integrity (lacking), forfeiture, and other stuff

[Tiassa]

The following is from DRCNet's The Week Online, #161:

It seems like the DEA and the Los Angeles US Attorneys' office just never learn. Despite scandals surrounding million-dollar DEA informant Andrew Chambers earlier this year, in which it became public knowledge that Chambers had lied repeatedly in courts across the land about his criminal record, his taxes, his payments from the DEA, and his use of false names, Chambers is on the prosecution witness list in a Los Angeles federal court case set for February.

The Week Online reported on Chambers' career in June (http://www.drcnet.org/wol/139.html#supersnitch). By that time, three federal courts had called Chambers a liar, Attorney General Reno had personally ordered his removal from the DEA payroll, and the DEA was supposedly nearing the end of an investigation into its use of Chambers and the role its agents played in covering up his crimes and lies.

This is how the United States federal government fights its War Against Drugs. And don't forget the two-step:

Assistant US Attorney Lizabeth A. Rhodes, who is prosecuting the case, told the Post-Dispatch she does not know why the original prosecutor did not hand over the information to defense attorneys, but that she had done so.

She attempted to finger the DEA. "It's a DEA case," she said.

And the DEA's comment:

Asked by the Post-Dispatch about why prosecutors would be willing to use a discredited, suspended informant, DEA spokesman Mike McManus demurred. "That's not our decision," he said.

Can it get any scarier? Yes, it can!

Rhodes also pled ignorance about Chambers, arguing that there were just too many government snitches to keep track of them all.

__________

It's Quiz Time:

* How do you bargain for less jail time when arrested for drug dealing?

Answer: Provide substantial evidentiary assistance to the prosecution of other, related crimes.

* How do you do that?

Answer: Roll. Snitch. Sing.

* Which of my associates should I betray?

Answer: Varies. Typically, a light-skinned, English-speaking dealer moving duffel-bags of merchandise can reduce their sentence by handing to authorities his support network. ("His"--women generally get screwed badly in these circumstances; you might as well have dark skin.) For instance, two 19 year-olds bound for Harvard are serving twenty years for a badly-proven cocaine-delivery case. In this case, documented by several legalization/sentencing-reform groups, two dark-skinned brothers, age 19 and bound for Harvard, were convicted without physical evidence of cocaine delivery. The primary evidence against them was the testimony of their alleged boss in the operation. This man, who ended up serving three years for moving many pounds of coca- and opiate-derivative substances, reduced his sentence by throwing his dime-bag dealers and mules to the authorities. The brothers, age 19 at their arrest, will see freedom shortly before their fortieth birthdays.
__________

This spreads even further. Imagine:

* A friend at work is busted for delivering a small amount of cocaine.

What happens next? It might not be unreasonable to fear the following scenario:

* Joe is busted for delivering cocaine.
* Joe is shown a picture of you getting out of Joe's car (with Joe) at a restaurant. Joe, seeking a lighter sentence, says, "Yeah, s/he worked with me on these things." But Joe has a slight conscience, and says, "But s/he was small potatoes."
* The police obtain a warrant based on Joe's accusation.
* Officer Friendly shows up with a warrant to search your house, your car, and everything you own.
* You are removed from your property during the search.
* Civil Asset Forfeiture is invoked. In order to prevent you from defending yourself with dirty money, your house is seized, your cars are seized, and your accounts are frozen. Don't worry, though, about how to dump your stocks if the market goes bad while you're in the legal fight; they're not your stocks, anymore.
* Your children are placed in foster care. Scotty, 14, gets a black eye in a fight with foster-pop the first week, and years later you find out Sarah was touched inappropriately by her caretakers.
* Joe is convicted of cocaine delivery and sentenced to the mandatory minimum, say, 5 years. But his trial took 2 years, so after adjusting for time-served and good behavior, Joe is out on the streets again after six to eight months.

--Your story now reads along two primary possibilities--

* You are convicted, without physical evidence, and based solely on Joe's say-so. You are sentenced two 12-20 years in prison. Or ...
* You are acquitted due to prosecutorial ineptitude or police impropriety (you know, those wuss "technicalities" people speak so ill of?), but spend the remainder of your life working 60 hours a week to pay for your past legal expenses while also trying to recover your children from the foster service. Oh, by the way, you will never see your house or cars again. They now belong to the state. Your ruined stock portfolio? Even if it was yours now, it's your own fault for getting yourself investigated while the market turned south. You might try suing Joe, but that won't, for a number of reasons, get you squat.

* Oh, did I mention that you're innocent?

(Some people may have noticed a trend toward reforming Civil Asset Forfeiture. Several ballot measures received the people's endorsement on election day. Suffice to say that law enforcement's not happy, but to list the reasons why sounds like I'm inventing a racketeering plot for a bad novel. This is our country; this is your life, and mine. There is so much about society that we see fit to change. Given that we can use nuclear weapons against living societies, I don't see what's so scary about reshuffling our priorities so that they reflect the liberty we harbor quietly in our shadowed hearts.)

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot


[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited November 27, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited November 28, 2000).]

 

[Bowser]

What can anyone say to this? Yes, it's gone too far. Has it created a change? I think it has...

I still remember the forces which brought all of this about: crack, gangs, and violence. For a time these three were topics of local and national news. Kids were waging turf wars in our streets. Violence and crack were becoming a national epidemic. In an effort to reclaim our streets and our children, we sent in our own troops, the police. So that we could win the war, we allowed our officers and prosecutors weapons of expediency, and we built more jails.

The "drug war" started in our streets, but I wonder if the war there is not now over--I hear less now about the street war being waged by gangs and pushers, but I hear more about the government and its war on individuals. We might have accomplished our goal of making our streets safer. If this is true, against whom are we now waging our war?

Here in Portland, I've watched the terrain for many years, and I've seen various trends march through our community. There was, at one time, a problem with crack, gangs, and violence; but I don't see that now. Should I give thanks to our national "drug war" for the changes which have taken place during these past several years? Maybe.


------------------
It's all very large.

 

[Tiassa]

Bowser--

I thank you for your wise considerations. Accepting that my sarcasm is directed at the Drug War itself, I might offer the following in response to a few of the issues you raised:

* Gang violence & crack: I'm of the opinion that the epidemic of addiction and violence which plagued our urban communities through most of the 1980's and into the 1990's is the fault of our governing agencies. In the case of crack cocaine, I still put credibility with Gary Webb, author of the now-infamous Dark Alliance articles. While Drug Warriors point out that no concrete connection can be established between the CIA and crack (despite some darn compelling connections), I still wonder just when we changed that standard of credibility. The "difficulties" of Webb's articles would not challenge his credibility if his efforts were directed toward, say, persecuting Communism. There's nobody to blame for the crack epidemic but the fed; whether it's apathy or cruel intent, the sequence of events is too scripted to be completely natural.

Two websites pertaining to the Dark Alliance episode.
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/webb.html http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/c4rpt/ch06p2.htm

Kids were waging turf wars in our streets. Violence and crack were becoming a national epidemic. In an effort to reclaim our streets and our children, we sent in our own troops, the police. So that we could win the war, we allowed our officers and prosecutors weapons of expediency, and we built more jails.

* The kids were the pawns. When do the Generals put on gear and shoot at each other?
* The national epidemic could have been avoided. I protest certain parts of the so-called solution, too, but we'll get to rehashing that when we need to.
* The Weapons of Expediency employed by prosecutors speak ill of the prosecutors' integrity. (I have a few minor comments on that.)
* Do you recall ... 1994, I think? When Oregon voted for mandatory minimum sentences? At any rate, we were part of the pack, then. But I do find it odd that mandatory minimum laws, which have had the effect of extending the prison terms of convicts, coincided with the privatization of prisons. The houses of incarceration we're building are more vital to the community for the jobs they provide than for any real criminal advancement.

The "drug war" started in our streets, but I wonder if the war there is not now over--I hear less now about the street war being waged by gangs and pushers, but I hear more about the government and its war on individuals. We might have accomplished our goal of making our streets safer. If this is true, against whom are we now waging our war?

If I had asked you to cue me for a tirade, you could not have given me a better starting point. But, for the sake of some kind of brevity:

* The Drug War started as early as 1914 with the Harrison Act, though we see the first evidence of calculated, dishonest maneuvering in 1937, when Congress passed the Tax Stamp Act. Even the American Medical Association objected to the Marihuana Tax Stamp Act of 1937, the point of which was to foster nylon as a competitor to hemp rope. Furthermore, Bureau of Narcotics featured a rising star named Harry Anslinger. Anslinger, as late as 1936, worked toward federal subsidies for hemp production in the US, but changed his tune when he advised Congress that marijuana was no more dangerous than a cornered rattlesnake. (Opium, at least, advised good Mr Anslinger, has a Jekyll-and-Hyde effect; marijuana, however, is nothing but the evil Mr Hyde, without a trace of the redeeming Dr Jekyll.) What is most curious is that Anslinger had a patron, whose name escapes me right now. Buried somewhere in the Schaeffer Library ( http://www.druglibrary.org ) is a copy of letters this rascal wrote to the President of the US, describing the nation's opportunity to use marijuana laws to clean the streets of undesirable Negroes and Mexicans. (Something about brevity?)

* If the Street War netted any gang leaders, pushers, or kingpins, it was either by necessity of public demand for someone's head specifically, or by accident. The Street War targeted the user, and still does.

* Of the government's war on individuals, it's just that people believed silly things like Anslinger's Jekyll comments for so long that they honestly believed that coke users or potheads forfeit their civil and human rights. Consider the two-day Phish concerts at "The Gorge" on the Columbia River near Quincy, Washington. For two days, 20,000 people hang out and get amazingly high together. There are periods during this Drug War in which any of those 20,000 individuals would have "deserved it" if a cop shot them to death for the crime of smoking a joint. Yet never have I seen such mass happiness and civility as at large hippie events.

* I agree that the streets are safer in at least the superficial sense. I don't deny the deeper level, but I do question it. Simply, I think much of our random crime is the result of the Drug War. To oversimplify: even if one of Affirmative Action's affirmative Americans came home to the minority community to share his knowledge and entrepeneural skills, it is still likely that this man is subject to legal harassment; he's no dumber than I am if he smokes a joint, but he's at least ten times more likely to be searched randomly. The FBI knew they couldn't keep Marion Barry, the way they nailed him; that whole sting was about embarassing a prominent black man. But what if it's a hand-to-mouth existence and not a cushy political office? Given the degree to which the Rampart scandal runs, are any modern, violent crimes being committed by embittered persons betrayed by their government during the drug war? I think the streets are safer in the most direct sense possible, but I think the simmering violence that slowburns the culture is partially the result of maintaining an unjust effort at such a human and financial cost. When it speaks no ill of you to have gone to prison, then I think we'll see that aspect of the Drug War evaporate.

* I don't think we're waging the Drug War against anyone, any more. We simply carry it on out of habit. Certes, there are benevolent Drug Warriors who believe that they are serving humanity's best interest. But this is America, and there's people out there who say equality is best served by unabated discrimination. But given the financial stakes (booze, pharmaceutical, textile, paper, and fuel concerns, at least) and the fact that anyone can dislike anyone else over drugs ("He's just another crack-smoking Nigger"), I think the war continues because enough people imagine a personal stake, and are determined to win their victory. It's still true that law enforcement has racial equity problems, and that these are affecting the Drug War. It's also true that the Drug Warriors are nowhere near reality, and that's flat-out dangerous. But when your nation's top anti-drug official can't go a week without lying indiscriminately or insulting your international neighbors, is it a problem?

Weapons of Expediency

* If you are convicted possessing "multiple" drugs, even small quantities, by either using two containers or by carrying two kinds of illegal substance in a single container, you are assumed upon conviction of possession to have the intent to sell. This way, if they get you on two misdemeanor charges, they get to nail you for felony distribution. You are not allowed to defend yourself against this charge on a number of grounds: 1) One option of defense would require you to forfeit your Fifth Amendment rights; 2) The jury is not to be told that convicting you of certain crimes automatically convicts you of others; 3) Even if you find a way to demonstrate that you were not going to sell the drugs, such a fact is irrelevant to the jury proceeding at the time; what you were going to do with the drugs necessitates your possession of them, and the trial's about posession, not distribution.

* When the US Supreme Court struck down a criminal sentence for a hate crime in Apprendi v. New Jersey, Justice O'Connor lamented that at least 60,000 sentences require new consideration (from drugs, alone). Justice Breyer, often deemed to be a liberal judge, complained that to endanger such sentencing conventions as those covered in Apprendi (including the above-described possession/distribution tangle, to a degree) would threaten the efficiency of prosecutors in expediting convictions. And that from a liberal judge.

* Profiles are a tool to expedite the Drug War. Suffice to say that law enforcement has written enough general templates to describe people that they can search anyone at any time and have a better than 50-50 shot of their profile-based search (the profile constituting probable cause to search) standing up in court. Literally, you can be harassed because a cop doesn't like your hair color, and whatever "profile" he offers in court to justify himself (e.g.--Punks with colored hair snort meth) will more than likely stand up. Everyone fits a profile.

* A friend once lost an argument for a speeding ticket on the grounds that "It is not the place of this court to question the integrity of our law enforcement." (This, of course, is a traffic stop in Salem.) If I had cast the reactionary aspersion that such an idea kills people, who all would have laughed? Yet what does the Rampart scandal teach us about the expedient measure of always trusting your cops?

* Tools of Expediency, when applied to criminal justice, constitute nothing more than an admission that we wrote the rules badly, and are either too lazy as a society, or too stupid, to do anything about it.

However, the foremost Tool of Expediency is not one governed solely by law enforcement, though the cops love to exploit this one. In my own upbringing, I can recall believing that when someone took drugs, they became dangerous, like a Just-Add-Water mix. The Drug Warriors actually had us believing in paranoid ideas; if you smoked crack once, either your heart would explode, or it would make you go on a shooting spree. Marijuana would make you violent and unpredictable ( ). I recall that someone once accused northwest rocker Tad of being on heroin. Yeah ... he weighed, literally, about 300 pounds more than any heroin addict I've ever been associated with. My question to Drug Warriors is What the hell did you all think would happen when we figured out that you were lying to us? Shortly thereafter, I would turn to the private-sector Drug Warriors (such as my parents) and ask them what it was about drugs that meant a child "deserved" to die if they used drugs.

And that's what happens when Tools of Expediency collapse. My parents lied because it was easier, and when I figured that out, their lies amounted to naught but a diminishing of the respect I hold them in. When the legal tools collapse, as happened in Apprendi, we wind up with massive complications and evidence of a fraudulent campaign against citizens that has resulted in tax money paying to incarcerate people unjustly. And when we find out that an entire police precinct has been responsible for most of the drug-related chaos in one of the worst sections of Los Angeles, well, we're lucky to have peace in the streets. I mean, LAPD has been implicated in the murder of Notorious BIG; so I'm wondering who's smoking what, and just how bad my drug is compared to theirs.

Something about expediency. Something about brevity, indeed.

I should mention, of slightly more abstract Tools of Expediency, the idea of drug testing for employment. The National Opinion Research Center has found that the expedient measure of giving potential employees UA drug screenings has absolutely no discernable effect on workplace accidents and injuries. Furthermore, NORC noted that drug testing may now have an adverse effect on commerce, as qualified applicants avoid drug-testing companies and thus restricting the innovative potential of America's workforce. http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/new/drugwork.htm will take you to a link for the .PDF of the NORC report.

Gasp-cough-wheeze ... yeah, brevity ...

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

 

[Bowser]

Tiassa,

Drugs are dangerous, but so is our war on drugs. I know of that which parents abhor concerning drugs, but I also see the threat of a police state. What is your solution for protecting my children from the dangers of drugs while sparing them the extremes of excessive government intervention?

You have mentioned the lack of integrity which is found with those waging the war. I see very little integrity with those who peddle drugs. Maybe they are just two sides of the same coin?

I see people rebelling against the drug war as it is being waged now. Though I doubt they will ever lose their grip on the effort, I see things turning to a new understanding. Hopefully, honesty and education will enter the picture over the next decade. The tide is turning.

I will give your links a look soon. It's too late now. I'm a little hesitant to swallow the idea that anyone is innocent in this war, but I will give your links a read. Thank you.

------------------
It's all very large.

 

[Tiassa]

You have mentioned the lack of integrity which is found with those waging the war. I see very little integrity with those who peddle drugs. Maybe they are just two sides of the same coin?

Excellent point, kind sir. My only reply is only slightly sarcastic.

* There is nothing about dealing on the black market which is not also actualized in the open market. That the war is in our streets, instead of in another country, is what offends us so. To wit: we have sent our sons to war over commercial concerns; what took place when the Crips and Bloods fought in Tacoma, Washington, was no different--it was capitalists fighting for control of the market. (The British fought an Opium War that was largely about money; not-so-cynical people will tell you the Gulf War was about petroleum. And we're quite sure the 1937 Marihuana Tax Stamp Act wasn't about addiction, but money.)

The short, cruel end of it is that I don't think the drug dealers are any more dishonest than the rest of the market. That their trade erupted in violence was a result of the restrictions of the black market. You have no courts in which to settle your business differences. And while stupidity doesn't seem to be a disqualifier for a business license in the real world, the street-level business end of the crack market was never composed of bright people.

One of the goals of Reagan's Drug War was to raise the price of the drugs on the street. Are we surprised in any sense that violence rises with the price of the black-market commodity?

There are a few innocent people. Unless we throw the coffee drinkers and the beer swillers in among the guilty. But otherwise, you're right ... the whole of the War is one hideous mess. Unfortunately, it's brought to you by your government.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

 

[Bowser]

tiassa,

I still need a solution.

We can end the war and legalize drugs, but this would not bring an end to the dangers of drug use and drug addiction. Also, which drugs would we make available?

I believe that the war is wrong; but I also question the alternative (legalizing drugs), even though I believe it is the lesser of two evils. When I was a kid, my friends and I had little trouble getting beer at the local store. If they had offered heroin or cocain at the Mini-Mart, I'm sure we would have managed to buy that too.

I agree with your opposition to our government's role in this war, but I also retain concerns regarding drugs and my children.

If this question involved only adults, I wouldn't be split on this issue, but children are probably the largest group of consumers where the market is concerned. If drugs are legalized, will the powers of money target kids much like the tobacco and alcohol industries have?

We are at great pains over gun ownership and the right to posses guns. The same rational that is being used against gun owners can also be applied to drug possession: "Drugs kill and we don't need them."

I am split on this one, but I do favor a more thoughtful resolve then an internal war. I think it is better to accept that drugs will always be a part of our society, and we should center our efforts on education and prevention, not eradication.

I'm also fishing for your thoughts on a better solution.



------------------
It's all very large.

 

[Tiassa]

Bowser--

Better answer later, but the first thing I wanted to mention is that your concerns about drugs being legalized should--as relates to your children--reflect to varying degrees your concerns about alcohol and your children, or caffeine and your children.

I mentioned the tragedy of Actuaries in another post, and I was only half-kidding. To go by actuarial tables, I would rather insure a pot-smoker than someone who takes an asprin a day as a preventative measure against blood pressure.

Another part of it I'd like to mention right now is the notion that if we educate children with true facts about drugs (as opposed to the current "facts" used to wage the War), we might find that they're smart enough to not use certain substances. Imagine on your legal, tax-stamped container of cocaine:

WARNING: Medical research has determined that prolonged use of this product will burn holes in your brain; research has also determined that short-term use of this product may cause your heart to explode.

or on your heroin:

WARNING: Medical research has determined that use of this product can result in hardened arteries, reduced circulation, brain damage, acute psychosis, and/or death.

When kids at Catholic school got pregnant, they told their own parents, "It was my first time."

When Glen Bias' (I believe his name was) heart exploded a few days after being drafted by the Boston Celtics, shocked friends said, "It was his first time."

I like that sex/drugs juxtaposition simply because in both cases, conventional wisdom says the proper way to address such subjects is to lie to children.

I'll stop for right now, but there's other fair issues I didn't get to in your last post (and your others, as well).

Oh ... Drugs kill ... Regulation will help solve part of that problem. When we iron out, say, the number of heroin overdose deaths that occur because the drug sold was stronger than the junkie expected due to market instability .... I'd say that's a fair issue.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

 

[Bowser]

"Another part of it I'd like to mention right now is the notion that if we educate children with true facts about drugs (as opposed to the current "facts" used to wage the War), we might find that they're smart enough to not use certain substances. Imagine on your legal, tax-stamped container of ...:"

SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Desease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy.

I believe you are a smoker too. I started when I was 13. I knew the dangers but I did it anyway. Was that warning effective in our youth? Kids rarely make the wise decision. I don't think you or I were exceptional children.

I suppose that I'm looking for a solution which is new and original. The best that I have seen is the "education and rehabilitation" argument, but that doesn't really provide us with much more security than does our present war. It is more compassionate. Maybe we should center our attack on those who supply to children? They really are the percieved monsters in this war.



------------------
It's all very large.

 

[Tiassa]

Bowser--

Can I split a hair and remind us all that the Surgeon General's Warning you've quoted is fairly recent? It "needed more teeth", though I hardly think it got them. But the old one advised that cigarette smoking "may cause lung disease". It will take over a generation to purge cigarettes from society.

I suppose we should also consider the warning label for marijuana; I have yet to devise an honest one that doesn't sound politically-motivated.

As relates to children, we can start with marijuana: as long as marijuana remains on Schedule 1 alongside cocaine, heroin, and others, children will continue to learn to associate marijuana as such. It is not a stretch of any truth whatsoever to say that many people I know reacted badly when they found out that the US Government declared marijuana non-carcinogenic. For my generation, at least, I think when we learned that our parents had lied about marijuana, many of my comrades made the leap to assume that information about cocaine, heroin, and speed were likewise false.

Starting with marijuana, we might point out two things about kids and other substances:

* Marijuana was deemed non-carcinogenic in 1972, according to the fed. Since then, several studies have tried to show that pot does indeed cause cancer, but none have been reliable. I recall that I once asked a self-righteous drug counselor at the University of Oregon whether the study he was showing me accounted for the number of stoners who smoked cigarettes, and he was unable to give an answer. Furthermore, marijuana is not addictive; I saw a recent USA-Today chart showing marijuana to have an addictive property equivalent to caffeine, and I consider that report to overstate marijuna's addictive properties. Suffice to say that I can quit nicotine, and I can go extended periods without pot (but I've already admitted to myself that I will never quit, per se, so it's useless to say, "I can quit, I can quit!") without experiencing withdrawal. I cannot go much longer than a day without caffeine. I understand that children ignored the warning labels on cigarettes; so did I. But I think we'll have different factors which create a vastly different situation.

* You cannot overdose on marijuana. I have heard of a mythical state described as "smoking yourself sober", in which one gets so damn high that the brain experiences an operative lucidity which feels dismayingly like sobriety. I have never accomplished this. However, the general consensus is that, allergic reactions aside, one cannot stone their self to death in the same way I can drink myself to death via alcohol poisoning, or overdose on heroin or cocaine. I can imagine, though, a number of dangers of smoking pot: I have damaged abdominal structures before--you cough a lot when you get high; I can imagine smoking yourself to passing out and leaving a bowl burning until it sets the curtains on fire (much like a cigarette-fire, except that marijuana burns out quickly; a tightly-rolled joint will burn out if not attended). I can imagine a fatal stroke while coughing over a bong hit, but we would have to start changing the way we look at any tragedy if we wanted to pick that bone.

Generally speaking, I think many of our drug-related social problems will disappear in the "compassionate" scenario. "Education and rehabilitation" primarily fail to provide security because drugs are a crime. Consider one's self-esteem, if that tack is to be believed. A late-80's idea would say that I smoke pot because I have low self-esteem:

* I am critical of the idea of raising self-esteem by breaking drug habits; this versus breaking drug habits by raising self esteem; we have yet to try the latter in any serious dimension.
* So Joe the Addict is having a rough go. He's tired, he's running out of money ... he's at the bottom of the well. So he goes to rehab. Now ....

Considerations include how the rest of the community views the addict. I know nobody with low self-esteem who is utterly absorbed in their own self. Their self-esteem problems seem to come from a comparison of the self to the world around them; is it fair to leave it at that?

Have you ever experienced NIMBY? Usually it's prisons and nuke plants, but in Bellevue, Washington, NIMBY-syndrome blocked the construction of a city-sponsored center for at-risk teenagers. Local residents seemed to feel that such a facility would "attract" so-called "undesirable youths". This, of course, because the good people of Bellevue can't imagine that their own children have any problems. I feel the same way about rehab-centers. Joe the addict knows that his neighbors think he's a criminal.

* Joe the Addict is no different from Jack the Alcoholic. But Jack's drug is legal, so his neighbors think of him as a man who needs help, and conscience says we should help those that need and ask for it. However, Joe's drug is illegal, so his neighbors think of him as a criminal. It just seems counterproductive to hold addicts in such a negative light. Instead of tongue-lashing them back to the shadows, as society so often does, we should drag them out into the sun and make them look at their own selves. But our present regard for drug addicts contributes to the self-esteem problem perpetuating the existing addiction.

A strange note on children: I'm starting to have an issue with what constitutes a "child". For instance, Hempfest rolled through Seattle over the summer. While there, I noticed a number of teenagers on various cosmic rides. I saw several who were stoned, and a couple who had taken a lysergic rocket-ride. When one particularly stoned 14 year-old walked by, wearing one of the funniest t-shirts I had seen that day (it said "Munchies", but you had to be there to see it in context), I leaned to a friend and asked him if I should be worried that I'm not worried about the seeming plethora of teenagers running around stoned. My friend smiled and pointed to the kid with the Munchies shirt: "I want to go up to him and give him a hug," my friend said. "I want to tell him it's alright, and that he is the future."

On the other hand, I just witnessed, the other day, a strange, strange conversation. Person A went to Person B and told B to lay off Person C. Person B is a stoner, who was giving Person C (the current companion to Person D), as much marijuana as C could smoke. A told B that C shouldn't smoke so much because she's 17; Person E interjected to note how "f**ked up" C was before she smoked with B. So B asked A why C shouldn't smoke so much pot; A told B that C was drinking a lot of alcohol, and therefore shouldn't have so much pot. Person D, the immediate companion of C, had no comment throughout. Furthermore, nobody in this alphabet-soup of ethical BS could explain why D, almost 30, was dating C, only 17. So think about the overall message there:

* Why is a 30 year-old entertaining a 17 year-old girl?
* Why are "responsible" adults giving tequila shots and beers to a 17 year-old?
* Why is anyone giving a 17 year-old marijuana? (Answer, no matter how unsuitable one might find it: Because she already smokes pot.)
* Why is anyone who considers themselves remotely responsible advocating that a 17 year-old smoke less pot so she can drink more alcohol?

So imagine that my associate's entire life collapses: the girl gets utterly sick and lands herself in the hospital. 30 year-olds entertaining girls in high school? Contributing to alcoholic delinquency of a minor? No ... even if she perforates her stomach with Everclear while having anal sex with the entire neighborhood, the #1 question will pertain to Why did anyone give her marijuana?

The point of this thoroughly messed-up tale being that among a den of sinners, the least harmful offense is the one most commonly targeted. The underlying regard people bear for alcohol as compared to other drugs is obscene. Notwithstanding the host of other moral considerations taking place. But it was hard not to laugh when I explained to her that, "They don't want him to give you any more pot because you're too young to handle it on top of all the alcohol they're giving you."

The other paradox is that everyone I know who learns that our 30 year-old friend is smoking pot with a 17 year-old wants to get high with her; her generally intelligent regard for drugs has earned her that respect already.

On the one hand, please don't tell me that a child's caffeine dependency doesn't cause behavioral problems, and sometimes quite severe. To the other, getting kids loaded isn't the answer, either. The problem is that we may have to feel our way around as a society, and that's apparently too difficult compared to lying to ourselves.

* Drug-related crime goes away with legalization (not entirely, but we now are reduced to random outbursts because of drug interactions, as opposed to drive-by shootings and other crimes of the black market).
* Addiction becomes easier to manage when people can ask for help without worrying that their plea for help will be taken as a criminal confession; how can you ask for help with a problem if acknowledging you have a problem is grounds to throw you in prison?
* Experimentation and casual use might go through the roof, but I don't think you'll see a cigarette-like trend.
* Pot smokers tend to see the futility in institutions; I believe this is what the Drug Warriors fear.

Specifically, I would do the following at the end of the drug war:

* Marijuana: legalize, 18+
* Psilocybin: legalize, 18+
* LSD: decriminalize, 18+, regulate as psychiatric drug.
* Opium (resin): legalize, 21+
* Heroin: decriminalize, 21+, regulate manufacture standards.
* Cocaine/crack: legalize, 21+, regulate distribution standards.
* Methamphetamine: decriminalize 21+, regulate manufacture standards.
* Ecstasy (MDMA): legalize 21+, regulate manufacture standards.
* Peyote: legalize, 21+, and keep the fed the hell off the reservations!

And some of the age numbers would drop from 21 to 18 on the grounds that if you're old enough to go die on a battlefield according to Unkie Sammy's say-so, you're old enough to melt holes in your brain.

But, consider methamphetamine: since you cook fuel and other compounds, there's a massive fire danger. Fine. You need a regulatory license to make meth; you need to meet structural standards at the production site; you need to meet environmental standards at the production site; you must have insurance at the production site. Right there, you make meth manufacture prohibitive for Joe the Feelgood-Idiot. Sure, people will still violate those rules, and still make bad product, but who's going to buy it, and for what profit, if you can go to the Liquor store and pick up a vial of Warner-Lambert StimuGlide alongside your Jack Daniels? And who will stand up and protest Warner-Lambert's price-structure on the grounds that they have the right to financially afford to melt their brain and rust out their teeth.

Just a few reflections ... it's a complex issue, sure. But I think we're both aware that society is generally unwilling to talk about as much as we've covered here. (You're a social pioneer! )

thanx kindly,
Tiassa

PS--I promise more on dealing to children, later ...

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

 

[synaesthesia]

Tissa,
I do think that addictive potential should be factored in when contemplating how we deal with a drug. Heroin causes agonizing withdrawal symptoms. (I know ex-heroin addicts) You may very well be right though. Decriminalizing it wouldn't make the situation much worse in terms of abuse and it would correct a significant amount of the damage done by a lucrative black market and unpredictable potency.

Regardless of one's position on decriminalization, we should acknowledge that the public’s education on the facts about drugs is woefully inadequate. No, telling people it will kill them will do very little except destroy government/school/media credibility in this area. Harm reduction is a very good strategy.

"* Marijuana: legalize, 18+"

No argument here. Just an aside, in italy, there is no drinking age and yet drunk driving and alcohol abuse is far less of a problem there then here.

"* Psilocybin: legalize, 18+
* LSD: decriminalize, 18+, regulate as psychiatric drug."

This is a double standard which, I confess, I don't understand. In terms of physiological danger, both psilocybin and lysergic acid are similar. (ie. There is no real physiological risk.) Both have the potential to trigger psychosis in schizophrenics... both may cause "flashbacks" in some users. I don't really understand why there would be additional regulations for LSD.

The only differences that I can think of off the top of my head is that LSD lasts longer, (although some people find it allows for a greater degree of lucidity which may offset the danger of the longevity of the effects.) and that is has a very bad reputation. (One which I feel is undeserved.) The doses during the 60’s were often in excess of 300 micrograms. That’s a heavy dose! The doses now generally very from 50 micrograms to about 120 micrograms. The level of impairment, thus the potential for accidents, is far less in the lower doses that are popular today.

Not that my screen name has anything to do with this.

"* Opium (resin): legalize, 21+
* Heroin: decriminalize, 21+, regulate manufacture standards.
* Cocaine/crack: legalize, 21+, regulate distribution standards.
* Methamphetamine: decriminalize 21+, regulate manufacture standards."

My concerns are noted above. Frankly, I think that the drug war has done enough that none of the above will be decriminalized any time soon. Perhaps with good reason.

"* Ecstasy (MDMA): legalize 21+, regulate manufacture standards."

May cause brain damage with excessive use. Is used excessively because people do not understand the risks and pharmacology of the substance. They do not know how to use it.

For an example, there is a rumor, (which I have heard countless times) that drinking water will stop your trip. When people take a black market pill, sometimes they will get a higher dosage then they expect (or they take 5 pills because they are ignorant of the physiological effects of MDMA) so they become agitated. Having heard the rumor, they start drinking water excessively and eventually die from an overdose of water. IT HAS HAPPENED. Alternatively, they don't know that stimulants can allow you to overexert yourself without feeling tired or realizing that you are thirsty. People have died of heatstroke because they didn't know any better. Such tragedies are preventable with better education and harm reduction.

"* Peyote: legalize, 21+, and keep the fed the hell off the reservations!"

Agreed.

 

[Tiassa]

Syn--

You've noted some of the finer points that rarely get discussed because legalization is seemingly taboo in and of itself.

* Psilocybin: legalize, 18+
* LSD: decriminalize, 18+, regulate as psychiatric drug.

This is a double standard which, I confess, I don't understand. In terms of physiological danger, both psilocybin and lysergic acid are similar. (ie. There is no real physiological risk.) Both have the potential to trigger psychosis in schizophrenics... both may cause "flashbacks" in some users. I don't really understand why there would be additional regulations for LSD.

* LSD accumulates in your body over time; I once had the distinct honor of managing a friend's bad-trip flashback induced by stretching a stiff back. Psilocybin does not do this.

Furthermore, LSD needs regulation as a psych drug because it is effective for certain things; research at Stanford in the 1950's showed LSD to be a powerful counseling tool in chronic alcohol abuse, and also in opiate addiction. A&E channel's Biography of LSD includes testimony from early computer pioneers who were part of Stanford's technical research program, in which architects, engineers, and the like, were given LSD and left to do their thing. There's a great snippet from a computer scientist talking about how the Stanford experiments allowed him to finish his work on what would become the modern circuit-board. LSD is extremely powerful, and might even benefit society if used right.

I think your concerns about addiction and withdrawal will be vital when the time comes. Of brain damage and MDMA, though ... they all pretty much damage our brains. Whippets (nitrous oxide batteries) are incredibly fun, except they mow your brain cells by the hectare. Even "harmless" marijuana has its downsides; regardless of what we say in defense or even in advocacy of marijuana use, you still set it on fire and then put it into your body. Methamphetamine melts your teeth as well as your brain. But what about Jack Daniels? Part of my hope is that when we end the Drug War, and information is no longer stigmatized by criminal considerations, people will take the time to understand the drugs they use. Technically, by a common social standard I'm invoking only for this example, I owe it to crack cocaine to go out and smoke some before I criticize it. Unless, of course, I have good, honest information on it. Whatever else they say about crack, packing the wallop of a gram of coke into 60 seconds is not a good or fun idea to me. That sort of thing. I mean, sure some heroin addicts might look chic, but have you gotten a whiff of them, lately? Let children see junkies up close, stinking of their own pathetic habits, skin welted from leaching opiates, and miserably incomprehensible. Chic heroin may be a style consideration, but it comes from something real. That reality is actually the best tool we have in prevention.

Oh, MDMA and dehydration ... again, information. I know people who absolutely will not use crank, but will take Ecstasy because they don't know it's methamphetamine. All speedy drugs dehydrate, but it's somehow inappropriate to share that kind of information. Recent MDMA legislation would have, before it was amended into impotence, made it illegal to share information about use, manufacture, &c., of drugs to the point that it would have been a felony to post on the internet civilian advice on how to manage a crank overdose. Information, indeed ...

thanx much ...
Tiassa

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

 

[synaesthesia]

Syn--
“* LSD accumulates in your body over time; I once had the distinct honor of managing a friend's bad-trip flashback induced by stretching a stiff back. Psilocybin does not do this.”
--------------

Unlike THC, LSD-25 is an acid, ergo it is water soluble. Any appreciable amount of LSD will be metabolized within 48 hours. (after that period it wouldn’t be detectable by most tests for the drug.) This may vary to some degree with dosage.

Although in a few cases LSD may cause fairly strong flashbacks (esp. under the influence of marihuana.) the vast majority of experiences are no more then vividly remembering a thought or perception experienced under the influence.

By the way, Psilocybin can and does induce flashbacks. Timothy Leary described having one before ever using LSD.

The belief that LSD accumulates in your spinal fluid is, as far as I know, a myth. I have heard dozens of stories of lysergic acid, each more horrifying then the next. Some people believe that cracking (or hitting, or moving) your back can induce a flashback. Others claim that four purple dots will appear after using LSD and if slapped, crystals of the drug will become dislodged and cause a “trip”. Another popular one is that one use of LSD will frequently cause permanent insanity. ... LSD will cause chromosome damage... LSD will make you murderous. The list is endless.

Where do people get their information?

I know many people who have claimed to have experienced any number of the above, or seen or heard of such cases. If a person believes that LSD will be released from cracking your back, the action may very well trigger one. This is because flashbacks are heavily influenced by psychological factors. (That is why “bad” trips will cause flashbacks more frequently then less psychologically tramatic ones.)
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_survey_flashbacks.shtml

“Hunter Thompson, who would certainly have whatever flashbacks are to be had, said "And where are those flashbacks they've been promising us all these years?"”
--------
“Furthermore, LSD needs regulation as a psych drug because it is effective for certain things; research at Stanford in the 1950's showed LSD to be a powerful counseling tool in chronic alcohol abuse, and also in opiate addiction. A&E channel's Biography of LSD includes testimony technical research program, in which architects, engineers, and the like, were given LSD and left to do their thing. There's a great snippet from a computer scientist talking about how the Stanford experiments allowed him to finish his work on what would become the modern circuit-board. LSD is extremely powerful, and might even benefit society if used right.”
-------
Other then your health concerns, I don’t understand how the above would logically support additional regulation. Because aspirin may help the ill does not mean that we should regulate it for that reason.
-----------
“Whippets (nitrous oxide batteries) are incredibly fun, except they mow your brain cells by the hectare.”
-----------
Because N2O is inhaled, many people classify it along with inhalants such as glue solvent. It is actually a dissociative. People who heavily abuse it (Cases where the person used more then 200 whippets every day have been noted.) can experience brain damage. The mechanism by which it causes brain damage is the fact that Nitrous Oxide uses up a great deal of vitamine B12. If the body cannot obtain adequate supplies of B12, serious brain damage can result. With simple *moderation* and enough vitamin B in the diet, the dangers of this drug are negligible. Nothing like the very dangerous solvents and aerosols which are abused.

 

[Tiassa]

Syn--

By the way, Psilocybin can and does induce flashbacks. Timothy Leary described having one before ever using LSD.

Did Leary ever use mescaline or adrenochrome?

Hunter Thompson, who would certainly have whatever flashbacks are to be had, said "And where are those flashbacks they've been promising us all these years?"

Was he referring solely to LSD flashbacks? If so, then I'll drop the issue of which to believe. (By the way, some advice that I'm sure Dr Thompson never needed at any time: You have to sober up before you can feel flashbacks.)

Other then your health concerns, I don’t understand how the above would logically support additional regulation. Because aspirin may help the ill does not mean that we should regulate it for that reason.

There's a difference between aspirin and LSD, though I feel like an idiot to have to point it out. Does the fact that aspirin has killed infinitely more people as a direct result of use than marijuana indicate that aspirin needs stricter regulation than pot?

Most people who take LSD don't eat rye mold; they take a liquid distillate that should be considered somewhat hazardous. Accidental exposure can affect you for weeks. Nicotine in a cigarette is nicotine in a cigarette, but liquefied and concentrated, it'll melt the exoskeletons off insects. Beer is alcohol, but so is Everclear; these spirits are subject to separate regulations.

This also relates to:

Where do people get their information?

Well, that depends. Anti-drug people find the worst possibilities they can and exploit them as if they were the standard reality. But for the rest of us, we usually include:

* Our own direct experiences.
* Our own direct observations of other people's experiences.

I would ask, here, if you would mind posting your own answers to your poll.

My own:

Used LSD? Yes. Under a dozen times, but I generally don't waste my time with 300 mcg hits; so if 300's the high end, double my use.

Bad trip? Aside from 36 hours of sleep deprivation on one occasion, no. But sleep dep isn't a big deal to me, anyway.

Flashbacks? No.

Flashback connection? N/A.

On the other hand, a college associate of mine would answer: Yes, 42 times (and yes, he stopped because of Douglas Adams; it seemed appropriate to him). Yes, several bad trips, but you ride them out. A couple of flashbacks, but the cooler thing is the permanent tracers. Flashback connection? Definitely, and also the tracers.

And a musician friend of mine would answer: Yes, 30 or so times. Yes, several bad trips, including the occasion he cut out a cubic inch of his bicep, fried it in flour, and ate it. One severe flashback (aforementioned). Flashback connection? Definitely.

Where do people get their information? Depends on who you ask. I did notice that only one respondent at the web survey admitted to what I would call heavy use.

I've a friend whose build naturally carries a certain amount of body fat; every time he swims for exercise, he gets stoned.

I suppose a counterpoint might be, then, whether drugs like Valium and Vicodin should be deregulated. I mean, I've take aspirin, and I've take coedine. Both kill pain for me, but to different degrees. Mushrooms can be taken recreationally, and so can LSD. So can Valium, lidocaine, and Ritalin. But I do think LSD has some psychiatric applications that make it useful in the medical field. To use it in psychiatry would presuppose regulations in modern society. In the end, that's the only difference I'm marking there. Having used them both, my empirical declaration is that LSD is a more severe substance than psilocybin, and it would be unwise to casually dismiss the idea of regulating LSD.

Of whippets, I recall meeting a guy who would later, that evening, drop into a coma after pulling a ridiculous amount of nitrous oxide from a stolen dental tank at a frat party. If B12 was the only issue there, it shouldn't have taken nine days. Of their use ... I would do them a lot more, except I get a hangover after heavy use, which doesn't seem like it's worth it for an O2-deprivation high. (Incidentally, Monster Magnet is a great band to listen to while doing whippets. Check the Spine of God album, including "Pill Shovel", which is the ultimate heavy metal/drug abuse song. )

It might help to mention that I hold, at the back of most of my personal/governmental dualisms, the notion that the people empower their government to promote the common welfare; I believe the common welfare is served by some substance regulation, and also that criminalization is a disservice thereof.

thanx kindly,
Tiassa

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

 

[Tiassa]

In the spirit of Dr Thompson, and my silly comment about what he already knows, I should mention that I know an artist who would answer the poll as follows:

* Used? Once; I never stopped.
* Bad trips? I paint submerged car parts because it's a conscience issue; you tell me.
* Flashbacks? Have to come down.
* Connection? Without question; I can't come down.

What did his consumption look like? Imagine a shoebox. Inside the shoebox is a plastic bag. Inside the bag are sugarcube hits of LSD. The bag is never empty. At any given moment, tearing down the backroads, he might say, "Pop open the glovebox." And then he would reach in, snag as many of the sugargubes as one fistfull could contain, and eat them. These were 500-700 mcg cubes, too.

I don't know how much he's using at this moment, though I'm of the opinion his use looks a little more normal. Thing is, he never came down even during his longest abstinence. But he doesn't see what you or I see. I might say, "Sky blue", and you might say, "Powder blue", but he will say, "Cow ... blue cow moo."

That he's one of the brightest people I know doesn't surprise me. When I don't understand him, though, it's because he's drinking heavily.

As relates the large issue, though, please don't think I'll object to across-the-board legalization.

But now I want a liquid hit. Jiminy Jillikers, man! Thanx a bunch! (singing: Swirly colors ... make me laugh ....)

thx much,
Tiassa

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

 

[synaesthesia]

Syn--

“Did Leary ever use mescaline or adrenochrome?”

I don’t believe so at that point. I’ll have to take out the book again and I’ll find out for sure. (and provide you with references)

“Was he referring solely to LSD flashbacks? If so, then I'll drop the issue of which to believe. (By the way, some advice that I'm sure Dr Thompson never needed at any time: You have to sober up before you can feel flashbacks.)”

Flashbacks are frequently reported during states of intoxication. (Such as when under the influence of THC.)
http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/1357.html

Psilocybin flashbacks are noted in that site. The source that site used is a book called “Buzzed”. I suggest you read it. It is one of the best resources I have found for reliable information on drugs and has an extensive bibliography.

“Most people who take LSD don't eat rye mold; they take a liquid distillate that should be considered somewhat hazardous. Accidental exposure can affect you for weeks. Nicotine in a cigarette is nicotine in a cigarette, but liquefied and concentrated, it'll melt the exoskeletons off insects. Beer is alcohol, but so is Everclear; these spirits are subject to separate regulations.”

(Just as an aside, Ergot mold isn’t LSD. LSD is synthesized *from* the mold.) If LSD was sold in the form of some sort of delivery agent, (Some sort of eatable product.) this wouldn’t be a problem. I agree. It shouldn’t be sold in pure form. It should not be easy to feed it to others without their knowledge.(Some strong tasting substance which will dissolve under the same conditions as the LSD, for an example, might be added.

“* Our own direct experiences.
* Our own direct observations of other people's experiences.”

We are limited in the amount of interpretation we can draw from our experiences. For an example the correlation between cracking one’s back and an acid flashback.

Used LSD?: Around 20 times. Various amounts taken. Maybe 75% of the trips were under 2 hits. 25% Were over three.(Mostly 4 or 5)

Bad trip? Moments of anxiety. I have found that with LSD, except if taken in psychedelic doses, (200-300ug +, depending on person) logical thought can dispel anxiety quite easily. At higher doses it would be very possible to have an unpleasant experience, although I have yet to have one.

Flashbacks? Depends on how you define flashbacks. Occasionally I have a few moments when I recall very vividly thoughts or experiences I have had, but beyond this (Which in my case seems to be more state dependent learning then anything.) I haven’t had a flashback. Certainly nothing like an experience of synaesthesia etc.

Flashback connection? My use of psilocybin predated my use of LSD. I couldn’t, with certainty, attribute them to either one.

“I've a friend whose build naturally carries a certain amount of body fat; every time he swims for exercise, he gets stoned.”

How much marijuana does he smoke? I strongly doubt that the amount carried in your fat cells would certainly not be enough to cause a significant effect. It’s enough to be detectable in the urine and may cause some slight effect. (although certainly not enough to be called “stoned”.) I should mention that if he believes that he gets stoned he will feel stoned. A survey found that the majority of frequent marijuana users, after smoking a placebo joint, felt stoned.

“I suppose a counterpoint might be, then, whether drugs like Valium and Vicodin should be deregulated. I mean, I've take aspirin, and I've take coedine. Both kill pain for me, but to different degrees. Mushrooms can be taken recreationally, and so can LSD. So can Valium, lidocaine, and Ritalin. But I do think LSD has some psychiatric applications that make it useful in the medical field. To use it in psychiatry would presuppose regulations in modern society. In the end, that's the only difference I'm marking there. Having used them both, my empirical declaration is that LSD is a more severe substance than psilocybin, and it would be unwise to casually dismiss the idea of regulating LSD.”

Don’t think I am casually dismissing the idea of regulating LSD. My point is that it is very much like psilocybin in many respects and one should be careful to avoid a double standard.

I have not personally found that LSD is a more severe substance then psilocybin. Different people will have different reactions to various tryptamines as with any class of drug. A lot of it has to do with dosage, (In my case, I have attempted far heavier doses of psilocybin then of LSD.) frequency of use, and psycological predisposition.

“Of whippets, I recall meeting a guy who would later, that evening, drop into a coma after pulling a ridiculous amount of nitrous oxide from a stolen dental tank at a frat party. If B12 was the only issue there, it shouldn't have taken nine days. Of their use ... I would do them a lot more, except I get a hangover after heavy use, which doesn't seem like it's worth it for an O2-deprivation high.”

Here’s a good site on the subject. http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/1620.html

Note that the brain damage comes from chronic use; from the depletion of vitamin B12. I strongly doubt that in the case you described, vitamin B12 depletion would have been an issue. Brain damage only comes into play with either chronic abuse or serious oxygen deprivation.

There are a lot of factors which may have caused him to drop into coma. The worst short terms danger of n2o remains brain injury and suffocation from lack of oxygen. This generally occurs when a person attempts to inhale ONLY nitrous oxide by using a mask or some such device. Other dangers include:

-Very cold temperatures of the gas can freeze the lips and throat.
-High levels of pressure may rupture blood vessels in the lungs and force air into the chest cavity, causing the lungs to collapse.

These two are only a problem if a person attempts to inhale the nitrous oxide directly from a canister. (Decompressing gas, of course, cools.)

Of course, there are the problems associated with any intoxicant such as accidents, falls and synergetic effects with other substances. (Interactions with alcohol are a problem with many drugs both legal and illegal. Of course, because ethanol is legal, it is safe. ;-\)

In the area of disassociatives the government has another rather curious double standard. Dextromethorphan is currently legal and is easily obtainable by anyone. (In either pure form or in cough medicine.) It also causes olneys leisons in rats.(Ie. Disassociatives are the drugs that cause the proverbial “holes in your brain”.) Ketamine is currently scheduled but causes significantly less neurotoxicity then Dextromethorphan.

Regards,
Synaesthesia

 

[Tiassa]

Syn--

My point is that it is very much like psilocybin in many respects and one should be careful to avoid a double standard.

My primary point to offer in response is that I have nothing to argue with, specifically about that point. I agree that one must always be careful to avoid a double-standard.

Thus, If psilocybin can be shown to have a 50% "cure" ratio when used by psychiatric professionals to combat chronic alcoholism, then I would consider medical regulations pertaining to psilocybin.

However, I do not feel that extending additional regulation to LSD is a double-standard.

Marijuana as Schedule I--the inclusion of marijuana on Schedule I is one of the critical failures of the Drug War; the scheduling criteria include addictive potential and other impact-analyses. At no time has marijuana met the criteria to be included in Schedule I.

What this creates is an idea that Marijuana = DRUGS in the same way that Heroin = Drugs or Cocaine = Drugs. I recall that PDFA used to mix pot and cocaine in advertisements, so that if you were high-strung, nervous, subject to bouts of acute rage, or eating significantly less, parents were to suspect you of being stoned. It turned out that parents associated the violence of the Crack War with being stoned; why? Because PDFA did everything they could to eliminate the appearance of an inappropriate standard.

I offer, then, the notion that it is inappropriate to consider postwar drug issues according to our current legal classifications of substance.

Caffeine

Just so we're clear, it's okay to market addictive substances to kids. Otherwise, I expect Coke and Pepsi to be settling out, soon. Juan Valdez, then, would be executed as a war criminal.

Starbucks! Need I say any more?

Alcohol

Is it a double-standard to require separate licenses for liquor and beer?

I assert that beer (especially American beer) is, indeed, a separate concept from liquor. The difference between, say, wine and Irish cream is a little less clear, but as a general rule, there's a difference between 6.5% alcohol content by volume, and 50% alcohol content by volume.

If I told you I could go to a drive-thru and get a six-pack of beer with my sub sandwich, it doesn't sound too horrible, right? After all, I still have to choose to crack open a couple of brews and get tanked before I drive back to my house with my lunch. On the other hand, if I told you that I could (and I believe I can, in Texas) get a double Jack Daniels on the rocks in a plastic cup with my drive-thru sandwich ... what then? Is there any difference, aside from the serving mode? Heck, in my state, I can't buy liquor at Safeway or 7-11 like I can beer and wine. I have to go to a state-licensed "Liquor Store".

But we're even dealing with alcohol vs. alcohol here, and we see a separate standard. Is it a double-standard?

Cocaine/crack

An excellent example of a double-standard we need to deal with. Why is it that the only difference between crack and powdered cocaine is the skin-color of the statistically-prevalent user? Considering race-profiling, do we think it odd that the statistically minority-used drug is 100 times more potent in terms of sentencing?

In the end, Syn, I assure you double-standards are foremost on my list of traps to avoid as the Drug War winds down. Absolutely none of this can be accomplished, though, without some better research which hopefully can fill in the gaps, say, 'twixt our perceptions, or something like that.

The whole Drug War is a double-standard. I would love to say, "All bets are off, smoke it, snort it, or shoot it if you've got it." However, I recognize society and its commitment to its own best interest, and since it's society I'm trying to convince, I ought to consider the fact that it will never come about that anything, much less mind-altering substances, will be entitled to unfettered liberty throughout the entirety of human civilization.

thanx much,
Tiassa

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot