Comments on: The war on drugs and a milestone critique Tue, 31 Mar 2015 01:18:20 +0000 hourly 1 By: traduceri romana daneza Tue, 14 Oct 2014 10:49:58 +0000 Casana I was suggested this blog by my cousin. I’m not sure whether this post is written by him as no one else know such detailed about my problem. You are amazing! Thanks! your article about image1

By: Oda Swales Thu, 09 Oct 2014 22:33:13 +0000 I think other web site proprietors should take this site as an model, very clean and great user friendly style and design, let alone the content. You are an expert in this topic!

By: BajaArizona Mon, 29 Aug 2011 18:54:24 +0000 @Watson

I hope you never get rear-ended at a stop sign and suffer chronic pain for the rest of your life that at times makes you wish for death while doctors treat you as a criminal for asking for relief.

I also despise scum like Corey Haim who before he died helped a massive prescription fraud ring which directly leads to the kinds of ignorance you display.

If someone was being tortured, any person would want to help them stop the torture. Chronic pain is like being tortured by invisible torturers. I call mine angry leprechauns because it feels like they’ve been punching and kicking me in the back all night after a few hours of fitful sleep. Constant pain and chronic sleep deprivation are whittling me down. The 19 year old who plowed into me 6 years ago basically killed me. I have a neck injury which dictates that I can only lay flat on my back. I have scoliosis which leads to intense back pain from laying flat on my back. My access to pain medication is fitful at best, but I know that many people in the world have zero access. Years ago a read an account of a woman in Africa with breast cancer so advanced the tumors were coming out of her breast. She was in agony. She was dying. Her only medicine was Tramadol, which is about as effective as taking ten aspirin. Because of our societal ignorance about addiction (as well as our actually ignorant worthless addicts) many innocent people are suffering so badly you would cry if you could feel their agony for five minutes.

The statistics on Oxycodone are thus: Of those who start taking the medication because of legitimate pain, only 2% become addicted. Approximately 48% experience withdrawal, which many (including journalists) completely confuse with addiction. Withdrawal can be avoided by simply slowly and gradually lowering the amount of medication.

Finally, full disclosure. Before I was rear-ended I too believed that people who complained of whip-lash were just shysters out to take advantage. I also bought into the addiction nonsense. At first I took Tramadol (or Ultram) for eight months and after a short lived pain reprieve due to a spinal injection I suddenly stopped taking it. It felt like I had the flu and I couldn’t understand why. When the same thing happened 8 months later I was convinced I’d become addicted to tramadol, which is about as possible as becoming addicted to tylenol. As the years went by and nothing worked with great reservation I went on Oxycodone and I was able to sleep up to 6 hours and lift more than five pounds for the first time. Recently I’ve changed my sleeping position and have gone off oxycodone again and so far I have zero withdrawal and zero desire to go back on. By contrast when I try to quit cigarettes I have dreams of dancing cigarettes in my head telling me to go ahead and have just one.

So I understand addiction. I understand pain. What I’m still trying to understand is the depths of human ignorance and cruelty.

By: Watson_bayern Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:28:44 +0000 A few years ago, narcotics were only prescribed after surgery, severe trauma, or for terminal cancer because of a concern over the possibility of addiction. Recently, they have been cautiously prescribed to treat moderate to severe non-malignant chronic pain in conjunction with other modalities such as physical therapy, cortisone and trigger point injections, muscle stretching, meditation, or aqua therapy. Unfortunately, the upsurge of narcotics as medical treatment also increased associated cases of abuse and addiction.

By: tstilber Mon, 06 Jun 2011 18:39:28 +0000 I’m really tired of seeing politicians find the nerve to support drug policy reform once they are out of office. Where was their support while they were in office and in a position to do something about the problem?

They’re all political cowards, only voicing their opinion once their opinion no longer matters.

By: bmerk Mon, 06 Jun 2011 12:04:32 +0000 It is just a matter of time until Hispanic gangs within the US take control all the way down to the street level in our metro areas. Along the way we will have turf battles which the most violent will win taking many innocent bystanders with them Let’s not forget the murder of our police and judges who convict them. Just look at how the affluent in Mexico are now moving to Mexico City to avoid the violence and how the president is going to disband municipal police in Mexican states because they are full of criminals that work for the cartels and murder civilians.

By: VaLibertarian Mon, 06 Jun 2011 03:29:26 +0000 Any form of federal drug prohibition is flagrantly unconstitutional and a gross violation of individual rights. It would seem that simply because drug prohibition has been federal law for 97 years now that it has become controversial to even vaguely advocate repeal of ALL federal drug laws, which has NEVER been an enumerated power of the federal government. Addicts of all kinds have always plagued society, but the problem has been exacerbated tenfold by prohibition and criminalization. What about the millions of responsible drug users who used to be able to go to their local pharmacy to purchase laudanum to keep on hand for mild to severe pain who never became addicted and could self-medicate as my great grandparents used to do. What about the hashish brownies that Queen Victoria used for her menstrual cramps. It is NOT NOR HAS EVER BEEN the right of government in this country in “nannystate” fashion for the “paternalistic do-gooders” to tell the little kiddies what they can or cannot take. In fact, the onus for passage of the Harrison Narcotics Act was not the millions of mostly responsible and largely middle class drug users, but rather the Chinese who congregated in the Opium Dens–in the Philippines, China, and the U.S. It was largely racism that motivated the draconian drug laws in the first place. Almost overnight in this area, gone was personal responsibility in having the freedom to purchase what were known to be effective drugs for numerous ailments–ONLY to save face for the U.S. in calling the first “International Opium Convention” in Shanghai in 1909, as the conference was called by the U.S., but it had the world’s largest drug using population, which was a problem. But ironically, the U.S. DID NOT have a DRUG ABUSE problem, and although there were some addicts among us to be sure, many lived meaningful and productive lives and their families remained intact. In fact, many doctors in correctly assessing and treating alcoholics transistioned them to opiates, which was far less detrimental on society, as such personality types were going to abuse SOMETHING, so they mitigated the situation, although this idea is now blasphemy. Drug addicts had better access to medical care and could be more effectively treated when the drugs were legal and cheap, and the superstitious “evil” and “depraved criminal” label was non-existent. By 1936, twenty-two years after passage of the Harrison Act, an outstanding police authority had reached the same conclusion. He was August Vollmer, former chief of police in Berkeley, California, former professor of police administration at the Universities of Chicago and California, author of a leading textbook on police science, and past president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Chief Vollmer wrote:

” Stringent laws, spectacular police drives, vigorous prosecution, and imprisonment of addicts and peddlers have proved not only useless and enormously expensive as means of correcting this evil, but they are also unjustifiably and unbelievably cruel in their application to the unfortunate drug victims. Repression has driven this vice underground and produced the narcotic smugglers and supply agents, who have grown wealthy out of this evil practice and who, by devious methods, have stimulated traffic in drugs. Finally, and not the least of the evils associated with repression, the helpless addict has been forced to resort to crime in order to get money for the drug which is absolutely indispensable for his comfortable existence….

Drug addiction, like prostitution and like liquor, is not a police problem; it never has been and never can be solved by policemen. It is first and last a medical problem, and if there is a solution it will be discovered not by policemen, but by scientific and competently trained medical experts whose sole objective will be the reduction and possible eradication of this devastating appetite. There should be intelligent treatment of the incurables in outpatient clinics, hospitalization of those not too far gone to respond to therapeutic measures, and application of the prophylactic principles which medicine applies to all scourges of mankind.”

Chief Vollmer’s assessment is the CORRECT and CONSTITUTIONAL one. Drugs and drug addiction ARE NOT and have NEVER BEEN a police problem–not in 1914, 1936, today, or FOR ALL TIME! However, the Supreme Court heard many cases after passage of the Harrison Act, and in most of those cases, only the taxing power of the act could be upheld, which is why it was passed as such, because the authors of the bill KNEW they COULD NOT outright prohibit the sale of drugs from a constitutional standpoint, so they did it in the form of a tax, which, when one reads the fine print, is SURELY a prohibition. Supreme Court Justice James McReynolds said it best in 1928 in his dissent in Casey v. United States:

“I accept the views stated by MR. JUSTICE BUTLER. With clarity he points out the unreasonableness of the construction of the statute advocated by counsel for the United States. But I go further.

The provision under which we are told that one may be presumed unlawfully to have purchased an unstamped package of morphine within the district where he is found in possession of it conflicts with those constitutional guaranties heretofore supposed to protect all against arbitrary conviction and punishment. The suggested rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed is imaginary.

Once the thumbscrew and the following confession made conviction easy; but that method was crude and, I suppose, now would be declared unlawful upon some ground. Hereafter, presumption is to lighten the burden of the prosecutor. The victim will be spared the trouble of confessing and will go to his cell without mutilation or disquieting outcry.

Probably most of those accelerated to prison under the present Act will be unfortunate addicts and their abettors; but even they live under the Constitution. And where will the next step take us?

When the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Law became effective probably some drug containing opium could have been found in a million or more households within the Union. Paregoric, laudanum, Dover’s Powders, were common remedies. Did every man and woman who possessed one of these instantly become a presumptive criminal and liable to imprisonment unless he could explain to the satisfaction of a jury when and where he got the stuff? Certainly, I cannot assent to any such notion, and it seems worthwhile to say so.”

An editorial in the Illinois Medical Journal for June 1926, after eleven years of federal law enforcement, concluded:

“The Harrison Narcotic law should never have been placed upon the Statute books of the United States. It is to be granted that the well-meaning blunderers who put it there had in mind only the idea of making it impossible for addicts to secure their supply of “dope” and to prevent unprincipled people from making fortunes, and fattening upon the infirmities of their fellow men.

As is the case with most prohibitive laws, however, this one fell far short of the mark. So far, in fact, that instead of stopping the traffic, those who deal in dope now make double their money from the poor unfortunates upon whom they prey. . . .

The doctor who needs narcotics used in reason to cure and allay human misery finds himself in a pit of trouble. The lawbreaker is in clover. . . . It is costing the United States more to support bootleggers of both narcotics and alcoholics than there is good coming from the farcical laws now on the statute books.

As to the Harrison Narcotic law, it is as with prohibition [of alcohol] legislation. People are beginning to ask, ‘Who did that, anyway?\'”

The Global Commission on Drug Policy is RIGHT ON when it comes to their correct assessment of the drug war from a Constitutional and human rights standpoint. It is TRULY tragic that the UNITED STATES much be chided by an international body for FLAGRANTLY and WANTONLY disregarding its own creed with regard to individual rights and human freedom! END THE DRUG WAR NOW AND IMMEDIATELY RELEASE ALL NON-VIOLENT DRUG OFFENDERS!

By: RhodaOzen Sun, 05 Jun 2011 23:33:00 +0000 Well said, malcolmkyle. I’ve yet to see an honest, researched, yet poignant reply to exactly what the problem is. I applaud you!

By: malcolmkyle Sun, 05 Jun 2011 09:24:49 +0000 Alfred Brock, you are a Prohibitionist and therefor you owe us answers to the following questions:

#1. Why do you rejoice at the fact that we have all been stripped of our 4th amendment rights and are now totally subordinate to a corporatized, despotic government with a heavily armed and corrupt, militarized police force whose often deadly intrusions into our homes and lives are condoned by an equally corrupt and spineless judiciary?

#2. Why do you wish to continue to spend $50 billion a year to prosecute and cage your fellow citizens for choosing drugs which are not more dangerous than those of which you yourself use and approve of such as alcohol and tobacco?

#3. Do you honestly expect the rest of us to look on passively while you waste another trillion dollars on this garbage policy?

#4. Why are your waging war on your own family, friends and neighbors?

#5. Why are you so complacent with the fact that our once ‘free & proud’ nation now has the largest percentage of it’s citizenry incarcerated than any other on the entire planet?

#6. Why are you helping to fuel a budget crisis to the point of closing hospitals, schools and libraries?

#7. Why do you rejoice at wasting precious resources on prohibition related undercover work while rapists and murderers walk free, while additionally, many cases involving murder and rape do not even get taken to trial because law enforcement priorities are subverted by your beloved failed and dangerous policy?

#8. Why are you such a supporter of the ‘prison industrial complex’ to the extent of endangering our own children?

#9. Will you graciously applaud, when due to your own incipient and authoritarian approach, even your own child is caged and raped?

* It is estimated that there are over 300,000 instances of prison rape a year.
* 196,000 are estimated to happen to men in prison.
* 123,000 are estimated to happen to men in county jail.
* 40,000 are estimated to be committed against boys in either adult prisons or while in juvenile facilities or lock ups.
* 5000 women are estimated to be raped in prison.

#10. And will you also applaud when your own child, due to an unnecessary and counter productive felony conviction, can no longer find employment?

By: RandomName2nd Sat, 04 Jun 2011 19:14:46 +0000 Alfred Brock said “The drug war has never been fought and is being conducted by cowards and incompetents”
You’ve missed to point Alfred. Prohibition is where the money is. Where do you think the Kennedy clan made their huge fortune?
Land of the free…and the highest incarceration rate in the world.
From an outside observer America is just one big ball of contradictions and hypocrisy.