Better Dead Than High

The morally dubious logic of drug warriors

Radley Balko | February 29, 2008

For several years now, the drug naloxone has been used in emergency rooms and clinics to treat people who have overdosed on opium-derived drugs like heroin or morphine.

A new version of the drug is even more promising in that it can be administered outside of hospitals. The new version comes as a nasal spray, and retails for about $10.

Several dozen volunteers and government public health groups across the United States have begun distributing the packets to drug users, along with training on how to use it.

The results have been encouraging. One study looked at 16 organizations that have been distributing the kits, and found that they'd cumulatively trained 20,950 people to administer the drug, and successfully reversed 2,642 overdoses.

Perhaps you aren't fond of the idea of using tax dollars to help drug addicts avoid overdoses (and yes, some of the groups distributing the packets are taxpayer-subsidized). As a libertarian, I have mixed feelings.

But a $10 antidote is considerably preferable to a taxpayer-funded trip to the emergency room. The packets seem even more reasonable given that many states have been reluctant to pass "good Samaritan" laws, which shield people who call 911 to report overdoses from prosecution.

In any case, they certainly seem like a good idea for private groups and non-profits. It's a cost-effective way of saving lives.

But not everyone is happy. Dr. Bertha Madras, deputy director of the White House Office on National Drug Control Policy, recently told National Public Radio she opposes the distribution programs because—and hold on to your hat for this one—she believes life-threatening overdoses are an important deterrent to drug use.

"Sometimes having an overdose, being in an emergency room, having that contact with a health care professional is enough to make a person snap into the reality of the situation and snap into having someone give them services," Madras said.

Madras' reaction offers a telling glimpse into the mind of a drug warrior.

We're told that certain drugs have to be prohibited because they're too dangerous. But we should also resist efforts to make them less dangerous because doing so might encourage drug use.

It's a bizarre argument until you consider the real motivation behind it: In truth, it's not so much about the harm some drugs do; it's about an absolute moral opposition to the use of some drugs.

Even if they were completely harmless, some people simply don't like the idea that we can ingest chemicals that make us feel good.

Over the years, drug warriors from former Drug Czar William Bennett to current Czar John Walters to recent DEA Administrator Karen Tandy have defended the efficacy of alcohol prohibition. All three have called the experiment a "success," and the notion that it failed a "myth."

They insist alcohol prohibition was a success because it reduced alcohol consumption. That assertion itself is debatable, but even assuming they're right, the argument itself is revealing.

Americans didn't pass prohibition because there's something inherently evil about alcohol. They passed it because of the alleged deleterious effects associated with drinking.

To call Prohibition a "success," you'd have to ignore the precipitous rise in homicides and other violent crime during the period; the rise in hospitalizations due to alcohol poisoning; the number of people blinded or killed by drinking toxic, black-market gin; the corrupting influence of Prohibition on government officials, from beat cops to the halls of Congress to Harding's attorney general; and the corresponding erosion of the rule of law.

Of course, the 18th Amendment was passed because prohibitionists convinced the country that their movement would alleviate many of these problems. But once Prohibition was in place—and still today among its defenders—it became not about the negative effects of alcohol, but about preventing people from drinking as an ends unto itself. Stop people from drinking, and we've won. Never mind that the cure was worse than the disease.

In December 2006, the ONDCP put out a triumphant press release celebrating a five-year decline in the use of illicit drugs among teens.

"There has been a substance abuse sea change among American teens," Walters said in the release. "They are getting the message that dangerous drugs damage their lives and limit their futures. We know that if people don't start using drugs during their teen years, they are very unlikely to go on to develop drug problems later in life."

But the following February, the Centers for Disease Control reported that deaths from drug overdoses rose nearly 70 percent over the previous five years.

Half the overdose deaths were attributable to cocaine, heroin, and prescription drugs (the number of overdose deaths caused by marijuana—the drug most targeted by the ONDCP—remained at zero). One of the biggest increases (113%) came among aged 15-22, those same teenagers Walters was celebrating just three months earlier.

To look at those two figures and conclude that the drug war is moving in the right direction betrays a near-religious devotion to preventing recreational drug use, at any cost.

Prohibition advocates are again measuring success not on how well the drug war is preventing real, tangible harm, but simply on how effectively they're preventing people from getting high.

The naloxone story only reinforces in a tidier narrative what we've witnessed for the last 25 years—that drug warriors are willing to write off the loss of human life as collateral damage and engage in all sorts of morally dubious practices in order to prove their point.

That point, ironically enough, is that drug use is immoral and dangerous.

Radley Balko is a senior editor for reason. This article orginally appeared at FoxNews.com.

Comments

|2.29.08 @ 2:54PM|#

"Sometimes having an overdose, being in an emergency room, having that contact with a health care professional is enough to make a person snap into the reality of the situation and snap into having someone give them services," Madras said.


OH SNAP!

Sam Grove|2.29.08 @ 2:56PM|#

So why do they want to deter recreational drug use?

Because they don't like it.

Everything else they cite is smokescreen.

It's obviously not about saving people's lives.

Brandybuck|2.29.08 @ 2:58PM|#

"Think of the children! That's why we have to arrest them when their young and stupid and smoking dope."

Taktix®|2.29.08 @ 2:59PM|#

I'm going to affix a picture of this lady to my, uh... tobacco water-pipe.

JayDubya|2.29.08 @ 3:03PM|#

As a Libertarian, I don't care what you do your own body; however, I reserve the right to think what you're doing is stupid, and by no means does your stupidity entitle you to my money to fix you up afterwards.

I can't rightfully approve of taxes being used for this purpose. Frankly, I wouldn't even donate to volunteer organizations with this goal when there are much worthier causes out there.

|2.29.08 @ 3:07PM|#

Anti-drug enforcement and prosecution in this country has destroyed more lives, wasted more taxpayer dollars, and accomplished less than any prohibitive measures since prohibition itself. It's made criminals of tens of millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans, and convicts of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, more.

Balko's piece on counter-OD measures illustrates the ultimate perversity in the "war on drugs." One can't but conclude that the drug warriors secretly celebrate the overdose-caused deaths of drug users. I hope for their sake they don't have to open the front door one day and find a cop standing there regretfully informing them their kid just died from an overdose.

Drug use, like tobacco use, will decline when, and only when, it becomes socially unacceptable to engage in it.

For the record, I don't use any type of illegal drugs, have smoked pot perhaps three times in my life (don't like anything that lowers your IQ by half), and limit myself to booze, wine, and beer.

|2.29.08 @ 3:11PM|#

Drug use, like tobacco use, will decline when, and only when, it becomes socially unacceptable to engage in it.

Not really, because people don't only do drugs because they are socially acceptable. Actually, drug use is pretty darn socially unacceptable in a lot of circles. Some people just like to get high. Is that so wrong?

PC|2.29.08 @ 3:12PM|#

It really has very little at all to do with morality perceived or not. First it's how it always was to most people so they accept it. Second, in a time where so much of your autonomy is ceded to the state, there will be many who naturally seek to take autonomy away from others through jail and other power grabs. Its money, power, and ignorance, has absolutely nothing to do with morality. That is just the talking point. Just like homosexuality, its not because of the bible, it says how to treat your neighbor, its because those ignorant bigots hate their own lives and failed dreams so much that they have to trample on others to feel better. Domination over a perceived opponent is an addictive drug in itself.

|2.29.08 @ 3:18PM|#

Brotherben, that would be "Two snaps up"

John, 3 times ain't going to get you there. You were too paranoid the first two times to get high and the third, you just felt a little weird. Keep trying. I have no idea where you got that 1/2 IQ idea from. I find I was alternately a genius or a total moron, but in neither case is it a lasting effect :-)

zoltan|2.29.08 @ 3:19PM|#

I...have smoked pot perhaps three times in my life (don't like anything that lowers your IQ by half), and limit myself to booze, wine, and beer.

I also like to limit myself to substances that drop my IQ only about a quarter, as opposed to half. But what to do about those who have unnaturally high IQs, in that lowering their IQ by half would still lead to an IQ higher than the majority of functioning individuals? Quandary.

Taktix®|2.29.08 @ 3:23PM|#

For the record, I don't use any type of illegal drugs, have smoked pot perhaps three times in my life (don't like anything that lowers your IQ by half), and limit myself to booze, wine, and beer.

Here's one to get the Friday Happy Hour going:

I thought libertarians were against standardized testing...

|2.29.08 @ 3:29PM|#

she believes life-threatening overdoses are an important deterrent to drug use.

I know we've previously ranted about similar sentiments, but they never cease to make me cringe.

John, 3 times ain't going to get you there. You were too paranoid the first two times to get high and the third, you just felt a little weird

I concurr, although I do not concurr from experience, because that would mean that I've done scary gateway drugs, and I would never do anything like that ;)

Daniel Reeves|2.29.08 @ 3:30PM|#

Drug use, like tobacco use, will decline when, and only when, it becomes socially unacceptable to engage in it.

I'd say it kind of is in the grand scheme of things. Getting high once or twice is "cool," but people who do a lot of drugs are just "losers." At least over here, that's the case.

For the record, I don't use any type of illegal drugs, have smoked pot perhaps three times in my life (don't like anything that lowers your IQ by half), and limit myself to booze, wine, and beer.

In my limited experience, alcohol is more detrimental than marijuana. Or at least I've seen a high guy play the piano well, and I've seen a drunk guy bump his head into the wall.

|2.29.08 @ 3:31PM|#

John,how is limiting yourself to alcohol any better?I agree with most of your post but many drug warriors do drink and do not understand that they are splitting hair.I remember my dad talking about 'those dope heads' while he sat and drank his beer.Hell,his dad was a bootlegger!!He helped bottle the shine when he was young.I am of course leaving out the folks from MADD.Their just complete nazis.

Taktix®|2.29.08 @ 3:33PM|#

Getting high once or twice is "cool," but people who do a lot of drugs are just "losers." [citation needed]

zoltan|2.29.08 @ 3:34PM|#

Their just complete nazis.

Ahahahhaha, and I'm a there/their/they're nazi.

Yeah, it's Friday, I'm a little out of it...

|2.29.08 @ 3:34PM|#

Initiatives

Attorney Gen. File #: 2007-064
California Cannabis Hemp & Health Initiative 2008

Legalization of Marijuana-Related Activities. The initiative provides that no per-son, individual, or corporate entity could be prosecuted for the possession, cultivation, transportation, distribution, or consumption of cannabis hemp, including hemp industrial products, hemp medicinal preparations, hemp nutritional products, and hemp religious or recreational products. All of these products use as an ingredient the hemp plant commonly referred to as cannabis or marijuana. This measure also provides that the manufacture, marketing, distribution, or sale between adults of equipment or accessories associated with the above products shall not be prohibited.

California Hemp Initiative Volunteers is looking for volunteer petition signature collectors

http://www.myspace.com/hemp2008

zoltan|2.29.08 @ 3:34PM|#

Getting high once or twice is "cool," but people who do a lot of drugs are just "losers."

Does this mean once or twice a day, week, month, year, lifetime? What is 'a lot'?

|2.29.08 @ 3:37PM|#

For the record, I don't use any type of illegal drugs, have smoked pot perhaps three times in my life (don't like anything that lowers your IQ by half), and limit myself to booze, wine, and beer.

John,
I was with you, right up until the end. Should have quite after 'life'.

|2.29.08 @ 3:39PM|#

I agree Michael Pack

I don't see how alcohol is any better than marijuana. I can see where you'd make the argument that marijuana is a "gateway drug" because it involves a similar form of ingestion as other drugs. But still, I'd rather engage in a dangerous activity with someone who's smoked a joint (or some part of one) than someone who's had a 6-pack (or more).
Oh, but not both. I've had negetive experiences...again, not me, PERSONALLY, because you know I wouldn't do that...by mixing the two. I know some people can, but I... have a friend who... can't do it or else...he... becomes somewhat narcoleptic.

|2.29.08 @ 3:42PM|#

And I bet they claim to be pro-life too.

|2.29.08 @ 3:43PM|#

Narrator: This is your brain. (Shows whole, unbroken egg.)

Narrator: This is your brain on drugs. (Breaks egg and pours it onto a hot, cast iron frying pan.)

Narrator: Any questions?

Me: Do the drugs literally fry your brains?

Narrator: Well, no. But they do get you intoxicated.

Me: Well isn't that the point in taking them? To get the high, buzz, sense of well being, trip, etc?

Narrator: Any more questions?

Me: What happens when the drugs wear off?

Narrator: Any more questions? Anyone... Bueller... anyone?

|2.29.08 @ 3:45PM|#

This reminds me of the people who oppose the HPV vaccine because it might be seen as encouraging promisicous behaviour amoung young women. Better dead than sexually active. Just a weird kind of logic to me.

Taktix®|2.29.08 @ 3:50PM|#

Shane,

It's because if they say it's bad, it's bad, and all facts and mitigating advancements be dammed...

|2.29.08 @ 3:50PM|#

john may not like to get high, but I bet the stick up his ass does.

zoltan|2.29.08 @ 3:51PM|#

Yes, because the HPV vaccine is so effective. Not that I agree with their reasoning against it.

|2.29.08 @ 3:53PM|#

It's because if they say it's bad, it's bad, and all facts and mitigating advancements be dammed...

I sometimes wonder how those peopl would react if we come up with an HIV vaccine that works.

"If people don't fear AIDS they'll want to have sex!"

zoltan|2.29.08 @ 3:55PM|#

Ugh, I'm such a douche. Ignore the last comment about HPV.

|2.29.08 @ 3:55PM|#

Not that I agree with their reasoning against it.

That was my point, they didn't care if it worked or not, only that the horrible effects of catching HPV and then subsequently cancer works too well in scare campaigns for them to give it a chance.

|2.29.08 @ 3:55PM|#

Ugh, I'm such a douche. Ignore the last comment about HPV.

Too late. Douche. :-)

UCrawford|2.29.08 @ 3:56PM|#

Personally it's always been my experience that people who are strongly in favor of the war on drugs a) believe that drug use itself (and not just the consequences stemming from it) is evil and immoral, therefore b) it is a moral imperative to use the law in whatever way they think will stop others from engaging in it, and c) whenever you confront from them with the damage that the drug laws create they generally don't care about or want to hear it because re-evaluating their position on drugs would also entail re-evaluating and possibly discarding their core beliefs on what is and isn't moral behavior.

Basically, as a conversation about legalization I had recently with my family (generally intelligent people who are nonetheless rabidly in favor of anti-drug laws) demonstrated to me yet again, trying to politely convince people that entrenched to change is usually a futile effort because they'd rather slap their hands over their ears and scream about how anti-drug laws are what God wants rather than engage in objective analysis of results. They simply don't want to hear about how the laws "God wants" end up killing people for absolutely no purpose because they're terrified that might destroy the foundation of their own moral code...which they're just not willing to risk, especially for a bunch of "junkies" that they figure they'll probably never meet or interact with.

Chalk it up to the limitations of the monkeysphere I guess...

http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html

zoltan|2.29.08 @ 3:58PM|#

Too late. Douche.

For some reason, this is me all day today. Call it Douche Friday.

|2.29.08 @ 4:00PM|#

Call it Douche Friday.

You mean it's not pompous asshole friday?
Shit, i owe some people an apology then.

|2.29.08 @ 4:06PM|#

A couple of years ago, I perused a WOD thread over on Free Republic. The linked story was about some tainted heroin that had made its way into the hands of users in NYC resulting in several deaths, including two girls that had just graduated from high school.

The drug warriors at Free Republic were dancing on those two girls graves. After about 200 plus posts, one person commented "The comments made by the drug warriors to this thread should lay to rest the notion that drug warriors care about the lives of drug users."

It really was sickening. Full disclosure, there were several anti-WOD posters on that thread taking the drug warriors to task for their comments.

|2.29.08 @ 4:25PM|#

UCrawford, I've had similer experiences. A few years ago on a visit to my parents I learned that someone had tried to grow some pot on some unused, wooded bottom land nearby owned by my parents. When I mentioned that I thought pot s/b legal, my brother-in-law retorted "What's next, legalized bank robbery?". Needless to say, the conversation deteriorated from there.

I did have an older sister who did come around to opposing the WOD. It wasn't my cogent arguements that led to her change in position. What changed her was exposure to people whose lives had been ruined due to drug convictions. The state of Illinois built a minimum security prison near the town where she taught school. It housed mostly drug offenders and petty thieves. With the prison population came an influx of wives, girlfriends, children, etc. into the surrounding towns, many in her school's district. All of a sudden the victims of the WOD had a human face. As she heard their horror stories of how their lives were before and after the drug conviction, her heart was struck by the unfairness of it all and she's now anti-WOD.

|2.29.08 @ 4:27PM|#

Reminds me of the old joke that Baptists are against sex because it might lead to dancing. Except this isn't funny.

|2.29.08 @ 4:28PM|#

this and the anti-HPV stuff reminds me of how, when HIV/AIDS first began spreading through the gay (men) community, it fit so neatly into the concept many people had of homosexuality's inherent immorality - God was punishing them in an awful, incurable new way! If sodomy (which apparently means all non-procreative sex, not just the in-the-butt variety) or recreational (non-medicinal?) drug use are really immoral behavior, then those who believe so should convince people to abstain from them out of morality, rather than fear of punishment from God or the law. The lack of such punishment makes it harder to convince people to behave accordingly, but it also let you know who really believes. Not to get all preachy, but what happened to the moral principle of loving the sinner while hating the sin?

Jack Klompus|2.29.08 @ 4:40PM|#

Wow, just took a look at the ONDCP website and noticed that Dr. Madras is the Deputy Director for Demand Reduction. There's also a Director for Supply Reduction and they both serve under a Deputy Director and they are all under the Director. Now there's a few salaries worth their weight in taxes.

Sam Grove|2.29.08 @ 4:43PM|#

I used to drive out this road (in my youth) in WV to visit friends.
Speed comparison

unimpaired - 55
Pot - 45
alcohol - 60

When I realized how fast I was going, I resolved to slow down.

|2.29.08 @ 4:47PM|#

sv - Christians view the WOD as morality insurance (of course, most wouldn't admit to this). They see drug usage as a sin. They know drug usage has risks and they want their children to stay away from them. With drug laws on the books they can tell their kids to stay away from drugs not only for religious reasons but also because it's against the law. They tell them if they were to get arrested for drugs they would not only be hurting themselves, but they would be letting down Christianity by breaking the law. They go on to tell their kids that being a good Christian requires them to obey the laws of the state (render unto Ceasar).

In short, Christians use the drug laws to scare their own away from drugs. The fact that the laws ruin other peoples' lives is a feature, not a bug. Those people are sinners anyway. The ends justifies the means and all that.....

Tym|2.29.08 @ 4:47PM|#

UCrawford, I've had similer experiences. A few years ago on a visit to my parents

I usually get one of a few replies, about "harm to society", examples, which can be rebutted logically.

1) Driving. We ban intox driving, just like alcohol.

2) Negative societal effects. Most are caused by black markets, and besides all this occurs in an environment when they are illegal. If banning hasn't make it go away, why would it in future.

3) Children shouldnt use. Neither should they drive, drink, smoke etc. We don't want to make everything in the world only for children.

All these are reasons t ban alcohol, why is this not a good idea? And why is it a good idea for other substances?

LarryA|2.29.08 @ 4:48PM|#

Never mind preventing treatment of overdose. How is going to prison and having a life-long drug record that keeps you from getting an education and working for government contractors and an expanding list of other businesses and professions less harmful than doing marijuana?

This is getting closer and closer to the old "burn 'em at the stake to save their souls" philosophy.

|2.29.08 @ 5:17PM|#

Tym--

Gee, thanks, never would have thought of those. ;^)

All kidding aside, logic seldom works with people when they didn't arrive at their position using logic in the first place. That's the rub here. Drug warriors use the facade of harm reduction to mask their real agenda which is to end drug usage. To them you might as well be arguing for legalization of murder, rape, or (like my brother-in-law) bank robbery.

Tym|2.29.08 @ 5:21PM|#

logic seldom works with people when they didn't arrive at their position using logic in the first place.

True, but for many I don't think they have even thought about it, it is just the way it is and always (100 years or so) was and any alternative isn't thinkable. Plus the media only shows the worst abusers.

UCrawford|2.29.08 @ 5:25PM|#

Larry,

When I mentioned that I thought pot s/b legal, my brother-in-law retorted "What's next, legalized bank robbery?".

My folks were watching a Bill Kurtis documentary about the meth "epidemic" and I started to say that the primary reason a drug as dangerous as meth existed was because it was relatively easy to acquire the materials to make it and because "safer" drugs were illegal...sort of like bathtub gin back in Prohibition. I didn't make it to the "bathtub gin" comment because that's the point at which my sister interrupted and started literally screaming about how the only reason people used drugs is because they're criminals and how I apparently thought it was okay if drunk drivers killed families (at which point my dad jumped in on her side arguing the same straw man and the conversation degenerated into a yelling match). I love my sister and she's generally a sweet and intelligent person but sometimes I think she's just a sheltered little snob who's got her head squarely up her ass. Not so coincidentally, she doesn't know too many people who've used drugs either so addicts are just "other people" to her.

Tym,

I agree with every one of your points. The problem is that most of the hardcore folks I've encountered have absolutely no interest in debating the drug war logically...they believe drugs are evil so anyone who tries to bring up legalization is taking the side of evil and needs to be shouted down.

|2.29.08 @ 5:26PM|#

Tym, no argument there. It certainly can't hurt to plant the seeds of logic. Although the ground where we are trying to do the planting is usually rather hard and not very fertile.... lol

UCrawford|2.29.08 @ 5:32PM|#

Tym

True, but for many I don't think they have even thought about it, it is just the way it is and always (100 years or so) was and any alternative isn't thinkable.

The problem is that they don't want to think about it and have no intention of thinking about it...it's an issue of faith with them. It's like trying to debate atheism with a religious fanatic...they're not interested in debate or hearing what you have to say, they just want you to hear what they have to say and then they want the conversation to end.

Sadly, the only time they're willing to think about stuff like the War on Drugs is when it costs them personally. More of that Monkeysphere stuff, I suppose...if they can't see the negative consequences for themselves, then the negative consequences don't exist.

What Juanita Would Say|2.29.08 @ 5:32PM|#

Those people are so much better off dead than hooked on dangerous drugs. Being hooked on dangerous drugs could kill you. Or something.

Being dead is God's way of telling you to stop doing drugs.

No. I\'m not David Duke|2.29.08 @ 5:32PM|#

But drug laws are an unsurpassed way to throw black and brown people into prison.

Therefore, they will never be repealed.

UCrawford|2.29.08 @ 5:40PM|#

Actually, to be completely fair to my sister and other pro-drug war folk, I was very sympathetic to that viewpoint until I joined the Army and met a lot of people who had dealt and were dealing with substance abuse issues and got a chance to see how the war on drugs affected things elsewhere in the world. Basically, I was a sheltered snob myself until I wasn't...so I probably shouldn't judge them too harshly for that.

|2.29.08 @ 5:42PM|#

My parents totally agree with Bill Bennett that prohibition should have never been ended, because being intoxicated on any substance is moral sin. I've come to the conclusion that alot of religous people want sinful behavior outlawed so they won't personally be tempted.

|2.29.08 @ 6:53PM|#

I oppose cancer research because I believe lung-cancer is an important deterrent to smoking.

|2.29.08 @ 8:15PM|#

We had to kill these drug users to save them.



Or, uh, at least to save their souls.



If they repent.



After they're dead.

economist|2.29.08 @ 9:22PM|#

"We don't want to make everything in this world only for children"
How dare you suggest that adults should be able to make their own decisions! Jesus told us to be more like children and stuff like that.

economist|2.29.08 @ 9:25PM|#

One of the most pernicious arguments I ever heard was when one moralizing buttmunch compared butt-sex to sulfur dioxide emissions: basically, he argues that it pollutes society just by happening. When someone has reached this level of insanity, you probably shouldn't even try to turn them back. (I do not endorse butt-sex, but I don't care if it's other people's "thing").

herodotus|2.29.08 @ 9:33PM|#

Wow these are some stupid people being mentioned, meaning the drugs-are-evil-so-shutup-shutup-SHUTUP! crowd. (no offense to anyone's loved ones I hope).

I just never meet people like that. What kind of music do they listen to? Pat Boone? Don't they know that virtually every single musician in the world.....

Oh, of course, they listen to country music. And of course those people never use drugs.

Really, this shit is the most depressing kind of shit.

Mad Toothfish|2.29.08 @ 10:20PM|#

"Madras' reaction offers a telling glimpse into the mind of a drug warrior."

Sloppy editing: I think this exaggerates the case a bit.

It does get us inside the head of a drug warrior -- I'm willing to assume that much. ;-)

Robert|2.29.08 @ 11:58PM|#

All these are reasons t ban alcohol, why is this not a good idea? And why is it a good idea for other substances?

The answer many of them give is that it's too hard to make a ban on alcohol stick, and relatively easy to do so with other substances. They say or at least imply that if liquor had been banned thousands of years ago, before so many people got to like it, then that ban would've had a chance to stick. Of course there was no chance to do so then, there being no such thing as laws.

|3.1.08 @ 12:29AM|#

"Doctor" Madras should be expelled from the medical profession. She's violating the Hippocratic oath.

-jcr

|3.1.08 @ 11:11AM|#

I sometimes wonder how those peopl would react if we come up with an HIV vaccine that works.

I know exactly how the religious right, holier than me, will react. So do you, Shane.

But I'm an atheist, so i have no foundation for my morality.

|3.1.08 @ 11:29AM|#

Not so coincidentally, she doesn't know too many people who've used drugs either so addicts are just "other people" to her.

I'll bet she knows many users. They just generally don't talk about their drug use to anal retentive prudes.

UCrawford, I'll apologize for insulting your sister as soon as drug warriors start apologizing for all of the lives they've ruined. I've seen it happen both ways. Drug use (including alcohol) ruining peoples lives, as well as vindictive puritanical drug laws ruining healthy, happy, sane, and productive lives. Ending prohibition will, at a minimum, put a stop to the latter.

|3.1.08 @ 12:01PM|#

The results of my drug use in college:

With alcohol:
parties, hangovers, vomiting, etc.
1.5 GPA, scholastic probation / suspension.

I gave up alcohol, except on rare occassions.

With cannabis use:
Dean's List 2X, Master of Science degree

|3.1.08 @ 12:02PM|#

I didn't consume cannabis regularly until my second year of college.

|3.1.08 @ 12:07PM|#

"I've come to the conclusion that alot of religous people want sinful behavior outlawed so they won't personally be tempted."

IMHO many anti gay activists are that way because they are afraid that the might have teh gay.

|3.1.08 @ 12:21PM|#

I'll bet she knows many users. They just generally don't talk about their drug use to anal retentive prudes.

Of course, this illustrates one of the insidious side effects of the WOD. The WOD causes all drug users, including the casual, responsible user, to keep their usage secret. If the wrong people learn about their drug usage, it could cause them to lose their job or, worse yet, come under the srutiny of the gendarmes.

This, in turn, leads the ordinary WOD supporter to assume that all drug use is problematic, as they only see the "worst case scenario" events that make into the news. Things like overdoses, gang warfare and drive-bys, DUI's, etc. The responible use is hidden from them and therefore they don't believe it exists.

In this closed world view, the WOD makes perfect sense. When all you see are these bad endings for drug users yet you know that people still do them, you conclude that these drugs are even more insidious than you thought as they cause people to act irrationally, in their closed world.

You ask them whether they believe eveyone who drinks alcohol will eventually become addicted and they'll answer "No.". The reason they answer "no" is because with legal alcohol, the drinker doesn't need to hide the drinking and the tee-totaler can see it doesn't lead to ruin. You ask them the same question about pot or other controlled substances, they usually answer "yes" because responsible use is invisible to them, whereas the homeless street addict or prostitute is visible.

Of course, for some, the very fact one would choose to risk punishment under the law by choosing to possess illegal drugs is an irrational act, therefore making these drugs more insidious. It's a real, nice, closed, self-sustaining feed-back loop these folks exist in.

O\'Brady Factor|3.1.08 @ 4:17PM|#

One can't but conclude that the drug warriors secretly celebrate the overdose-caused deaths of drug users.

Just like the anti-gunners secretly celebrate every high-profile mass shooting/school shooting.

|3.2.08 @ 6:49PM|#

What I love is how my tax dollars are being used to pay some doctor to advocate for people being sicker and using more of my tax dollars (because, I can tell you from personal experience few people who OD pay their own medical bills with private insurance or cash in the USA) to be treated in an emergency room than on their own.
Scientific study of intranasal naloxone given in this manner has shown not only a decreased in OD deaths, but also considerable cost-savings. For example, among others.

http://www.harmreduction.org/downloads/J%20Urban%20Health%20-%20pilot%20study%20on%20narcan%20and%20CPR%20in%20SF.pdf

JohnD|3.3.08 @ 10:15AM|#

I couldn't care less if all of you Reason wennies OD. Just don't expect me to pick up your medical tab. If that means you die, tough. Bad behavior should have consequences

J. Gravelle|3.4.08 @ 9:36AM|#

If hitting yourself in the head with a hammer felt good, Republicans would want to shoot you for doing it, and Democrats would want to buy you safer skull-smacking hardware.

In essence, both sides would, to some degree, blame the hammer...


-jjg

|3.4.08 @ 10:19PM|#

Randy Bean generalized: "Christians view the WOD as morality insurance (of course, most wouldn't admit to this)."

I am a Christian. I oppose the War on Dope, and believe that if you choose to burn out your brain in a way which doesn't directly endanger others, you have the right to do so.

What you DON'T have the right to do is put words in my mouth, so that you can condemn me for them.