# Medical pot and the "war on Drugs"



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

This article is out of the Washington Times, how long are we going to continue to do the same thing and expect different results. We need to legalize drugs and use all the money we save on treatment and education. Look at the number of folks in our jails for this its a shame on our country. And no I don't believe in using drugs of any kind for other than medical purposes, but the recent debate about medical pot for cancer victims once agian brings the issue to the forefront.
Analysis: Study shows U.S. losing drug war

By Vytenis Didziulis
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL

Washington, DC, Dec. 1 (UPI) -- After 25 years and $25 billion the United States is further from winning the war on drugs, a study released Tuesday indicates.

The report conducted by the Washington Office on Latin America, a non-governmental organization that has the stated goal of trying to "reorient U.S. drug control policy to the region," concludes that U.S. policy geared toward "reducing drug abuse and availability in the United States" from a* "supply-reduction model does not work."*
Citing falling wholesale and retail cocaine and heroin prices and collateral damage suffered in Latin American countries as a result of U.S. anti-drug policy, Joy Olson, executive director of WOLA, said, *"We've been tough on drugs, now it's time to get smart on drugs."* :beer: 
Research in Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, Puerto Rico, Argentina, Bolivia and Central America "reveals effects across Latin America and the Caribbean" are abundant, Coletta Youngers, one of the authors of the report, said at a news conference.

The three-year study, "Drugs and Democracy in Latin America: The Impact of U.S. Policy," includes independently recorded data and unreleased studies carried out by the Rand Corporation for the Office of National Drug Control Policy that were leaked to WOLA by a congressional office, according to John Walsh, WOLA senior associate for the Andes and drug policy.

Walsh and a senior adviser at the ONDCP confirmed the initial report had been submitted to the office in spring 2004 but has not yet been released.

Over the last 25 years U.S. policy has tried to attack the war on drugs from a supply-side perspective. Through the eradication of coca crops in producing countries, interdicting drug shipments to the United States and jailing drug offenders, authorities were hoping to significantly drive up the cost of cocaine and heroin -- thus reducing cocaine's economic appeal to potential users.

However, the attempted siphoning of the supply side has lowered street prices and increased the number of incarcerated drug offenders, driving up government spending, without significantly reducing the amount of drug flow, the study's findings show.

Data compiled by WOLA show that since 1981 the retail price for 2 grams of cocaine went from $544.59 to $106.54 in 2003. Retail heroin prices mirrored the decline in cocaine prices, falling from $1,974.49 to $361.95 during the period.

Walsh noted that "price estimates are manifestations of supply and demand" and thus are the most accurate indicators to "determine what is coming in."

*The number of incarcerated drug offenders rose from 45,272 to 480,519 from 1981 to 2002, and government spending on overseas supply control rose from $373.9 million to $3.6 billion from 1981 to 2004.* :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: 
Overall, government spending on supply control and the price of cocaine and heroin have had negatively correlated trends, with the price of cocaine decreasing by 32 percent and spending rising by almost 10 percent.

*The greatest change occurred in the number of jailed drug offenders, which swelled by 55 percent, serving sentences that are sometimes incommensurate to the crime and could be addressed more cost effectively through drug rehabilitation, the report said.*
Imperfections of the supply-side counter-drug effort are manifested in Latin America in the "ballooning" effect of coca production, the propping up of smaller drug cartels that are harder to infiltrate and dismantle and the collateral damage inflicted on governments and democratic institutions.

The ballooning effect describes the attempts to eradicate illicit drug crops from one region or country only to have a reduction in that region result in an equal increase in production in another region or country.

"While the share of crops raised in each coca-producing country has fluctuated, the total land area under cultivation has not varied dramatically," the authors of the study wrote.

A senior policy adviser from the ONDCP who spoke to UPI on the condition of anonymity refuted WOLA's findings, citing a decrease of "18 percent in 2003 in all the Andean region."

The senior policy adviser said WOLA's study used "erroneous and misleading claims" when in reality the ONDCP "budget is 45 percent demand reduction" and drug policy has spawned "massive investment" for alternative crop development.

Collateral damage sustained on government institutions in Latin America include an increased and opaque role of the military in policing and judicial matters, repeated human-rights violations by military and police personnel, restrictions on civil liberties, political instability and crop eradication and alternative development programs.

One of the most direct criticisms of the United States implicated in this report is on the question of human rights.

"U.S. policy directly results in human rights abuses," the report concluded, basing its assumptions on U.S. funding and training of special military and police units that have been shown to commit human-rights abuses with impunity.

Crop eradication and alternative-development policy is where the report suggests the greatest gains can be made with creative and intelligent policies.

Currently, the United States has embarked on a strategy of aerial fumigation of illicit crops, often targeting small-scale peasant cultivation.

The targeting of the base of the drug-trafficking pyramid structure, most notable in Colombia, "has proven to be counterproductive" and "almost all cost and no benefits," according to Gustavo Gorriti, co-director of the Peruvian daily newspaper La Republica.

This is because the peasant farmers who cultivate coca as the only means to make a living wage see not only their coca crops fumigated but also their legal, tradable crops destroyed -- driving them deeper into misery and delaying sustainable development.

The senior policy adviser for the ONDCP said most of the destruction of arable farm land is due to slash-and-burn techniques used by illicit-crop farmers who are dependent on "narco-colonialism" -- a term describing the dependence of peasants on ruthless drug traffickers.

New policy, the study suggests, should focus more on combating high-level drug king pins, tracking money from drug sales, interdicting drug shipments close to home, spending more on education and rehabilitation and less on incarceration, and stopping forced eradication and introducing greater quantities of alternative-development assistance.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

...What can i Say? a POT head is still a POT head: regardless of what is on the prescription.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

So if you wife or kid was on chemotherapy and could not hold their food down due to the nausia with chemo you would not appove of her having it?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

My cousin from the UK used medical marijuana when going through chemo, it helped the pain considerably. I see no reason why it has not yet been legalized here.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

My mother recently went through cancer and she is now in "remission". She would have never taken marijuana to soothe her pain, but I saw what she was going through and I would haven't have thought anything bad about her taking it if she wanted. We have too god da*n many ignorant people in the world that impose their views (I'm guilty as well) w/o ever being in situations themselves. My mother lost all of her hair, she couldn't get out of bed, she didn't eat...and if she did...she threw it up right away, she had dry heaves, and not enough energy to hold a glass of water. I wish they would study the positive effects of some of these "alternative" methods/drugs a little more. And another thing, if any of my friends/family would ever take medical marijuana (for a legitimate use) and I heard someone utter pothead behind their backs..........they's get their *** whipped, shot, then gutted! I may even tar and feather them in their front yard when I was finished.

Sorry, but unless you have been through it with someone close, you have know idea about cancer!


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

Oh, and I'm talking about for glaucoma either. I have never had it or known anyone that does, so don't think I'm an advocate for pot !


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Along these same lines, I remember seeing a news story a few years ago about the trouble some doctors have gotten themselves into for prescribing narcotics for those people in chronic pain. Some people, such as those that have suffered back injuries, are in excrutiating, chronic pain. Some of these folks were absolutely miserable and barely able to function.

Anyway, a doctor with some of these patients was prescribing some hard-core narcotics for their pain. Interestingly enough, these patients started to be able to do everyday things like walking across the room and be able to tie their shoes. More interesting, the patients did not have the addiction problems that drug abusers typically have, something about the body's responses to severe pain.

The Drug Enforcement Agency stepped in after they saw the large doses of these narcotics beign shipped to the doctor. Even though the use was medical and the patients could not function (in fact, barely exist), the doctor faced prison time if he continued prescribing the medication. As a result, he stopped. Who do you think was best qualified to assess whether the use of the narcotics was valid, the doctor or the DEA?

I agree that we oftentimes can't understand a situation until we have walked in somebody else's shoes.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

....NO i wouldnt want her in pain, and NO i woudnt let her smoke pot. there are other medical drugs out there we could use.

What is with you people using all your hypothetical, emothion, "What if" guilt trips? Maybee there are varriable senarios for you, but as for me, i am firm in what i believe, and im not going to change and make a hypocrite out of myself just to satisfy your "WHAT IF?" Bellogna.

Legalize pot...for normal use...Are you from the Netherlands? Just because they can smoke themselves sky high, doesnt mean we should. LOOK at all the countries tha have legalied POT. NONE OF THEM are worth modeling ourselvs after. NONE.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Why do they call it common sense when it is not common? I remember when my mother was 90 years old. She was about 5ft 1 inch and 100 lbs. The medicine she was taking, whatever it was, the doctor said was habit forming so he had to take her off it. I said to him "who cares, do you think she is going to sneak out of the nursing home at night and mug teenagers in the alleys"? I guess he didn't like my attitude.

Mr Trooper, you know I respect you, and I share your religious beliefs, but because bad people use drugs doesn't negate the fact that these things can be used for good. I truly believe that in some black clouds (illegal drugs) there can exist small silver linings. Many good things if abused are not good. Likewise many things if not used abusively are not that bad. Like the firearm it is not the inanimate object that brings evil to our door it is the misuse of it by people. Marijuana is not intrinsically good or bad, it is how we use it.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

I understand that plains! There is just to much potential for abuse!

Get the genetacists buisy and have them make some pot that doesnt have the heluconogenic Effects, or the addictive chemical agents, and i wouldnt have a problem. THAT would be medicinal Marijuana.

Or better yet, who not just extract the chemicals that cause the relief of pain, and put them in pill form? THAT would be another potential use of it.

But prescibing strait-up POT? thats a little shady to me.

i hope you all can see where im coming from.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"I understand that plains! There is just to much potential for abuse! "

So as opposed to properly doling out the medical marijuana, you propose that we don't make it legal to get at all. This is a lot like welfare, as opposed to setting up measures to make sure only those who need it get it, you want to shut it down entirely. You fail to realize that in doing so you will hurt many people.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Mr Trooper

Absolutely, I understand where you are coming from. I respect your decision, it took a lot of thought on my part. In the end I was able to separate the abuse from the object being abused. I also realize it would perhaps put one more strain on enforcement, but the trade off is worth it. I can tell your keeping and open mind and searching for answers. This is an answer you will have to come to yourself. I also realize that those who try to push their values on you will make you all the more resolved. Nothing wrong with being stubborn when you feel you are right. Good luck.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Get the genetacists buisy and have them make some pot that doesnt have the heluconogenic Effects, or the addictive chemical agents, and i wouldnt have a problem. THAT would be medicinal Marijuana.


You don't hallucinate on pot and if you are dying of cancer because you can't eat, what difference does it make if they are addicted, if they would which I doubt. And the drug companies would love to come up a special strain that they could charge these poor sick people thru the nose for it.

Heres a article by William F. Buckley hardly a liberal POT head, pay particular attention to the comments by his friend that had cancer.

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/pr ... 301611.asp

Many cancer victims die because they cannot sustain themselve thru the treatment not from the cancer.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Bob, you r not going to change my mind by systematicaly trashing each point i made.

Guess who has to decide whether i like this idea......ME, NOT YOU.

:beer:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

The problem here trooper, as is with all of the issues that we argue is that you don't want to allow anyone to have the chance at it, as opposed to just deciding for yourself.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

the free exchange of ideas is not trashing your points its the point of a forum like this, and I wasn't taking to your closed mind I was commenting on your points for the benefit of other readers. Anyone that would allow his wife to stay in pain because some beaurocrat in Washington arbitrairily outlawed something ( undoubtedly at the behest of the alcohol lobby) that would help her cannot be reasoned with.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

So now im unreasonable. Ok, whatever. I never said i would let anyone stay in pain. Of course i would do anything i could for her. I just dont think Marijuana is a good idea. But thanks for the label anyway!

"The problem here trooper, as is with all of the issues that we argue is that you don't want to allow anyone to have the chance at it, as opposed to just deciding for yourself."

Why is it that eveory time i state my opinion you say im being a "hypocrite" or "unreasonable" or "taking away peoples freedom"? What about the "free exchange of ideas"? somehow that doesnt aplpy to me i guess.

All iv EVER done is say what i beleve, and that i think its the best way for people to do it. I NEVER supported taking away any freedoms granted to us. yet im the "hypocrite" because i dont agree with you.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"Why is it that eveory time i state my opinion you say im being a "hypocrite" or "unreasonable" or "taking away peoples freedom"? What about the "free exchange of ideas"? somehow that doesnt aplpy to me i guess. "

So if you state that you think neo-nazi's are great, I shouldn't be allowed to disagree, right. I stated that in nearly every scenario such as this IE abortion, gay marriage, etc... you want to remove everyone's chance to make a choice, as opposed to just making a choice for yourself.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I don't think recreationally smoking pot is a good idea either. My comment was a reaction to you claiming I was "trashing" your points. I wasn't I was just trying to answer your posted points, with what I believe to be facts. And I meant no malice.

I never said you were a hippocrite and don't think you are,far from it.
I did say you were closed minded about this issue but you said it first


> i am firm in what i believe, and im not going to change


. The greatest minds of their time once believed the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.

I too have firm ethics and beliefs but I am always open to the possibility I'm wrong about something and if someone comes up with logical, factual points to counter my position I consider their points and I don't label it as trashing.

If you read the article I posted at the beginning of the thread you would have to draw the conclusion that we have been approaching the problem incorrectly and if that conclusion is correct than should we not change our approach? We have spent 25 billion on the supply interdiction and the stuff is easier and cheaper to get, should we just stupidly march on or should we try something else?

For some reason the drug issue sure does bring up some totally irrational reactions among many people.

How much good could 25 billion dollars do spent in schools for honest drug education and treatment centers for those addicted, what good is sccomplished keeping 450,000 non-violent people in jail at great expense to the taxpayer. I think Hollands approach is much smarter than the one we use.

I would love to see this forum have conversations without everyone getting so offended and ****** off all the time, its disheartening.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

sorry BOB, iv made some comunications errors.

FISRT, the other comments such as Hypocrite, blah, blah...Those were dirrected at MT, and not you. The two of us (Bob and I) have alwase gotten along well, and i know youv never said anything like that.

SECOND, when i said was "firm in my beliefs", i was refering to recreational Pot use, and to the abuse of the Medical pot system. Sorry for that bit of confusion.

THIRD, i think iv unintentionaly confused and allienated some people here with my poor sentance construction, so let me correct it, and make clear what i was trying too hard to say:

I am completely against virtualy all forms of drugs FOR RECREATIONA USE. I am not, however, against letting people who are suffering, or in extreem pain use whatever they need to dull the pain. FOR EXAMPLE-im opposed to the consumtion of Alchohol(but if you want to drink thats fine. I know what happened with prohibition, so im not about to take away anyones "right" to drink booze...) The only two times i would drink, or support drinking, would be if alchohol was the only safe source of drink, or if someone was dying/in extreem pain and it was the only thing around to dull the pain. i feal the same way about Marijuana. If someone is dying, or is genuinly in excrutiating pain, then give the poor people whatever they need to feal better for a while. Im NOT some Horible old Ogre that doenst want people to be happy, or doesnt want people to have the relief they need.

Sorry if i have confused anyone. i will try to make my statements more clear from now on.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I don't drink or smoke anything although I did both when I was young and stupid. The prohibition of alchohol is a good anology of what we are currently doing with drugs it failed as the drug war has failed. And the war on drugs has created a lot of criminals out of people that need help not jail time, cost taxpayers a fortune and we should stop it and try something else. I think it was Einstein that said that when you kep doing the same thing expecting a different result its a good description of insanity.

As for MT, hes a teenage kid and all teenagers are smart guys so I wouldn't let his insults bother you. He does at least show an interest in issues so he will come around as he grows up. I live with my 5 teenage kids so I guess I'm immune to their idiot comments :lol: . I have faith that MT and my kids wil grow up just like we did.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"...What can i Say? a POT head is still a POT head: regardless of what is on the prescription."

" I am not, however, against letting people who are suffering, or in extreem pain use whatever they need to dull the pain."

I called you a hypocrite because in this thread alone you have proven yourself one.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Yea, i didnt read the intial post. my fault.

Aslo, i wasnt being serious in my first few posts. i didnt expect this to become such a large debated topic, and thus i didnt take it seriously.  Sorry, my fault. i will be more clear int he future.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

I personally think they should legalize pot. Put a warning label on it with the consequences and if people want to use it then that is there business. We allow people to smoke and chew. This can kill you. We have legalized alcohol. It can kill you and ruin your life.

My grandpa once told me when I was 16. "You're old enough now to make your own bad decisions."

He let me drink beer if I wanted to or have drinks. He told me what could happen if I did anything in excess. Guess what? I've never had a problem with alcohol.

I am sick of watching my tax money go to fight drugs that people are going to use anyway.

You want to ruin your life. Go ahead. But don't ask me to help you out and don't ask me to make decisions for you.

I think its time we let Darwin's theory kick in here.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

I hear ya there. i DEFINATELY think to much money is spent on prisoners, and on enforcing lots of stupid meaningless laws. THAT kind of reform is something we would all benifit from.


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

should be legal... alcohol is worse than pot...


----------



## snoopy (Sep 29, 2003)

First of all I am not a user of any drugs and very rarely drink anymore. I just can't understand how pot can be illegal in a country where drinking yourself to death is OK. I have been around both alcohol and pot and in my observation alcohol is alot more dangerous.

1.) pot has a lower rate of addiction. Medical fact.

2.) I've never seen stoner get high and decide to fight or kick the sh!t out of his girlfriend. They just want to be loved. However, whisky seems to bring out the violent A-hole is some people.

3.) Don't give me any of that crap about pot leads to other drugs. Alcohol is the drug that most users start out with.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that weed is a good thing but what an incredible double standard we have between weed and booze. I get tired of hearing ******** (I am one by the way) with 2 DUI's and a list of other problems run down the "stoners". Let's look in a mirror before we cast any stones!


----------

