Its been awhile, but never forgotten

An unfathomably amount of change has occurred in my life since my hiatus from this blog, but obviously expected from someone who just graduated from a prison of a college and been living in NJ/NY ever since.

It is utterly frustrating I have not been actively keeping up with this blog, despite my fervent passion during its peak. I am at a point now where something has to come out. Being in NY has been changing my perspective on drugs and has been allowing me to come into closer contact with not just the drugs themselves or even the users, but newer for me are the environments that drug use is indubitably recommended.


There's a lot on my plate in the coming weeks but...

Online 3.0: Silk Road has been closed and its accused leader DPR (see earlier post), better known now as Ross Ulbricht, is expected to be seen in a NYC courthouse on January 5, 2015. Silk Road closed down very shortly after I posted a piece about it (no coincidence) and has left the "dark web" in a far more dangerous place with the SR's demise. Just starting to dive back into this (because why would I trust any street dealers when I can buy from safe dealers that have a community forum reporting on the drugs and sellers.) Most likely the post to come first.

MDMA: Current state of affairs. No idea how the DEA is looking at MDMA right now, but a HUGE support for medical use has surged since I last studied the drug, so I am looking forward to seeing how public/government reaction has shifted.

MDMA at BA:LUX: This post might not be published, but will probably be written nonetheless. Why BeauxArts was so successful and how the experienced WAY OPENED my eyes to a club scene I never before witnessed. God would I like to know how many people were on something besides booze there....

New MDMA studies: I'm sure there are a bunch... Gotta dive into academic journals... See yah soon!

New to MDMA? Is there a How To Guide?: Should there be? And if there is where is it?

Community Research: What drugs do people use to dance? What are the most common drugs right now? Diving into the Function of the drugs, rather than the Form. (Thanks to Sullivan, "Form follows function"). Why do people take certain drugs and not others. What attracts people to heavy drugs like meth or heroin? (The answers are fairly obvious, no doubt... but reaching here more for overall drug reactions)

Friends Who Intoxicate: When do you tell someone they might have a problem, especially when you are such a strong advocate for drug exploration and freedom.

What if drugs were legal? Buddy of mine was thankful drugs like Oxycodone are controlled or she would become addicted. Not sure if that statement is exactly true though.



.....I could go on for days.... Which I'll probably add more later, but for now thats a good starting point.


Stay safe out there and always have a smart friend by your side. You are NEVER alone <3  

A lethal ignorance: We could make drugs safer. We choose not to. A Comment From The Article

malcolmkyle 38 days ago

"The more obvious the failure becomes, the more shamelessly they [the prohibitionists] exhibit their genuine motives. In plain words, what moves them is the psychological aberration called sadism. They lust to inflict inconvenience, discomfort, and, whenever possible, disgrace upon the persons they hate — which is to say, upon everyone who is free from their barbarous theological superstitions, and is having a better time in the world than they are."

"They cannot stop the use of alcohol, nor even appreciably diminish it, but they can badger and annoy everyone who seeks to use it decently, and they can fill the jails with men taken for purely artificial offences, and they can get satisfaction thereby for the Puritan yearning to browbeat and injure, to torture and terrorize, to punish and humiliate all who show any sign of being happy. And all this they can do with a safe line of policemen and judges in front of them; always they can do it without personal risk."

—an extract from "Notes on Democracy" by Henry Louis Mencken, written in 1926, during alcohol prohibition, 1919-1933


"What of the cripple who hates dancers? What of the ox who loves his yoke and deems the elk and deer of the forest stray and vagrant things? What of the old serpent who cannot shed his skin, and calls all others naked and shameless? And of him who comes early to the wedding-feast, and when over-fed and tired goes his way saying that all feasts are violation and all feasters lawbreakers?" 
—Khalil Gibran

A Guest Post: In His First Experience With Society's Menace, Marijuana

The Non-Druggie's Survival Guide to Drugs!

  

This is an unusual post guys. I want to use this post to talk about drugs. I’m going to be honest here because I do not know much about the subject and don't really know what to talk to you guys about. 

I do know however the first time I came into knowledge about this subject was through the D.A.R.E. program. This program was presented in elementary schools throughout the country and it was known for one simple message: Don’t do drugs. Or you will die.

They also gave out dope t-shirts.

Now little me took that advice to heart as seeing if I participated in drug use I would die. And I didn’t want that to happen just now.

My first encounter of drugs was when I visited DC with some buddies. We were chilling out until the early morning when we realized we needed to drop one of our friends off at his place. But before we left in the van, Rich, one of my friends, produced a massive bong out of his backpack. He then lit up and passed the bong to the next person. And the next. And the next. Till it finally came to me. I inhaled. My throat burnt. 

After that shenanigan, we piled into the van fifteen minutes later. I was sort of let down. I hadn’t felt a thing. From what I gathered from movies and television, people that smoked weed generally solve mysteries and eat a lot of food. We were doing neither so I was somewhat disappointed. I mean I’m not even feeling anything-

OH. SHIT.

It was starting.

  

The hairs on the back of my neck rose. My sense of place grew distant. I guess I was high? Yes. I was high. 

Our entire crew of five then proceeded to drive throughout our nation’s capital, admiring all the sights. Rich and I were sitting in the back of the van, hosting our own talk show with much similarity to the sound of Terrence and Phillip of South Park.

The last notable event that I noticed was when we were driving down a narrow tunnel of trees. There were no street lamps so the only light emitted was from the headlights of the car. The driver then showed us the Tunnel to Wonderland. He shut off the front lights so the only remaining light that still remained was from the very end of the tunnel. This is what tripped me out the most for it appeared we were going through hyperspace.

 

To infinity and beyond - Star Trek 

So that was my first experience being high. There’s not really a message or anything else you can take away from this post, I just wanted to share that with you…

Sooo yeahh this is awkward. 

Wanna learn more about drugs? Check out this blog, Intoxication: A Human Right, it's much more informative and danker than mine. 

Intoxication, freedom, timeless history of civilization

This is not the end. Although the class that has thrust me into this blog is ending, my passion from this has not ended. I realized as soon as I decided to go forward with this topic, this was not something that could be contained in a blog. Intoxication is a subjective topic, one that can get to extreme opposites of how it should be mixed in with society.

I have learned over the past semester:

As of 12/10/2013 0:30 we as a nation have spent $38,476,898,450 on drug prohibition.

"...For the first half of our nation's history there were no prohibitions against any drug.
-The war on drugs is not authorized by the Constitution.
-Tobacco kills more people every year than all of the people killed by all illegal drugs in the twentieth century.
-The war on drugs had done nothing to reduce the demand for illicit drugs.
-Numerous studies have shown that smoking marijuana is less dangerous than drinking alcohol.
-The war on drugs is the cause of our unnecessarily swelled prison populations.
-Alcohol abuse, not drug abuse, is one of the leading causes of premature deaths in the US.
-The war on drugs has ruined more lives than drugs themselves.
-More people in America die every year from drugs prescribed and administered by physicians than from illegal drugs. " (The 40-Year War On Freedom, Laurence M. Vance)

We have given our government far more power than our founding fathers ever envisioned. After looking at restrictions placed on us by the government, I actually realized how citizens are not born free. Citizens are granted freedom by the state and must abide by that, thus not creating a free individual.

Intoxicant policy has been guided for the past 100 years with false rhetoric, moral obligations, religious beliefs, racial prejudice, and as an excuse to continuously overstep the role of the state.

"The war on drugs is a failure. It has failed to prevent drug abuse. It has failed to keep drugs out of the hands of addicts. It has failed to keep drugs away from teenagers. It has failed to reduce the demand for drugs. It has failed to stop the violence associated with drug trafficking. It has failed to help drug addicts get treatment.

But the war on drugs has also succeeded. It has succeeded in clogging the judicial system. It has succeeded in swelling prison populations. It has succeeded in corruption law enforcement. It has succeeded in destroying financial privacy. It has succeeded in militarizing the police. It has succeeded in hindering legitimate pain treatment. It has succeeded in destroying the Fourth Amendment. It has succeeded in eroding cicil liberties. It has succeeded in making criminals out of hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Americans. It has succeeded in wasting hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. It has succeeded in ruining countless lives.

Clearly, the financial and human costs of the drug war far exceed any of its supposed benefits. Clearly, the drug war violates the Constitution and exceeds the proper role of government. And clearly, the drug was is a war on personal freedom, private property, personal responsibility, individual liberty, personal and financial privacy, and the free market."
(The War on Drugs Is Senseless, L. Vance)

There is nothing in the actual consumption of drugs that should be criminalized. The only victim of drug taking is the user, if you could even call them that. Drug users do not call themselves victims nor do they consider the people they are around when intoxicated as victims.

I still don't know:

Not nearly enough research to make scientifically valid health decisions regarding drugs


Why the government has done very little to change obviously failing policy regarding drugs over the past 40 years

Different traits genetically which alters perception of intoxicants

Why people care that other people do a peaceful act such as drug taking, despite "moral" issues

How to successfully debate by cited specific sources

And the list continues infinitely.. 

I still want to accomplish:

To move "officials" away from moral issues regarding drugs and forward to health issues.

To continue building the website for my continued research but also to share an objective view on drugs.

To effectively communicate my passion to others to hopefully pass it on even further.




This has not been a blog about drugs. This has been a blog about mankind. Intoxication has been twisted over the past century as something immoral, something of the devil and corrupting of society. This blog has not even began to touch why this is societies' view of drugs. This blog has begun to open a well-guarded and well-hidden pandora's box of truth behind intoxication. I will continue my work on Human Intoxication passionately, perhaps seeing a day when drugs are not controlled by harm reduction/prevention but rather benefit maximization. But for now, the constant hypocrisy that spills from policy makers will continue fueling my passion and motivation towards my overall goal for man.

A Mother's Perspective...

"As mother of this writer of this blog, I am not in support of my only son taking illegal drugs for two reasons: 1. I don't want my only son to die from any drugs...legal or illegal and 2. I don't want my son to be arrested for possession of any illegal drugs. Now speaking on behalf if I believe marijuna should be legal...I don't know.  I do know that I believe ALL drugs should be regulated by our government!  I've read my son's blog on '"Intoxiction, A Family Affair" and know firsthand how alcohol or what he says...ethanol...when abused is just as destructive as any illegal or legal drug.  I have not been an active drug user doing my teen, college or adult life but have been exposed to family members that have been addicted to drugs and one cousin at 21 years old died of an overdose.  I have been through 2 years of Al-Anon and it was probably the best support system I have been through.  Although this group is anonymous, I have heard too many heart wrenching stories form parents speak about their children addicted to alcohol or drugs.  I don't know enough about cannibus and the research regarding addition or not.  I just know from experience that addition hurts and those closest to the addict. In support of legalizing cannibus for medical use, I support it 100%.  I'm talking about people that are suffering of any type of cancer and life threatening diseases.  All the other fake ailments, need to get legalized prescriptions from their doctors. I will end my son's blog with my last words... I love my son and proud that I am his mom." 

-Cynthia Swanson, Mother of Blog Writer

Intoxication, A Family Affair

What would be different with family holidays if weed were legal? There is no time where individuals want to be intoxicated more than when spending time with family. Well that's at least how my family goes and I’m sure I’m not alone. It is only 5:30 in the evening and we have already gone through a handle and half of vodka, a few bottles of wine, and about to dive into a couple of more bottles of wine, perhaps some bourbon and eggnog later. Personally, as the youngest drinker, I have been through plenty of bloody marys and now on my fifth or sixth glass of Stags Leap (one of my favorite vineyards!)  I already feel sluggish, sleepy, and in a more depressive state than before, but at least a portion of my social anxiety is removed and I am able to interact with everyone! Man but I wonder what would happen with all of us if we were allowed to intoxicate with cannabis rather than ethanol? 

How is it I can get sloshed and enjoy drunkenness together as a family but due to most drugs being illegal we aren’t able to enjoy the good drugs? No I doubt most people would want to shoot up heroin with their family, but how much fun would it be to enjoy your family with a few puffs of cannabis? I have been able to get so close to my friends that I have smoked with and participated in other drugs with; quite honestly I wish I was able to have some sort of ethereal experience like that with my family. 

Think of the typical fifteen or sixteen year old and how they would rather get a root canal than hangout with their parents. What if during a planned game night the parents arranged to smoke a few bowls with the teen? There might be a considerable moral and social discord to that, but I  imagine the teenager would actually enjoy themselves. Wouldn’t it be better if parents, responsible and experienced guardians, be the ones to fully introduce their children into a drug that they will experience in their lifetime. Most parents will want their children to first experience ethanol with them so the child will understand the effects of the drug before they are in a social environment, a potentially harmful one without understanding what the effects are.  Why isn’t it the same with marijuana? Even so, this “experience” phase isn’t nearly as important with cannabis as it is with ethanol. Ethanol is a toxic, destructive substance which in excess never results in anything good; while cannabis could actually be used for good to create strong and lasting relationships with stubborn teenagers who might otherwise never want to be with family. An anonymous writer on ganjarama.com said that “smoking with my mother was part of my teenage years, it brought us closer together, because there was nothing I needed to hide from her.”  The massive stone wall created between teenager and parent is able to be chipped away with THC.  I realize there is a need to have a solid separation between being a parent and being a friend, but in the difficult, emotional times of being a teenager there is no emotional allowance in the teenager for a dictatorship. 

I look forward to 25 or 30 some years from now and I have to personally deal with this issue. What can anyone imagine what US drug policy will be then? Regulation? Medical use in all states? Recreational use? Maybe there will be solid evidence of what marijuana actually is and its health risks/benefits. No matter what the case, I will continue to choose marijuana over alcohol, I will restrict its use from children unless allowed by their parents, and I will do so with little regard for US drug law. 

History of Marijuana unto 1988

This is an exploration of how marijuana got its foundations of becoming illegal in the United States up to 1988. I hope to expand on this later not just to where we are today, but also including all popular drugs, especially MDMA and alcohol.

Major citation:

21 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. 417 1987-1988 

If you don’t want to have another reason to distrust our hypocritical government then you probably should not read the following of how Cannabis Sativa was made illegal in the United States.  This account is up to 1987. More is to follow, but this is a great start to see the foundation of many of the laws we are still dealing with today. 

Cannabis, known as many other titles in various times/cultures,  has been around for tens of thousands of recorded years and found even as early as ancient Egypt. The first recorded account according to most historians is in China during the stone age. Yet it wasn’t until 1842 when __________ used cannabis in medicine in England which began a common knowledge of the drug. Its amazing to me that just over a 150 years ago most Europeans (and certainly Americans) did not know about the “laughing smoke” and now it has created this mess for our society today. 

In the United States, the most influential migration of cannabis was from south of the border as many migrants moved north looking for prosperity and escape from the Mexican Revolution of 1910 while also bringing their drug of choice. The southwestern states were the first to enact laws prohibiting marijuana.  (The term marijuana or commonly spelled at this time marihuana is actually a term from Mexicans, thus beginning its prejudicial statement.) It just shocks me that no one contested this as being unconstitutional and prejudicial against Mexicans. Actually as this “problem” of marihuana began to stir, congress was beginning to see bills to deal with the drug on a federal level, but them not allowing its consumption was never considered due to constitutional quandary. The first act on a federal level was the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, which restricted marijuana to medical and industrial users. Even opponents of drugs will have to admit that such a bill would have NEVER passed through any level of government today. The bill was directly aimed at a certain group of people (the Mexicans and blacks of the jazz/harlem renaissance) which would have been easily thrown out by any right-minded judge now. 

The first time marijuana was blamed for being a gateway drug was by the commissioner of The Bureau of Narcotics, Harry Anslinger, charging that heroin addiction increased after the war due to marijuana use. This logic is what helped pass the Boggs Act on a federal level of 1951. The act mandated imprisonment for first offense of possession of any drug. It was not until a decade later when marijuana was introduced into mainstream youth culture. It quickly obtained acceptance with youth a period of social unrest in America. It was not until many friends, neighbors, and a non-criminal culture was being quickly inundated to the criminal justice system that something obviously needed to change. By the early 70s most states significantly reduced marijuana penalties. After a mass upsurge of drug use in the late sixties, congress overhauled drug laws in 1970 with the Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Control Act. This distinguished marijuana from harder drugs and reduced the penalty of possession. At the same time, congress created a commission head by _____ Shafer to work on a report, the 1972 Mairihuana: A signal of Misunderstanding, the members being hand-picked by president Nixon. The Shafer commission ironically reported to reduce sanctions of marijuana and refuted the myths surrounding the drug. The study did not find harm to society with low-to-moderate use of marijuana and stated the risk is found with heavy, long-term users which only represents 2-4% of the total user base. This report recommended far more research and proclaimed a lack of overall knowledge of risks or potential benefits. 

Despite all this, Nixon disagreed with his own, hand-picked, commission and remained against marihuana legalization. His reasoning stands as "I do not believe you can have effective criminal justice based on a philosophy that something is half legal and half illegal". I'm not sure if you understand what that means, but I certainly don't and seems like an easy get around for actually explaining his reasoning for drug prohibition. Despite the lack of action on the part of the federal government, the commission's report wasn't for nothing. Marijuana gained acceptance into US culture and became the third most used drug following the obvious tobacco and alcohol. Due to the upsurge in use by common citizens, the judicial  system reexamined the harsh penalties for marijuana convictions, and caused many states to lower punishment levels; the Shafer study being a driving force of evidence to push decriminalization on a nation-wide level. 

Interestingly, Alaska in 1975 legalized marijuana for private use of marijuana for adults. This is the first victory (and most notable case) of the constitutionality of marijuana laws. Although this didn't quite touch on the government infringement on rights, it held up state laws for privacy. To be addressed later is the lack of privacy the drug war has introduced to Americans. It  might be more surprising than you can imagine. 

It should be noted that the states that choose to decriminalize marijuana did not see a rise in cannabis use. “Those states decriminalizing marijuana possession in the 1970s generally reported savings in police and judicial resources while maintaining cannabis use rates close to the states retaining criminal sanctions” (Columbia).  The criminal laws did not stop or open the door for drug use, but rather is a part of a much more complex social phenomena that is not under jurisdiction of any law. 

1980s

The 1980s did not bring much positive energy to marijuana as it was being placed in the same category as other increasingly abused hard drugs such as cocaine. America was being convinced by Reagan propaganda that they should hold a strict prohibition on all illicit drugs, not even mentioning the levels of health hazards different illicit drugs held. “The Institute of Medicine's 1982 survey, Marijuana and Health, concluded that ‘marijuana has a broad range of psychological and biological effects, some of which at least under certain conditions, are harmful to human health.’ The Institute voiced ‘serious national concern’ over the rapid spread of a new intoxicant in society and called for ‘a greatly intensified and more comprehensive program of research into the effects of marijuana on the health of the American people… the Institute admitted ‘we have no convincing evidence thus far of any effects persisting in human beings after cessation of drug use.’ The Institute's findings discredited studies purporting to find brain damage in laboratory animals subjected to supposedly human-equivalent marijuana dosages, as well as clinical speculation on the erosion of mental faculties among marijuana users.

The report also addressed the charge that cannabis consumption leads to the use of other illicit substances. ‘Association does not prove a causal relation,’ the Institute wrote, ‘and the use of marijuana may merely be symptomatic of an underlying disposition to use psychoactive drugs rather than a 'stepping stone' to involvement with more dangerous substances’ (Columbia). This is an important argument for what drug use really is about. Some people want to change their state of being and others want to remain in their normal conscious state. Marijuana is just one of the many drugs at the disposal of those trying to break reality. The fact that the government has made so much hoopla about it has actually caused it to be a gateway drug for those looking for an intoxicant. Teens try marijuana looking for an intense high, as they have been informed they would receive and after trying it they realize it is actually far less intense than they thought. The myth that marijuana is a gateway drug is a debunked one and is not a valid argument anymore. Even the US government in all their crappy publications will admit that. Anyone that tells you differently is not educated enough on the subject matter. 

They wrapped up that report stating that “Prohibition itself causes serious health hazards because of an unregulated marijuana market, which results in adulteration, contamination, unknown potencies, and toxic herbicides applied by government eradication programs” (Columbia). How interesting that we can relate this hazard of prohibition to all illegal drugs. Go back to the MDMA section to see the health hazards prohibition has done to the drug. 

Another report from the National Academy of Sciences in 1982 challenged the current rationale of marijuana prohibition. They believed “that current policies directed at controlling the supply of marijuana should be seriously reconsidered.” Due to this outcome, the report was highly criticized. They agreed that “ marijuana use, particularly among adolescents, is "cause for extreme concern," the committee decided that minor health risks cannot dictate drug policy: “Our judgment as to behavioral and health-related hazards is that the research has not established a danger both large and grave enough to override all other factors affecting a policy decision." DESPITE THIS RECOMMENDATION BY A FEDERAL GROUP, NOTHING CHANGED. 

Probably my favorite part is one of the committee’s opinion was that "[a]lienation from the rule of law in democratic society may be the most serious cost of current marijuana laws." Funny how that was written in 1982 and yet it still remains perhaps the most caustic part of federal marijuana laws. 

The 1982 report pretty much recommended an end to prohibition and even theorized on regulation. Advantages of regulated legal marijuana would include "the disappearance of most illegal market activity, the savings in economic and social costs of law enforcement directed against illegal supply systems, better controls over the quality and safety of the product, and, possibly, increased credibility for warnings about risks."  A regulated system of supply could be modeled on current alcohol policy, with its mixture of federal, state and local provisions tailored to specific concerns. Crime and corruption stemming from the multi-billion dollar cannabis black market are commonplace and include the deaths of many law enforcement officers and marijuana traffickers. 

The biggest risk of a regulated, legal marijuana supply would be an increase in consumption. Folks who are for and against legalization try to justify this in many ways and to be honest, whats wrong with more people smoking marijuana? Honestly I HOPE MORE PEOPLE SMOKE MARIJUANA. There are very few people I know in college who don’t drink, even if just on a limited social level and for those people who use it to be social and break down social anxieties should have access to an option that is far less harmful than alcohol. The rise in marijuana use is not where issues would arise, the issues would be found in the users who are already heavy-users who would have even more of the drug at their supply with cheaper prices. But the committee “placed faith in the judgment of users not to abuse cannabis” which is an easy faith to hold if you have ever smoked marijuana. Your body naturally will stop you from smoking. There is a point where subconsciously you just don’t want to intake anymore. “Most people now who try marijuana do not progress to regular use, and most users do not advance to daily smoking” (Columbia).

An Analysis of Marijuana Policy suffered official rejection similar to that which greeted Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding a decade earlier in 1972. The rejection of the report exemplified the Reagan administration's commitment to escalating the war on drugs, including marijuana. 

Evidence to maintain marijuana law

Adolescent Use, potency, cocaine abuse

Support for decriminalization of marijuana was faltered by groups such as the National Federation of Parents for Drug Free Youth (NFP) as they pressed for harsh action to eliminate illicit drug use from adolescents. 

As a result… “The question of adult civil liberties has faded from the marijuana debate, replaced by the perceived threat to the (very) small percentage of marijuana smokers who are adolescents.”

Many groups used rising marijuana potency as evidence to continue public fear of the drug. And I’m going to call a big bullshit on this one… Ever since reading Jim Rendon’s Super Charged I realized what the potency shift really was a result of. Most people (even now) consider potency to be rising due to the drug being on the black market, reaping the benefits of greater prices paid for the stronger stuff, which is only a part of the reasoning. But really higher potent bud is not really a bad thing. In fact higher potency means less smoke in the lungs and you have to consume less toxins to get high. High potent weed can be dangerous for inexperienced users as they will be at risk for the acute effects of THC, such as anxiety and hallucinations. But I will remind you no one has ever, EVER died from marijuana overdose. One of the major reasons that the potency has actually been rising is actually due to a shift in cultivation practices seen over the past 40 years. Moving away from smoking marijuana leaves, cultivating the buds of the female while removing the male plant so that the female does not germinate (produce seeds) which allows for the plant to devote all of its energy in the bud. 

Cocaine abuse rising in the 1980s was commonly connected with marijuana. “The panic over cocaine prompted a surge in drug law enforcement, but few realized that marijuana, being far more pervasive and easier to detect, would still command a lion's share of police resources.  A large majority of cocaine users smoked marijuana prior to trying cocaine, inspiring the charge that marijuana constituted a dangerous "gateway" to cocaine.” But before you get too excited, “over 75% of regular marijuana smokers, however, have never used cocaine, rendering the gateway quite narrow.” 

Federal Resources

On a federal level we are wasting away many valuable resources on this “drug war”. Among the agencies that you obviously know are involved, such as the DEA or US Customs; “The Central Intelligence Agency provide satellite surveillance and information on illegal drug activity abroad. Complex financial investigations of suspected drug traffickers provide the Internal Revenue Service with a major role in drug law enforcement. The Federal Bureau of Investigation entered drug enforcement in 1982 to pursue drug trafficking by organized crime. And perhaps the most illustrative of the war's seriousness, the Department of Defense, in 1981 began logistical and intelligence support for offshore drug enforcement programs” (Columbia).

Congressionally

Congress has really been just a bunch of pussy push overs when it comes to drugs in general. They have constantly leaned on the side of caution and have been in support of any of the rhetoric anyone loud enough could create and would go along with the biased opinion of this rather than listening to research or findings of their own committees. In 1984 they passed the “Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, hailed as a wish list by the federal drug enforcement community. One of the Crime Act's more draconian features, the Bail Reform Act, has resulted in pretrial detention for thousands of accused drug violators who previously would have received bail. Defendants charged with drug crimes carrying sentences of ten years or more are presumed dangerous and must be incarcerated before trial, unless the defendant can rebut this presumption at a hearing. 1984 Crime Control Act capped fifteen years of expanding asset forfeiture laws and enshrined forfeiture as a cornerstone of drug law enforcement. Basically, civil forfeiture provisions now allow the government to seize upon probable cause all assets, including real estate, that are traceable proceeds of drug transactions or are used to facilitate drug transactions. An arrest for a criminal offense is not required. Innocent parties whose property is used in drug transactions generally have no defense to civil forfeiture…The 1984 Crime Act mandated criminal forfeiture for all defendants convicted of felony drug violations and generally expanded civil forfeiture. “

1986 saw the $3.93 billion,  Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 passing almost unanimously over the rising crack and cocaine abuse.  “The 1986 Act belatedly budgeted over one billion dollars for drug treatment and prevention programs, erasing the decreases in federal spending for these programs in the 1980s. The bulk of spending went for massive increases of law enforcement budgets, including more personnel, equipment and prisons. The 1986 Act restored mandatory federal prison sentences for large scale marijuana distribution, which had been removed in the 1960s. Congress also decreed a mandatory $1,000 minimum fine for persons convicted of possession of less than one ounce of marijuana. The lawmakers imposed tough new sanctions on money laundering, coinciding with expanded Treasury Department regulations requiring that all cash transactions over $10,000 be reported.” Yeah that last one is still with us and is in my opinion a HUGE violation of our privacy. That’s right any time you draw or deposit $10,000 or more a red flag comes up to the IRS and that transaction will be audited. Along with that great privacy buster, the act also “ added colleges to the ‘school yard statute,’ which doubles penalties for drug offenses committed within one thousand yards of a school. " 

In 1988, Congress began preparation of another election-year anti-drug bill, focusing on fining drug users and depriving them of access to federal programs.”

Judicial 

If it isn’t bad enough that congress and the presidents are on a war path to stomp out all illicit drug use, but the judicial branch, those guys who are supposed to be protecting our rights, drank the kool-aid. While not fully supporting the government on drug-related cases, they have validated many common techniques used by drug agents. “The Supreme Court in drug cases has loosened standards for obtaining warrants, electronic surveillance, searching ships and automobiles  and saving evidence from exclusion. Warrantless aerial and ground searches for marijuana in fields and barns surrounding homes also have received the Court's approval. In a related erosion of constitutional safeguards, courts have sanctioned the escalating practice of haling drug defense lawyers before grand juries to divulge their clients' fee arrangements and even factual information concerning their clients.”

“The consensual nature of drug crimes necessitates undercover agents, paid informants, and covert surveillance. These law enforcement methods that blur the distinctions between police and criminals have jeopardized civil liberties and concepts of limited police powers to an unparalleled extent.”

But yet… we still say FUCK YOU. “Despite the boom in drug arrests and incarceration, marijuana remains widely available at reasonable prices.” 

Moving Marijuana out of Colombia, but it shall return 

And in one of the most pivotal moves for marijuana in the United States was Operation Hat Trick I in the fall of 1984. The Coast Guard and Navy placed a blockade of vessels off the Colombian coast at the height of marijuana harvest for 60 days. This successfully eroded Colombia as a source for American marijuana. This allowed for Jamaica, Belize, Mexico and domestic sources to take over. Remember Mexico was a major source of cannabis in the US, but was quickly removed after the US government purposely poisoned its own citizens by applying dangerous herbicides to the crop. 

If you smoke weed, you should die

Yeah so remember how the US poisoned its own citizens? Well I don’t but I guess it was actually a thing in the 1980s. It wasn’t just a media scare but actually a large role in United States drug strategy in the 1980s, despite the risks to the health of American marijuana smokers and the limited effectiveness of these programs. Colombia, Mexico, Belize, Panama, Jamaica, Guatemala, and Costa Rica received extensive financial assistance from the United States in applying herbicides to marijuana crops. Herbicidal eradication of marijuana has accelerated in the 1980s in disregard of strong warnings from the medical community. Oh wait but ironically “The appearance of paraquat-contaminated marijuana in the United States and attendant public concern prompted Congress in August of 1978 to adopt the Percy Amendment, which prohibited government support for spraying herbicides on foreign marijuana if the practice posed a serious risk to consumers of the sprayed cannabis. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare subsequently determined that such a threat existed, and the United States terminated support for the Mexican paraquat program. In late 1981, however, Congress repealed the Percy Amendment and again authorized spending for herbicide eradication programs abroad.”  As grows began to pop up on a more domestic level, the spraying was heavily reduced and no plants were sprayed on US soil in 1987 and on due to the cunning efforts of growers and small grow sites. 

If we can’t stop drug production, we are going after its users

In 1986 the President’s Commission on Organized Crime cited drug trafficking as “the most serious organized crime problem in the world today.” 

They continued in their report stating that- “drug trafficking is only part of a broader, unified phenomenon which also includes the illicit use of drugs. It is the users who finance organized crime through their drug purchases, and it is they who must accept responsibility for the broad range of costs associated with the drug industry.... This Commission believes that the Nation's drug policy must have as its goal the elimination of illegal drug use” 

The first time I read this I almost threw my computer across the room. Its bullshit like this that has caused us to be in the shit hole we are in now. Instead of addressing the bigger picture of organized crime and what is fueling it, they are going to just cop out and point the finger at the user. The fact that they have already said that drug users are criminals says to me that they really don’t want to fix this issue. From what I get is that this group is trying to stamp out organized crime, which they have cited drug trafficking to be the worst. Wouldn’t the best way to eliminate organized crime in the sense of drug trafficking would be total legalization of drugs? 

The committee stated that “it is the users who finance organized crime through their drug purchases, and it is they who must accept responsibility for the broad range of costs associated with the drug industry” while in fact the people who are continuing to keep drugs illegal, forcing drug trafficking in the first place, should actually accept responsibility for their actions.  I guess no one stood up to the obvious crack pot who released this post. The commission urged for more drug user arrests and pushed for urine tests for the general population. 

“The Commission's call for targeting drug users through urine tests reflected the new consensus in the mid-1980s of prohibition advocates - stringent supply reduction measures have failed and winning the drug war requires bypassing the criminal justice system to inflict punishment on drug users. Since the 1960s demonstrated that imprisoning marijuana users is an ineffective policy, striking at the economic livelihood of marijuana smokers under the guise of a drug-free workplace offers a panacea for prohibitionists. Urine drug screens of millions of citizens annually have undercut the marijuana decriminalization policies of the 1970s and have marked a sharp escalation of the illegality of cannabis.”  Urine testing really just pisses me off, especially when it comes to marijuana. Now that does not mean I am against drug-free workplaces. Being in a dangerous industry I work in, I know the importance of being completely sober for any day of work. What I am against is my employer telling me what I can and cannot do when I am not working. Marijuana is the only drug that remains in your systems after 72 hours. Even heroin, cocaine, and meth will clear your system after only a couple of days but the most benign illicit drug will remain in you (as it is fat soluble) for weeks, depending on your size and other factors. 

Many employers and government officials have no rationale for drug screening other than its legal status. But drunk driving is illegal as well, and what are they going to force me to take a breathalyzer every time I drive in my personal car, off the clock? 

“Prohibitionists seeking to justify testing for marijuana use have relied on flawed research purportedly demonstrating that off- the-job marijuana use erodes workplace productivity. A widely cited study by the Research Triangle Institute pegged lost productivity from marijuana use at over $34 billion in 1980. The researchers based this figure on a survey finding that former heavy marijuana smokers generally have lower incomes than non-marijuana smokers, while current smokers show no difference in income from non-smokers. The report extrapolates this extremely loose correlation into an estimated $34 billion productivity loss from marijuana use. Misconstruing research to support marijuana prohibition is common, but this report has been embraced to legitimize a workplace vendetta against marijuana users.”

“Drug testing has enabled prohibition to transcend the criminal justice system's constitutional constraints on punishment, thus adding untold thousands of victims to the hundreds of thousands arrested each year for marijuana possession. Urine drug screening amounts to one of the most pervasive attempts at social control in American history and resembles police state measures with its reliance on instilling fear of arbitrary testing and accusation.”

In 1937 the US government began its prohibition towards marijuana due to ungrounded fears of it being a dangerous substance. Mainstream use of the drug in the 60’s and 70’s forced decriminalization. Many who saw the substance as benign were quickly stomped out in the 1980s after the inflammation of hard illicit drugs, which began to be lumped with the far less harmful marijuana, and then placing all drugs as a threat to the social fabric. (What a stupid fucking reason to prohibit something). Once the general population had a strong misconception of drugs the government took advantage of this by escalating police power and bypassing the criminal system by encouraging workplace drug testing. 

Back From The Dead!

This weekend closed out the show I designed the lighting for, Street Scene.  Now I am  able to get back on to a perhaps "normal" schedule.  I have been working on a new custom website to allow for an easier flow and usability that is impossible to get from blogger.

Below are a few images on the website building from Adobe Muse

Also now there are comment sections enabled, realizing a lack in my work of the voice of others. I would like to eventually create a forum area on the custom website.



P.S. Did you see that TheSilkRoad 2.0 has been activated and continuing the legacy that was a few months ago of Dread Pirate Roberts.

Oh the questions...

I haven't done a nuclear research based blog in a few weeks basically because I have been mentally trying to figure out what direction I want to move now. Over the last half of this semester I want to focus in on the roots or foundations of the war on drugs.

1. Why Are Drugs Illegal? I want to explore how certain drugs became illegal (including alcohol) and why controlled substances became controlled.

2. What are people's opinions on drugs? What are UNCSA's opinion on drugs? How do people learn about drugs?

I have been doing rough interviews with people exploring questions that would work with a larger population and hopefully I get to a place where anyone would feel comfortable answering my questions. I spoke recently with Sarah Lawrence, a woman for institutional research here and we briefly discussed the issue of binge drinking on campus. Although the crime stats don't agree with her concern, she finds that the biggest health concern is binge drinking and the recent CORE survey was to evaluate the current scope of the issue. On a sidebar, I hope to get the opinion from at least someone high up in admin that they believe marijuana is far less harmful than the typically abused alcohol. I also still am pushing to get an interview with members of the police and legal area of UNCSA/Forsyth County. Lastly, there is an interesting view on how media effects the public view on drugs. It is easy for many to believe that the general view on drugs coincides with the media while in fact the media has a very biased story-driven agenda, rather than what the story on drugs needs to be based on, a health-based agenda. (And definitely not a political agenda)

3. War on Freedom.  At what point did we say that the government can create a totalitarian stance on happiness, consumption of goods, and private life of its citizens.

Smoked Marijuana Cancer Risk

Unless you've been living in a ditch, you know there is one drug that will quickly be removed the "Drug War".  According to a recent Gallup poll, the percentage of Americans who are in favor of legalization of marijuana has risen to the highest levels since the polling began.  Marijuana will be fully legalized at some point close and will hit the pinnacle when the UN Drug Conventions are altered to adjust for the past moral reasoning behind drug use and law accounts for scientific health-based research. 

One of the most common health issues exclaimed by many anti-marijuana proponents and propaganda is that marijuana smoke has four times the amount of tar as tobacco smoke. This one statement is just enough for most common Americans for some time to remain constant on their stand on keeping it illegal and choosing to keep tobacco as the smoked plant of choice. Yet this fact is not nearly as simple as many Americans presume. 

According to a US Department of Health and Human Services drug survey marijuana is the second most smoked substance after tobacco in the US. A 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health reported 17.4 million past-month users with a 2011 report stating 41.9% of Americans using marijuana at least once in their lifetime. This was actually the first time I really saw that number and had to do a double-take; it is amazing how high that percentage is yet it is still illegal. It might be interesting to see what the percentage of people who try tobacco smoking is? 

The US government in our life time has done an amazing job of harm-prevention programs with tobacco smoking. You would be hard to find someone in today's society who doesn't know how harmful cigarettes are to the body. Due to these efforts, the number of smokers in America has rapidly decreased. All for good measure, as according to the CDC more than 440,000 US deaths are pointed towards cigarette smoking every year. 2.5 million Americans died in 2011. A little math will show that tobacco smoking accounts for 17% of American morality.  Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. We already have a huge issue on our hands with that epidemic, the country can't afford another. It took decades for research to catch up to the truth behind tobacco smoke and it is obviously a smart move on a health stand point to be weary of calling cannabis begin with the past as it is. 

It is easy to associate smoking tobacco with smoking cannabis, because well they're both combustion thus they both emit similar chemicals. Yet in extensive scientific literature there are no recorded deaths blamed on marijuana. How can we compare the two substances when one is seen as a society-killing menace and the other as a begin substance? 

In my epidemiological review of research which studied marijuana use and cancer risk, I came to one conclusion that all of the studies also concluded to, there just isn't enough research on marijuana available yet. One would assume that the most widely-used illegal drug in the world would have some solid research behind it, yet sadly it is mostly a gray area of semi-conclusive results. The only way, the only way for science to fully grasp its hands around the practically unknown plant is for legalization. There are two reasons for this; 1. The only way for research to be done on marijuana in the US is through a difficult application process, security measures and the product can only come from the University of Alabama. 2. Surveys and data polled from the population will always be considerably skewed due to the criminal nature behind marijuana. We know so much about alcohol harm and tobacco harm which allows us to actually do something about them. I am here to tell you that there is no good piece of evidence dismissing or proving the cancerous effects of marijuana. 

It is true, "one of the most potent carcinogens in tobacco smoke, benzo(α)pyrene, is present in even greater amounts in marijuana smoke". Also if you have experience around pot smokers, frequently we inhale……………hold the the smoke………….. then exhale (and sometimes cough…) According to (Tashkin, 2005) this increases the "amount of tar deposited in the respiratory system by a factor of four". The same study does admit that higher THC content, water pipes, filters, vaporizers, and edibles reduces or eliminates all risk of the carcinogenic tar. Yet why people can continue this "tar" debate is that smoked marijuana is by far the most used way of ingesting the THC. 

Pulmonary Function

Before diving into the whole cancer risk idea, I want to bring up an interesting finding from (Pletcher, 2012). Low use marijuana smokers actually scored higher FEV1 and FVC scores (amount of air passing in/out of body) when compared to non-smokers. This is explained later in this article that the method marijuana is typically smoked actually stretches the lungs, which as assumed, forms a nonlinear relationship with high levels of long term smoking.

Previous Studies

Previous studies on cancer risk with smoked cannabis are numerous, but mostly all lack valid data to make a scientific conclusion. "Limitations of previous studies include possible confounding due to cigarette smoking and other risk factors, error in measuring marijuana use and potential confounders, and the small number of cancer cases with a history of long-term or heavy use of marijuana" (Tashkin, 2006). 

"Several lines of evidence support the suggestion that marijuana smoking may be a risk factor for aerodigestive tract cancers: 

1. Marijuana smoke contains several of the same carcinogens and co-carcinogens as those in tobacco smoke, including vinyl chlorides, phenols, nitrosamines, reactive oxygen species, and various poly- cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (Hoffmann et al., 1975).

2. Benzo[a]pyrene, a procarcinogenic PAH, is present in marijuana tar at a higher concentration than in tobacco tar (Hoffmann et al., 1975).

3. Relative to tobacco smoking, marijuana smoking may involve inhalation of approximately three times the amount of tar and the retention of one third more of the inhaled tar in the respiratory tract (Wu et al.,1988).

4. Smoking a few marijuana cigarettes a day has been reported to have similar effects, as observed on histopathologic evaluation of the tracheobronchial epithelium, as those observed with daily smoking of more than 20 tobacco cigarettes (Fligiel et al., 1997; Gong et al., 1987).

5. Evaluation of bronchial mucosal biopsy specimens obtained from marijuana smokers without any clinically apparent disease showed more abnormalities than were observed for non–marijuana smokers in molecular markers of dysregulated growth, such as Ki-67 (a proliferation marker), epidermal growth factor receptor, and DNA ploidy (marker of genetic instability) (Barsky et al., 1998)" (Hashibe, 2005). 

Carcinogenic?

Many of these studies are measuring a quantifiable value of tar released in the smoke of cannabis but the difficult factor in all this research is the human interaction. "Smoke from tobacco and cannabis contains many of the same carcinogens and tumor promoters. However, cannabis and tobacco have additional pharmacological activities, both receptor-dependent and independent, that result in different biological endpoints… Despite potentially higher levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons found in cannabis smoke compared to tobacco smoke (dependent on what part of the plant is smoked), the THC present in cannabis smoke should exert a protective effect against pro-carcinogens that require activation. In contrast, nicotine activates some CYP1A1 activities, thus potentially increasing the carcinogenic effects of tobacco smoke" (Melamede, 2005).  Even though the same chemicals are in the two different smoked substances, the way the body is affected by the chemicals is different. This alone already disproves the propaganda line about tar risks in cannabis. Many marijuana activists will point you in the "magic plant" direction at this point!

A bit more in depth with this: 

 "The differential expression of receptors may account for the apparent difference in carcinogenic activity that results from smoking tobacco compared to cannabis. Both types of smoke contain a complex mixture of compounds, some of which are carcinogenic. They both contain hot gasses and irritating particulate matter (tars). However, the anti-apoptotic response that results from the stimulation of the nicotine receptors, under mutagenic conditions, creates a worst-case scenario" (Melamede, 2005). 

"The carcinogenic potential of smoke is increased by tobacco, whereas it is uniquely reduced by the specific immune regulatory activity of cannabinoids in cannabis smoke" (Melamede, 2005).

"While both tobacco and cannabis smoke have similar properties chemically, their pharmacological activities differ greatly. Components of cannabis smoke minimize some carcinogenic pathways whereas tobacco smoke enhances some. Both types of smoke contain carcinogens and particulate matter that promotes inflammatory immune responses that may enhance the carcinogenic effects of the smoke. However, cannabis typically down-regulates immunologically-generated free radical production by promoting a Th2 immune cytokine profile. Furthermore, THC inhibits the enzyme necessary to activate some of the carcinogens found in smoke. In contrast, tobacco smoke increases the likelihood of carcinogenesis by overcoming normal cellular checkpoint protective mechanisms through the activity of respiratory epithelial cell nicotine receptors" (Melamede, 2005).

In fact there could be some good from this plant… "There is recent evidence from cell culture systems and animal models that 9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the principal psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, and other cannabinoids may inhibit the growth of some tumors by modulating key signaling pathways leading to growth arrest and cell death, as well as by inhibiting tumor angiogenesis... Such inhibitory effects in some preclinical models do not necessarily imply that exposure to marijuana smoke can prevent cancer occurrence in humans" but it "...has been shown to augment lung cancer growth in an immunocompetent mouse model due to its potent effect on immunosuppression"  (Tashkin, 2006). 

Negative Studies

One of the most recent predominate studies "proving" lung cancer risk in marijuana smoking is (Callaghan, 2012). Obviously due to my point of view I walked into the research with caution and I was not disappointed as the entire tone of the research paper was mostly just trying to get it highly publicized and used with current movement of marijuana legalization.  They found that " ‘‘heavy’’ cannabis smoking was significantly associated with more than a twofold risk (hazard ratio 2.12, 95 % CI 1.08–4.14) of developing lung cancer over [a] 40-year follow-up period" (Callaghan, 2012). The study only referenced heavy cannabis use while also mentioning that a majority of those heavy users were typically heavy tobacco users. Overall their cohort study did much stirring, suggested that cannabis might elevate the risk of lung cancer but never actually offering scientific proof taking into account the complex issue that I presented earlier. 

Heavy Use

According to the above research, "heavy cannabis use, defined as self-report of smoking marijuana more than 50 times in lifetime, was significantly associated with more than a twofold risk of lung cancer" (Callaghan, 2012). This fact is skewed in that 91% of heavy cannabis users also smoked tobacco in their lifetime. Besides this study, others did not have conclusive results due to low level of heavy use participants. 

Conclusion

Overall one statement should be made about this analysis; that more research must be done to have valid, factual health-based information for users of what will soon become a legal drug. It is easy for opponents of legalization, as well as the general health field to compare the health hazards of tobacco smoke with cannabis smoke but the complexities of the plant must be explored before we can place such a stigma against it. 

Why is it a crime? (A continuing series)

There are many people who don't think legalization of anymore drugs is a good thing. As the Daily Record once stated, they believe, "Do we really want another legalized danger in the form as a soft drug?" (26 March 1997)

You would have to be a pin head to not know that alcohol and tobacco are harmful to your body. First off, how was tobacco and alcohol chosen as what our country allows us to consume/intoxicate ourselves with while spends billions ( on criminalizing and destroying the rest? 

Okay stirring the pot here. 

Still not on board? So who is the victim to the crime of drugs? 

No one. 

The victim could be considered directly to the user as it is affecting their health. But I wouldn't bank on most drug users considering themselves as a "victim". Many debates on just this issue surly will bring up all the crimes committed by users of drugs or those under the influence of drugs. So the crime in question is not actually that drugs were consumed, but that the individual committed a separate crime, which in itself has its own set of rules. The consumption of the said drugs is irrelevant and should be, under law, excluded from any defense to escape punishment of committed crime (unless prescribed under medical advice).  Okay take example when a mother is addicted to heroin and instead of buying enough formula for her child, she uses some of the money to buy her drugs. If the child ends up with malnutrition due to her mother's drug use, the crime punished would be child endangerment and other child abuse related crimes. No one is saying that the situation couldn't have been avoided if the mother wasn't taking heroin; but the fact remains that she is. Hundreds of thousands of mothers worldwide (0.19% mothers in US) (data from http://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/heroin, http://www.infoplease.com/spot/momcensus1.html, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html) have heroin/opiate addiction and it would be a safe assumption on my part that in most cases it affects the family in some manner. In the above mother's case of not having enough money for her infants formula and to get her heroin she skimmed some away from her child.  If prices weren't exuberantly high due to harsh drug laws, fluctuated by supply levels or by gang activity, but if controlled and grown on more than just the 1000 acre farmland world wide,  perhaps we could lower the price to just a few dollars, instead of hundreds.  

Woah woah Michael… are you suggesting to legalize heroin? 

The folks I am beginning to interview about drugs (to be detailed out at a later date) I find most of them will place heroin as the worst drug possible. Addiction and the very prominent death threat from its potency bring many to the conclusion it holds the place as most harmful drug. 

Before we go into the drug user and the harms she inflicts upon herself, we have to ask ourselves is anyone in society being harmed by someone elses heroin use? Most answers included: family, friends, children, innocent bystanders and even pets.  

Family.

In the current system family usually finds out about heroin use when it is too late. Due to the stigma placed upon the drug, users will almost always hide their addiction from their loved ones. So even when the user wants to stop, she has no way to seek help and only when it became a problem is she offered treatment for her addiction.  Friends could be labeled under the same description, but at the end of the day why should it be a law if it is just breaking up a friendship? I don't mean to sound harsh but what if we made cheating on your girlfriend with her best friend a crime? 

So from probably now until the end of this blog (if there ever will be an end..) I will be making these sort of "risk" comparisons. To win over any argument of drugs you need to start using real-life, unregulated risk we are allowed to do legally. This is removing the hypocrisy and hopefully a huge stigma away from drugs. 

Earlier I referenced an example of children of drug-addict parents, exhibiting that the laws broken were child welfare, not actual drug use. Society as a whole should not be punished for recreational drug use, while these woman are breaking far different and far more heinous crimes such as child endangerment. Alcohol is legal for adults to drink and even with kids. They have to understand and live with the risk of drinking too much to then get in a car and drive those kids. The fact he consumed the alcohol is not the crime here, the fact he got into a car and endangered the lives of those children and anyone else on the road is the crime. He thus should be punished accordingly. 

The Drug War’s Collateral Damage- A Video

Innocent Bystanders In Developing Countries

Innocent bystanders round the corner here and now I'll take a quick pause.

Bystanders are shoot at, murdered, kidnapped, robbed, and victimized due to drugs. In Glasgow it is calculated that £500 million worth of crimes need be committed every year to feed the 8,500 heroin addicts there (Scotland on Sunday, 7 Jan 1996). If compared with the alcohol prohibition, crime due to gang activity, price fixing, price inflation, and unknown ingredients, the majority of which would not exist if the drugs were legalized and controlled. 

These innocent bystanders are children caught in gun fire with Mexican drug lords over some dispute. Or it could be a woman on some New York side street getting mugged by a junkie to get some extra cash to "score" some more. Heroin on the street (According to the United Nations Office of Drug Control, in 2005 heroin cost between $40 and $350 per gram retail in the United States, while the price in the United Kingdom was much lower at about $27 per gram) is exuberantly higher than it's controlled pharmaceutical synthetic form that I could buy at CVS Pharmacy on my insurance for 7 dollars for a monthly supply. The significant decrease in price would allow users to not need to resort to crime for all their needs.  Now there will still be those who could never get enough, but at that point many could push that towards suicide. The risks of heroin are not unknown and if someone chooses to constantly use dangerously high amounts they need intense treatment, not criminal action for just the drug use. Not to shed any humor on such a dark subject, but you have to be willing, if you want to make this an argument, that anything in excess known to be dangerous is reckless. Now you can think of plenty of things that are dangerous in our world in excess that are completely legal. In this instance lets consider one who is at extreme obesity because she only eats Cheeseburgers. She is at a high risk of early death and should seek help with her body and diet. No one would ever take her freedom away from eating cheeseburgers, even if she is putting herself at harm while also hurting emotionally her family and friends. She is in a place of extreme personal risk, just as the heroin addict from above was also in. We live in a free society where we have the freedom "to take risk with our own health and our own body so long as it doesn't put anyone else at risk" (Williamson) 

Anyone who chooses to use "risk" as an argument for drug prohibition needs to remember the risks surrounding a human's daily life and stop being hypocritical about drugs. There a risk walking outside your house, there is a risk when you go through a green traffic light, there is a risk when you walk on a college campus. What about dangerous sports such as football? What about even more extreme sports as mountaineering, paragliding, sky diving, motor racing, horse riding, or skiing? All these sports injuries cost a lot of money but no one thinks twice about paying for them and certainly no one would outlaw a sport such as football although the many known risks involved. Comparisons like these are one of the only ways to be able to really break drugs from the taboo level and to what the bottom line issue really is. 

Ecstasy is cited as a dangerous and powerfully harmful drug that kills or seriously injures. Yet the number of ecstasy-related deaths in the UK topped 7 in 1996 (which does not cite the death occurred directly from the ecstasy but could have been over hydration). To put the risk data more openly we look at risk of death data from Drugs and The Party Line  

Taking 1 tablet of ecstasy- 1 in 3.7 million

Five rides at a fairground- 1 in 3.2 

Holiday skiing in Switzerland- 1 in 600,000

Parachuting- 1 in every 85,000 jumps

Attempting to climb K2- 1 in 4 

It is awesome that we have the freedom to do these sports or activities even when there might be great risk while doing so. There is a great thrill in doing something like sky diving. Your body releases chemicals that is almost impossible to find while on earth. But just suggesting to do sky diving or mountain climbing already excludes many people who would't be able to spend tens of thousands of dollars on such an activity. The same high and adrenaline released when sky diving could be obtained much cheaper on the street. The subject of race and the orders of class certainly do come up quite a bit in the drug conversation.