The problem with these kinds of articles is that they make the assumption that governmental drug fighting efforts are sincere. They probably aren't that sincere to their original intent now. Like most other government agencies, they start out with some presumption of sincerity, but then the old case of "the means becomes the ends" sets in. Reminds me of what Tom Wolfe meant when the lawyer character in Bonfire of the Vanities labelled the line of criminals waiting at the back of the courthouse as "chow."
The DEA will probably never go away, because it keeps people employed for one thing, and helps large pharmaceutical companies keep small pharm companies (makers of class II, III drugs with expired patents) from building a legitimate enough business that would help these smaller companies spend money on new drug research. Keeping drugs illegal is good business; it has less to do with discouraging illicit drug use.
The problem with these kinds of articles is that they make the assumption that governmental drug fighting efforts are sincere. They probably aren't that sincere to their original intent now.
I don't quite understand your usage of the word "sincere". As an ER nurse that's worked in the ghetto of Chicago, I have worked alongside many law enforcement officers. The thinking that hard drugs (cocaine, heroine, crack, meth) are bad and should be off the streets is a sincere and fairly universal belief. The majority of the efforts that I've seen first hand in getting these drugs off the streets are well intentioned and sincere albeit ineffective and futile.
The DEA will probably never go away, because it keeps people employed for one thing, and helps large pharmaceutical companies keep small pharm companies (makers of class II, III drugs with expired patents) from building a legitimate enough business that would help these smaller companies spend money on new drug research. Keeping drugs illegal is good business; it has less to do with discouraging illicit drug use.
Wow, that's a really cynical point of view, and sounds very conspiratorial.
Mind you, I would have little problems with legalization of many drugs that are strictly controlled now. I've administered cocaine and very strong morphine derivatives to patients for years. I've also lost track of how many people's lives I've helped save from heroine OD's. People make choices to kill themselves with alcohol. They can also choose to kill themselves with cocaine as far as I'm concerned. If cocaine were as cheap and abundant as alcohol, there wouldn't be as much crime as far as I'm concerned.
But the idea that Big Pharma is in collusion with the DEA to keep certain classes of drugs is silly as far as I'm concerned. A much simpler explanation is that a large percentage of the population thinks that these substances are evil or too dangerous to be freely available.
You find quite of bit of support for legalizing marijuana on the Coasts, but even among the drug legalization crowd, I haven't really heard too many people suggesting that morphine/heroine derivatives like Vicodin and Oxycontin, or stimulants like cocaine be sold freely like alcohol or nicotine. I don't believe that our society is ready to accept that.
You must understand why people have conspiratorial attitudes here: the CIA has on more than one occasion been involved with drug trafficking. Iran-Contra at the very least. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking
The particular conspiracy of the grandparent post doesn't make much sense though -- DEA scheduling is not what makes it hard for smaller pharma companies. Jksmith, could you explain your logic a little more with that?
There is no doubt in my mind that the CIA has trafficked in drugs. I grew up in the country between Nicaragua (The Contras) and Panama (Manuel Noriega) during the 80's. I'm sure that they still traffic drugs or worse to achieve whatever objectives they're after.
But, the idea of the entire DEA being in collusion with big Pharma to keep drugs illegal is a bit silly when there are other much more straight forward answers that fit the evidence much more readily.
If marijuana were readily available from pharmacies, how many people would use it instead of Vicodin or Oxycontin to treat pain? And it may be an effective antidepressant for many people. There are tens of billions of threatened revenue right there. Any other industry with that much at stake would exert substantial influence on the govt.
However, marijuana growers need it to stay illegal too. Some of them are influential in CA. It's currently the largest single cash crop in the US, just because it's illegal. If it were legal, it could probably be grown and sold for the same price as corn.
As for pain, I don't think it functions as a direct substitute for opiates but in combination with opiates lower doses are needed for the same antinociceptive effect. It is probably a more direct treatment for certain kinds of nerve pain.
Price shouldn't really be an object for people that are depressed: Wal-mart has a number of generic anti-depressants available for $4 and $10 for a 90 day prescription. The doctors' appointments are more expensive than the drugs themselves. Depressed people need marijuana like they need large amounts of alcohol. It would be a terrible thing if large numbers of depressed people starting self-medicating with marijuana, medical cannabis's #1 negative side effect is the tendency to exacerbate underlying mental health conditions. The anxiety/paranoia caused is very real and doesn't mix very well with depression. http://i.walmartimages.com/i/if/hmp/fusion/customer_list.pdf
The marijuana growers in CA definitely benefit financially from the current state of affairs. Right now things are just about ideal. I would still bet that the majority of them would prefer their industry to made legitimate, despite the repercussions on their revenue. It's a political/belief thing. The price fall to tobacco levels (no government subsidies + evil tax) will take years during which profits are sky high. There will be price fixing.
If I was a top marijuana grower and cannabis was legalized, I would be on the phone to the tobacco companies immediately offering my skills as a high paid consultant. It will be interesting to see what happens, I fully expect cannabis to become legal during Obama's second term. Or at least for medical marijuana to be legal in the majority of the states.
While I know that marijuana relieves pain for certain, very specific illnesses, to say that it is a general pain relief alternative is quite naive.
As to whether or not it is an adequete antidepressant, you believe what you want. I don't know of any evidence to support its effectiveness in that category of drugs.
Sounds like you haven't smoked much marijuana, I'd say you're wrong on both counts. I'd go so far as to say marijuana's primary use is as an anti depressant. It's a freaking make me happy/content drug for Christ sake, that's why people smoke it.
Regarding issues of conspiracy, we tend to want to use labels which make things easy to consume, imo. Either you can take the article for face value, or I think there's a conspiracy going on.
That's just not the case, IMO. We tend to see things from an on the ground perspective. Those who are right in the middle of making large governmental decisions have a very different perspective. It's not conspiracy, it's shades of grey. I could offer a couple of examples if you like.
Lots of drugs which are scheduled in this country are over the counter in other countries. Notices that they are all generally very cheap - to make and manufacture. Sched II and III can oftentimes benefit the large US drug manfacturers, because they encourage limited access to the most lucrative drug market in the world to the second tier drug manufacturers.
You find quite of bit of support for legalizing marijuana on the Coasts, but even among the drug legalization crowd, I haven't really heard too many people suggesting that morphine/heroine derivatives like Vicodin and Oxycontin, or stimulants like cocaine be sold freely like alcohol or nicotine. I don't believe that our society is ready to accept that.
I would guess that much of the focus on marijuana is to do with setting achievable goals. Similarly to medical marijuana or soft decriminalisation. Marijuana is easier to 'sell' because it is so commonly used & arguably far less harmful then alcohol.
But on the whole, I agree with the article pretty much word-for-word. Decriminalising marijuana might be a positive step. Less risk of impurity. Less soft criminals in jail. Less unnecessary meddling in individual rights. But avoiding the big evils of drug prohibition: narco-states & a ($320b less whatever marijuana retailing is worth) illegal industry, that is the big fish.
On the question of the more harmful drugs, I suppose if we ever get there, they should be made available very gradually, & keep the process non-ideological.
The people you have worked with, the LE at that street level, can hardly fn read, and they don't write the laws, and they don't profit from them the way others higher up the chain do, but they do understand that it is keeping them employed.
I'm am going to stay away from this thread after this, I live in the Republic of Colombia, and I am a bit - let us say - INTIMATELY acquainted with the topic. Why? One of the multiple reasons is that my Grandfather served and retired as a Colombian Supreme Court Justice, I have had a few talks with him over shots of that sugarcane hooch they like here, and the corruption on behalf of the Colombian gov AND the Americans down here is downright astonishing.
The gov and pharma and defense contractors ARE in cahoots in America. All you have to do is look!
The only solution short of vaccination (I understand there is a cocaine vaccine in the works) OR (my favorite idea) creating a biological agent that sets off a major crop disease which eradicates most of the coca plants - the only solution is to legalize, the problem is, you do that and no more clandestine crates full of 100 dollar bills for anyone in the US, Mexico, Colombia govs.
There is actually quite a bit of literature, from credible sources (some former high ranking LE) anyone that cares to look further into the topic most certainly can.
Ok, goodbye thread, now I'm getting worked up remembering some of the greasy illiterates (and their whores) driving BMW's that I have had minor run ins with down here with, ALL BECAUSE PROHIBITION ALLOWS SUCH SUBHUMANS TO PROFIT.
Honestly I think the whole reason for the "war on drugs" is to justify domestic surveillance and wire tapping.
You make a valid point that it also has become it's own end, but I also think it's much easier to have strong and assertive domestic law enforcement when you can justify it by claiming they are "fighting the war on drugs".
I wish you and your parent would stick with Occam's Razor on this one. There really are a large percentage of reasonably minded people who think that legalizing drugs would cause more harm than good. Considering that alcohol has well-known negative effects on society, and is legal, it's not as if these folks' concerns are outrageous.
I'm fully, passionately on board with legalizing drugs, but accusing your opponents of intellectual dishonesty all the time only impresses people who already agree with you.
Well when I said that I wasn't trying to claim that everyone who supports the current drug laws was being intellectually dishonest.
I was trying to say that I think the reason law enforcement (at all levels) pursues the 'drug war' so assertively is that it justifies a lot of spending, manpower, and surveillance, which may be good or bad.
When something pays the bills and gives you a little more latitude to operate, you'll find ways to justify it whether you are winning or losing.
Isn't this just BS, physiologically speaking? I have never heard of SSRIs increasing dopamine levels. Wikipedia even claims the opposite: "It is believed that sexual dysfunction is caused by an SSRI induced reduction in dopamine."
1. "Anti-depressant" is not synonymous with "SSRI". Benzodiazepines are also used to treat depression and can create a strong chemical dependency.
2. The concept of addiction is hard to define, and is becoming more so. Some drugs (marijuana springs to mind) can be considered addictive, but don't seem to cause the unthinking crave-gratify-repeat cycle you see with cocaine or nicotine. Some have argued that checking email or Facebook, playing MMORPGs, and "consuming" pornography are addictive.
The DEA will probably never go away, because it keeps people employed for one thing, and helps large pharmaceutical companies keep small pharm companies (makers of class II, III drugs with expired patents) from building a legitimate enough business that would help these smaller companies spend money on new drug research. Keeping drugs illegal is good business; it has less to do with discouraging illicit drug use.