to hunting violent offenders and gang members- not to mention- darn- where do gangs get thier money? Stealing cars? Dude- those markets already have lots of pros running it already, that can protect thier turf just fine - but count on the cops being too overworked to ever really bust on them in thier "business model" :'(

Well yes, I may have overstated my "gravy train" point. I was thinking of the DEA, actually, which is an organization that this country could do utterly without. They've actually used taxpayer dollars to give anti-legalization seminars.

But although the police freed up by legalization could well be used elsewhere, I'm not completely sure that all of them would be needed. Nor am I at all sure that we would need as many prisons. If you listen to what police spokesmen say, most of them are for the drug war. It brings all sorts of money to their departments. Of course, there's a Homeland Security gravy train as well, but that's another matter.

Everyone gets free emergency care including the 20 million illegal aliens. If you OD you go to the hospital and if you cannot pay the rest of us pay. This is why hospitals charge $25 for an aspirin. A good deal of it goes to cover the uninsured.



I agree but remember tobacco now gives back billions. And should we make crack use widespread who will pay for the health damage done?




Nonsense. Alcohol has the political clout to be and stay legal and drinking in moderation has been shown to actually be “good” for you. Show me a similar study for cocaine.

Alcohol was powerful enough, and still is, to prevent marijuana from becoming legal. What chance do the more powerful drugs have - even if the riskes were low - which they are not?

I have no problem with freedom but every society must decide what is acceptable for it as a whole and powerful drugs like crack and many prescription drugs are just to dangerous for them to be “legal” – and this is why no country in the world allows them to be.



I am speaking of serious illness caused by drugs like crack and loss of productivity as well. The costs could be staggering. Again if every society in the world does not allow their citizens free access to all drugs this should tell us something.

Actually- like with sexual mores from past times- the idea of prohibition is a holdover from the grip of the church- very little to do with reality or practicality- it has everything to do with the church lady

There is nothing to prove that there would be any kind of pandemic related to drugs becoming legal OR decriminalized- just as everyone doesn't drink or smoke cigs either.

Once again- I suggest watching Penn and Teller's special on this.

I also find it odd that folks that claim to be for smaller goverment for big business and such, have no problem with the massive beaurocracy that the "drug war" has spawned.

And 24$ aspirin has NOTHING to do with ER utilization- wherever did you get that from? It has to do with, when you read your hospital bill, you don't see housekeeping, engineering and other non-medical departments on your bill.

I was a pharmacy tech as my first private job, and worked in "sterile products" - making IVs- and basically what you had in the pharmacy department is the pharmacy being utilized to make up for the portion of the bill that was not found in normal billing procedures-

Bad debt makes about 18% of some private hospitals- but most of this IS NOT ER use- it is usually poeple dying and having no means to collect the debt-

most folks don't realize how much a person spends in the last 45 days of thier lives- in my training in this field- I was a trustee of a health trust for my union- 90% of ones ENTIRE benefits usage in thier life- occurs in the last 45 days of thier lives- some bills running as high as over 1 million bucks, quite often higher even- in fact, we have 'stop loss" insurance for anything over 250k.

You very rarely, in fact, never in my case, with over 7500 members, and over 20k insured (dependents and what not)- I have yet to see a single ER bill over 50k, with 95% under 5k!

If the drug addict dies in the ER- well, callous as it sounds- that is a MAJOR cost savings vs prosecuting, incarcerating, and treating a patient.

You see, just because they are in jail- doesn't mean that you don't treat them, same as in the hospital.

Unless, of course- you advocate withholding medical care of folks not even convicted of crime of fraud or violence?

You see, you not ONLY have the medical cost- which is not substansially less than public care outside the prison setting- but now you have housing costs you would have NEVER incurred if you didnt' jail these folks.

Ted- I really think you have no real grasp about how strained the justice system with the drug war, and how much more expensive than even your worst case scenario health addict pandemic you are imagining.

Ted- if they made cocaine legal tomorow- do you plan on going out and using some? I certianly wouldn't!

There is a section of the population ALREADY using hard drugs- that won't change- but why would millions of poeple start using cocaine that never used it as a habit before?

CR I am not a big fan of the “drug war” esp. when they go after people selling marijuana which is, if anything, far less harmful than alcohol and most other “drugs”. IMO the alcohol “industry” has something to do with this – they don’t want the competition.

That said I disagree on the potential “harm” that legalizing “drugs” could bring – are you speaking of ALL drugs including prescription drugs – or just crack, heroine, speed etc?

As an FYI I knew a person who worked in South America in the 80s and he told me that in countries like Columbia and Bolivia that the average life span of a person who became addicted to crack cocaine (they actually smoke something they call the “base”) was five years. That’s right – dead in five years.

I am not against freedom just paying for you to have the right to kill yourself by any means available.

You do realize the difference in an American addict and columbian, right? Most of those folks either use to kill hunger pangs, or are forced to work in fields, and coke is the reward.

They are like the poor everywhere and have no medical help. Our addicts would live much longer and cost a lot more.

So which drugs do you want to “legalize”.???

Its amusing to hear “freedom” arguments as if we are all “free” to do as we please. Unlimited “freedom” and drugs IMO do not mix well.

No- I am saying they are forced addicts in a horrible life situation- you are not going to have millions of voluntary formely middle class citizens lining up for newly-legal cocaine

I am NOT meaning this as a slam Ted- but you really, really don't understand addiction or the legal system in regards to the drug war or how funding and utilization of medical issues regarding the drug problem even work- you really need to research your ideas a bit more.

I have worked in this field most of my life now, and really working hard to start a new profession, and have gone to other countries and studied this problem there as well.


I understand your reluctance with "hard drugs"- but really- you have to have an addictive personallity in the first place to get hooked on these drugs, and, because these substances will ALWAYS be readily accessable to those who want them, you really do nothing positive by throwing addicts in jail, unless they have done some fraud or violence- then, by all means, throw the book at them, and throw it so hard it sticks in thier heads- but those that quietly abuse drugs need to have something other than the law to change thier behaviors.

Ted- are YOU going to go get hooked on heroin if it becomes legal- that is the real question, because the real question is- if we make it legal- are those that don't do hard drugs now suddenly going to start? I would say, no, absolutely not- it is counter-intuitive to all patterns of drug usage.

It is really not worth discussing since it will never happen. If we cannot get marijuana legal forget heroin.

And what you fail to understand is the power of marketing. If the drugs are “legal” then they will be marked and not just sold on the street – unless you are just talking of “de criminalizing”.

IMO anything that makes using the harmful drugs less legally dangerous will increases their use and resultant death and sickness.

The War on Drugs is a farce. It is a contrivance to enact draconian laws that penalize people for a behavior others find unacceptable and says, "Well, these drugs are bad for you and you'll go to jail if you smoke a joint to help you deal with your cancer, but these drugs are okay because some major pharmaceutical company that pours millions of dollars into advertising and campaign contributions says so."

It's a crock and all it does is fill up the prisons with addicts and small-timers and clog the courtrooms with mandatory drug sentences. You can no more win a War on Drugs that you can win a War on Earthquakes.

Should we have the "drug war" in the U.S.?

The drug war, as Nighttimer also pointed out in the post before this, is a complete farce based on nothing more than hypocracy. The prescription drug industry garners billions of dollars each year and those drugs they are pedaling under the guise of "fill in the disease acronym of the month", do as much harm (in some cases more) than many of the street drugs, especially marijuana. So until we fully define what a "drug" is and apply that rule across the boards and into the boardrooms of CEO's of drug companies, the "war" should be called off.


Should drug use and/or (two separate crimes) trafficking be a crime?

Trafficking should be the crime. That means all traffickers, including drug companies that exploit the vulnerabilities of desperate people, searching for a solution to emotional ills. In fact, if it were up to me, I would sooner put Eli Lilly and Company in jail before I'd put a crack dealer in. In 2003, their revenues were $12.5 billion dollars. That's enough incentive to inspire all kinds of new diseases that need prescription treatment.

"Trafficking" is merely trade. If drugs are legal, certainly it should not be a crime to sell them. What, is "trafficking" in alcohol a crime? It would be a great thing for this country if Eli Lilly were able to wholesale cocaine to corner drug stores on a non-prescription basis. It would essentially wipe out the street gangs, and it would increase the purity and safety of cocaine supply. It would be a vast boon for a number of third world economies.

Vladimir- Cocaine is manufactured much cheaper synthetically than grown- and is part of the US pharmocopie right now- and very, very pure. It is used as a topical anesthesia for (mostly- there are other uses) for trauma to the face usually- like a broken and beat nose from a traffic accident (an incident where I got to witness it's use)- it comes in tablets, and the pharmacy tech, under the watchful gaze of the pharmacist, crushes it up, puts it in a saline solution, and puts it in a syringe for the nurse or Dr to administer.

So, technically- "cocaine" is already used by the medical industry

I'm pointing out the hypocracy. Drug companies make certain drugs that they know do not benefit the recipients, YET, market them as though they are not harmful, when in fact, they are. At least with street drugs, the person selling them is not marketing them as safe, beneficial and necessary.

I must concur that the existing process for marketing drugs is safer than relying on street vendors. Currently, if a drug company wants to start selling a new product, they must have short term and long term clinical trials, which are studied by the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA rejects the drugs if not enough data exists to prove that the drugs are safe and useful. If the drugs are not safe, the FDA must report their findings to the Drug Enforcement Agency, who gets the Department of Health and Human Services to run their own tests. Based on DHHS's findings, and its own analysis of likely distribution and potential for abuse, the DEA can schedule it under the Controlled Substances Act as illegal to use, or to be used only under varying degrees of medical supervision.

This is all to say that the drug-buying public does not rely solely on the word of a drug manufacturer regarding which drugs are safe, but also on the FDA... and possibly also the DHHS, the DEA, and their own doctors. If anything, the process is too restrictive with respect to which drugs ultimately become available to the public.

As to the specific drugs to which you refer, might I ask which ones they are?

I think you are fooling yourself if you believe that the FDA has our best interests in mind.




For starters, drugs that are prescribed for depression. There is a disturbing number of school shooters who were taking anti-depressants. Please take the time to view these YouTube News Clips regarding school shooters and the drugs they were taking prior to the horrific incidents that took place.

On the subject of the infamous Ely Lilly and Company......."The Ely Lilly Corporation covered up their own internal investigation.....anyone on Prozac is twelve times more likely to attempt suicide than those on other anti-depressants." That's only the tip of the iceberg. Why is it that we are not completely outraged that drug companies are making billions while messing up our children to the point that they would commit such heinous crimes. The idea that they were "picked on as kids" or that they had "low self-esteem" is readily accpeted by so many people as the reason for this. But when we look deeper, we see that drugs are what made them cross the line.

So that is why I have much more respect for the coke dealers of the world. They don't tell you what they're giving you is going to help you. They don't legitimize their dope with a doctor's signature and the promise that this will solve all of your problems.

I assume the FDA, like any government agency, has its own interests in mind--to protect its jobs and its funding. Certainly there have been cases in which it was better able to do so by advocating for the Congress, the President, or major political donors rather than for the public. My point is that since the drug companies are as honest or dishonest as anyone trying to sell you something, and the FDA is paid by your tax dollars to keep them honest, your criticisms are probably better directed at the FDA.


It happens that I have taken anti-depressants in the past. My experience of them is that they prevent the experience of depression (a state of extreme pessimism and lethargy in which no emotions are felt), but have no impact on the underlying emotions that might cause the depression. For example, if a person had anger management issues hidden by a deep depression, the use of anti-depressants would probably make that person far more likely to express anger.

In the case of Cory Baadsgaard, one possibility is that a condition of persistent depression or fear prevented Cory from exploring his underlying anger. This fits the pattern of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, for example. When he was forced to confront these feelings because of the medication, he was unable to control them. Of course, this danger would have been exascerbated by the hallucinations and amnesia that are said to be side effects of his medication, but the desire to act out angry feelings did not come from his medication. If it did, the same would be true of the majority of those who take anti-depressants, not an extremely small minority.

(Disclaimer: Not a doctor or psychologist.)


Psychiatrists already know this. It is commonly accepted that a person with mild or moderate depression is a much greater suicide risk than a person with severe depression... simply because a person with severe depression lacks the motivation even to end his own life. They continue prescribing anti-depressants because a person with severe depression also lacks the motivation to recover from his depression. Treating depression is dangerous, as the depression may result from mental health disorders that are currently dormant, and which will be activated while the depression is being treated. Please understand that this is a far more likely scenario than that a pill told a patient to shoot people.

I have never been told that an anti-depressant would cure depression, and I would be astonished if a psychiatrist made such a promise. No one really knows why they even work at all, and it is well known that they sometimes do not. If a patient was told that his pill would cure his depression with no strings attached, he probably has a cause for legal action. Sadly, it is far more likely that this is what a patient or a patient's parent wanted to believe, not what he was told.


I say again; no such promise is ever made in the health care industry. And in contrast, coke dealers rarely disclose all the dangerous side effects of their products, and certainly do not seek parental approval before selling to sixth grade students.

Is that what your doctor told you?

Drug companies are not honest and forthcoming. They will do whatever they are pushed to do, in terms of disclaimers, by law suits and other financially burdensome whistleblowers. The bottom line, and that's what they are all about, is that drug companies lie:



They also engage in cruel and unethical misconduct:

Their degree of misconduct is endless:




You are right about one thing, the responsibility for children being prescribed these harmful drugs is on the parents. But if they are misled, or given only partial information, when drug companies themselves are hiding all of the facts, then the responsiblity must be put on the drug companies who are, in essence, exploiting the vulnerability and naivete of people who put their trust in the industry.

Follow the money, that's all you have to do. That is why people sell drugs on the street and that is why pharmaceutical companies concoct new disorders..............to MAKE MONEY.

First, can you source this quote, please?

Second, are you seriously arguing that a street gang dealer offers better disclosure about the risks of crack cocaine than does Eli Lilly about Zyprexa? Do you imagine any of them to say, "Listen, brother, most crack smokers become psychologically dependent. Side effects may include tooth decay, excessive sweating, tremors, insomnia, manic personality disorder, paranoia, hallucinations, and cardiac arrest"?


The NYT article explains that parents sought treatment for emergent schizophrenic symptoms--they were specifically looking for treatments when a diagnosis did not yet exist, and chose to enroll their children in a study rather than have them receive no treatment at all. Also, the experiment was not conducted by Eli Lilly; it was financed by that company and the National Institute of Mental Health. I fear you are being misled by the hysterical tone of the article from which you quote.


If the drug companies break any laws in bringing their products to market, they should of course be held accountable. Beyond that, there is no explicit expectation that the pharmaceutical industry is more trustworthy than auto mechanics, stockbrokers, or vendors on Ebay. They are as untrustworthy as any other business. Because the consequences of misleading advertising can be so great in the case of drugs, we trust not in the industry, but in our doctors, the FDA, and the DHHS, and actually give them money to tell us whether we should buy drugs. If your trust is being exploited, would it not be better to first question the experts whom you pay to be trustworthy?

All the info from my last post was from the same link, which you can access when you go to that post.



I'm arguing that people are not going to a street gang dealer to improve a health condition (whether it be physical or mental). So, that puts the two "dealers" in separate categories with separate criteria for the way in which they should operate. If a guy wants to get high and have fun, that's his choice and he'll face the consequences of buying dope on the street. But what about a parent who has a depressed teenager, for instance, and they do not know what to do about it? They go to their doctor thinking that, at the very minimum, whatever treatment they are prescribed will probably not make things worse. Ahhhhh but they are wrong in the world of anti-depressants.



Oh, cmon, of course there is an explicit expectation that the pharmaceutical industry be a tad bit more trustworthy than mechanics, stock brokers and the like. It's one thing for a mechanic to cheat you out of some money when he's fixing (or pretending to fix) your car. It's quite another when a drug company hides evidence of the harmful and dire side effects of the drugs they are selling to the masses. You bet we expect more from them.



The real problem is that regulatory agencies, like the FDA, are in bed with pharmaceutical companies. If you want to research it, you'll see. If you'd like me to provide you with countless links I would be happy to oblige.

We can debate the world of anti-depressants if you like, but let me remind you that the subject is the War on Drugs. We are discussing the pharmaceutical industry solely because they would have a role to play if certain drugs, currently outlawed under the Controlled Substances Act, were to become regulated or legalized. If your point with anti-depressants is that the industry cannot be trusted, presumably you will have to compare how the industry sells anti-depressants to how they are sold on the black market.


Yes, we expect that they will comply with the FDA and, if need be, the Controlled Substances Act. We do that because we do not expect that drug manufacturers are somehow more ethical per capita than auto mechanics.


No, I have no argument with you on that point. That is a very real problem. But in my view, every other industry would do the same with their respective regulatory agencies if given the chance. The problem, therefore, is how we regulate industries, and what we do when regulation fails--meaning, our problem is with the FDA, and possibly the Department of Justice.

Let us understand that drugs will not be legalized anytime soon and therefore we need to find the most efficient way to fight the war. I have seen a method work. I worked with truck drivers in the early 80's. A good percentage of them used marijuana. Almost all of them quit after laws were enacted subjecting truck drivers to random drug testing. Because I work with hazardous materials I too am subject to random drug testing. The solution is to require businesses subject all employees to random drug testing and to require anyone receiving government benefits ( I would probably exclude those over 65) to random and mandatory drug testing. Cut the capital gains tax to offset the cost to business.Yes, it will result in more black market employment. There is always a cost to interfering with free market demand.

I would be interested to know the opinion of our fine members about separate penalties for using as opposed to selling. I would especially like to hear Ted's opinion on it. I suppose he's answered the questin, but I don't have enough patience to wade through pages of posts to find it.

Personally, I do believe that we need to differentiate between the two. One is a case of a person being addcited, and thus, we should look at that in a completely different light. We don't hold mentally ill people to the same standard, I have yet to find it convincing that we shouldn't do likewise with addcits.

Policy toward trafficking in drugs must be tied to policy toward using drugs. If use is completely unregulated, there is no reason to regulate supply. So in answering this question, it might first be useful to establish precisely how much use is too much to tolerate.

My thinking on usage is that some people are able to take drugs safely and responsibly, and others are likely to form destructive patterns of behavior that make them unable to obey laws. To my mind, the ideal limit on usage would give people as much freedom as possible to take whatever drugs they feel they would like, except for those people for whom some evidence exists that they might not be able to take them safely. For example, recreational drugs should generally not be available to children, on the grounds that the drugs may adversely affect neurological development. Any person with a history of drug abuse problems, or mental disorders that suggest an adverse reaction to certain drugs, should also not be allowed to take them.

So even if marijuana and cocaine were legal, not everyone should be legally allowed to obtain it; at the very least, one would have to show proof of age, and not be under a court order forbidding any contact with marijuana or cocaine before buying it in a store. With more dangerous drugs like cocaine, it may be desireable to prevent large doses by limiting the maximum amount a user may possess at any time, and forbidding the sale of it to anyone who is obviously high.

If those are the laws for usage and possession, it follows that at minimum, a person should be required to have a license to sell the same drugs; that the holder of such a license must not sell more than is permitted to any one customer, verify the age of every customer, and refuse to sell to any customer who should not have any. Selling without a license would be a crime of increasing severity in proportion to sales, and breaking the terms of a license would result in fines and the eventual revocation of the license. If there are no concerns about people taking large doses and becoming dangerous, it may be legal to give or sell limited amounts of the drug without a license, but professional sellers must be licensed, if only to ensure that they are not selling to children.

In the first place, what is or is not going to happen anytime soon is manifestly irrelevant to a debate as to whether it should happen. And why should anyone here wish to join you in your quest for an efficient way to fight a "war" that should not be fought?

In the second place, your proposal to expose essentially the entire citizenry to mandatory drug testing is the reductio ad absurdum of anti-drug policy and a gross offense to liberty. Have you heard of the 4th Amendment? When I was in the military, they had the "Golden Flow" program, manditory testing of all the troops. I remember being laughed at by some JAG officers when I told them that this was a gross violation of the 4th, but -- big surprise! -- the Supreme Court struck it down for precisely that reason.

Whatever may be said of legalizing drugs, at least it doesn't contradict the Constitution.



I don't think that your screeds contra U.S. drug companies are relevant to the topic at hand. Whatever alternative method of economic organization of the drug industry you would propose, and why, does not really touch upon whether such drugs as cocaine, methamphetamines and so forth, should be legalized. While your allegation that there is something particularly evil about the participants in this one branch of industry is a highly problematic one, what is not problematic is the evil of those who purvey drugs illegally. At least legal drug manufacture and distribution are subject to regulation. Illegal manufacture and distribution are not, with very consequent social evils (e.g., the impurity of the supply and the use of violence to enforce contracts).

So if you want to discuss just how detestable and anti-social the pharmaceutical manufacturers allegedly are, why don't you open a topic to address it, and stop dragging this issue into this thread?



People already are required to have licences to sell most legal drugs, including alcohol and tobacco. But the other restrictions that you propose are really quite absurd; why should these apply to sales of marijuana cocaine any more than to that of antibiotics, or of whiskey?

Really, there is a gross failure of the imagination here when we propose silly forms of regulation instead of simply recognizing that people can be counted upon to look to their own welfare; that the market system can be counted on to ensure a reliable supply; and that a modicum of regulation, analogous to the regulation of the sale of alcohol, can take care of such marginal considerations as sales to minors.

As far as I can tell, you're referring to restrictions on usage, not on trafficking:


I see only two concepts that differ from the existing laws that restrict use and trafficking of alcohol. One is the possibility of a court order that restricts a specific person from the use of an illegal drug. The other is the notion of restricting possession of large amounts of a drug, so as to forestall overdoses and help curb illegal traffic.

The first was actually proposed by John Stuart Mill, in reference to alcohol, in his essay "On Liberty":

The ethical foundation of Mill's argument is that if one may be confronted with a choice whether to do good or evil, and one renders oneself incapable of choosing good, one thereby commits an evil act. That an act is against the law is no deterrent to someone incapable of following it, so if a person is known to be incapable of following the law while intoxicated, he knowingly commits himself to the strong risk of breaking the law as soon as he becomes intoxicated.

The second idea is based largely on my experience with cocaine users. As with any intoxicant, it can be difficult to know when one has had too much cocaine, and poses a danger to one's environment. As with alcohol, some cocaine users can become violent and paranoid, and it is prudent to ensure they are not overly intoxicated while in public. In contrast with alcohol, someone who is very high on cocaine is more likely to seek out public places and the stimulation therein. Possession limits would also help enforce trafficking laws. But frankly, the reason I most favor a possession limit with cocaine is that I have no idea what the hell will happen if it becomes completely legal.

I should add that even as I write this post, I've been taking lots of cough medicine and I'm high as a kite, so apologies if my positions are unclear.

We are not going to go to legalization overnight. We have to take a step in the right direction. In order to pass current constitutional muster you have to make it voluntary for companies to do it i.e. simply reduce the capital gains tax on companies that drug test their employees. Sadly, the power to tax is the power to regulate. Of course, ther federal government already imposes drug testing on transportation workers. Yes, I realize the original intent of our founders is violated. The fact is nearly all federal drug laws are unconstitutional under the original intent standard. An amendment was needed to enact prohibition of alcohol.

No, the drug law should not be fought on both constitutional and natural law grounds. It will be.

Should we have the "drug war" in the U.S.?

No, it is all an issue of economics. If drugs are illegal, those who are exposed and become addicted to them will give up all of their money to obtain it (As crimininaliziation drives prices up) which will make them have to live on welfare, which they will just use to buy more drugs. This wll drive taxes up and those who really need welfare because of no other options might have it taken away from them. The result: a bad economy.

Should drug use and/or (two separate crimes) trafficking be a crime?

Use: Yes, but only if the user is a minor or an adult who will be driving afterwards. Drugs should be treated just like alchohol. However, rehabilitation for all types of addictions needs to have much more funding.

Trafficking: No, unless under 18.

I disagree with you that the use of drugs is morally wrong. While I personally would never contemplate using them, I know some folks who do, and they are all otherwise law-abiding, kind people. While I don't really believe in the concept of an idealogical "right" or "wrong" I believe n compassion and cruelty, which is why thosse who use drugs and want to quit need better rehabilitation, not to be thrown in jail and suffer.