DVD Talk
Head of DEA won't admit that heroin is more harmful than marijuana [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Head of DEA won't admit that heroin is more harmful than marijuana


jfoobar
06-21-12, 11:33 AM
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/20/top-dea-agent-wont-admit-heroin-more-harmful-than-marijuana/

http://i.imgur.com/rJTJj.jpg


During a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on Wednesday, Drug Enforcement Administrator Michele Leonhart repeatedly refused to admit that anything was more addictive or harmful than marijuana.

Democratic Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado pressed Leonhart on whether illegal drugs like methamphetamine and crack, as well as legal prescription drugs, caused greater harm to public health compared to marijuana. But within a three minute time-span, Leonhart dodged his questions eleven times.

“Is crack worse for a person than marijuana?” Polis, who has called for an end to marijuana prohibition, asked.

“I believe all illegal drugs are bad,” Leonhart responded.

“Is methamphetamine worse for somebody’s health than marijuana?” Polis continued. “Is heroin worse for somebody’s health than marijuana?”

“Again, all drugs,” Leonhart began to say, only to be cut off by Polis.

“Yes, no, or I don’t know?” Polis said. “If you don’t know this, you can look this up. As the chief administrator for the Drug Enforcement Agency, I’m asking a very straightforward question.”

Leonhart said that heroin was highly addictive, but accused Polis of asking a “subjective” question. After being pressed further, she conceded that heroin was more addictive than marijuana, but added “some people become addicted marijuana and some people become addicted to methamphetamine.”

Leonhart was nominated to be the Deputy Administrator of the DEA by then-President Bush in 2003 and confirmed by the Senate in 2004. She became the acting Administrator of the DEA after the former Administrator, Karen P. Tandy, resigned in 2007. Obama officially nominated Leonhart to the position in 2010.

With video:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kFgrB2Wmh5s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Dr Mabuse
06-21-12, 01:58 PM
The nonsense coming from a person like that will seem intelligent and valid to her target audience I suppose - the ignorant masses and the people who make their living, advance their station, and get elected off of the 'drug war'.

BTW, unlike almost every drug known to man like even aspirin, ibuprofen, or acetaminophen, heroin is not harmful at all to the human body. Literally it causes no damage at all to any part of the body in any way, even to brain cells. The only damage is done because it is illegal, and thus unsanitary and/or filled with adulterants, sharing needles, etc.

The same is true of meth when it is made pharmaceutically. The only reason meth harms the body is it being made illegally. A product and result of 'the drug war'. Meth was one of if not the most widely prescribed drugs in the US for a good part of the 1950's, it was sold over the counter for decades. There was no army of zombiefied, brain damaged 'methheads' committing crime in the streets and having their teeth rot out in either case. Today meth is prescribed to people of ADHD and other issues. Aspirin does more damage to tissues than meth does.

In Britain, the heroin prescription program had a 100% success rate the last time I looked in to it. Of course even a 75% success rate would be huge and make a case, but they were clocking 100%. The people who got in the program never wanted to go back to their old life. They had turned people's lives around by simply prescribing heroin, which is dirt cheap to make, literally pennies a dose, and clean needles. They had turned people from living on the street, engaging in prostitution or crime, etc, into productive members of society who gained employment in most cases, by simply giving heroin addicts prescribed heroin. As you might imagine the people who made their living off the 'drug war', or the idiot masses who mindlessly subscribe to prohibition as 'right and good' hated the program and its success rate, and were working to kill it last time I checked.

Similar programs in Switzerland, Holland, Canada, Germany, and other places have similar very high success rates. All these programs produced a marked and measurable reduction in crime in the areas where they were implemented, and greatly benefited the people who were given access to the program.

It's so often you see some thoughtless plebeian regurgitate "you'd legalize heroin?! HEROIN!?", just like they were taught to say in rote fashion, in most any debate about ending this unbelievably stupid, destructive, and utterly failed attempt at drug prohibition around the world. But mindless regurgitation of propaganda and outright fantasies about such exist when ignorance and propaganda are used to form an 'opinion' on a matter. The head of the DEA reflects and propagandizes that sort of nonsense, and it's no surprise.

Rockmjd23
06-21-12, 02:10 PM
So she was nominated by Bush as Deputy Administrator and nominated by Obama to be the head. You would think such a position would be more divided politically.

Dr Mabuse
06-21-12, 02:16 PM
I wouldn't.

In this area both 'sides'(for the people who actually think there different sides)want the same thing: stupid, unethical people who will propagandize lies to the masses, and enforce racist and unjust laws with the various law enforcement agencies while growing the size, power, scope and budget of all the agencies involved. It's also a convenient end run around the Constitution for both 'sides' that seek to greatly increase the encroachment of the government/police state in to every single area of a citizens life. It's truly a bipartisan thing in that regard.

Mordred
06-21-12, 02:35 PM
Pure Heroin may not be harmful to the body, but you have to admit that it's highly addictive and that the body builds up a tolerance to it fairly quickly.

The war on drugs doesn't work, and I'm generally in favor of decriminalizing most drugs, but if we legalize a drug like heroin doesn't that raise a whole host of other concerns?

Pharoh
06-21-12, 03:20 PM
The nonsense coming from a person like that will seem intelligent and valid to her target audience I suppose - the ignorant masses and the people who make their living, advance their station, and get elected off of the 'drug war'.

BTW, unlike almost every drug known to man like even aspirin, ibuprofen, or acetaminophen, heroin is not harmful at all to the human body. Literally it causes no damage at all to any part of the body in any way, even to brain cells. The only damage is done because it is illegal, and thus unsanitary and/or filled with adulterants, sharing needles, etc.

The same is true of meth when it is made pharmaceutically. The only reason meth harms the body is it being made illegally. A product and result of 'the drug war'. Meth was one of if not the most widely prescribed drugs in the US for a good part of the 1950's, it was sold over the counter for decades. There was no army of zombiefied, brain damaged 'methheads' committing crime in the streets and having their teeth rot out in either case. Today meth is prescribed to people of ADHD and other issues. Aspirin does more damage to tissues than meth does.

In Britain, the heroin prescription program had a 100% success rate the last time I looked in to it. Of course even a 75% success rate would be huge and make a case, but they were clocking 100%. The people who got in the program never wanted to go back to their old life. They had turned people's lives around by simply prescribing heroin, which is dirt cheap to make, literally pennies a dose, and clean needles. They had turned people from living on the street, engaging in prostitution or crime, etc, into productive members of society who gained employment in most cases, by simply giving heroin addicts prescribed heroin. As you might imagine the people who made their living off the 'drug war', or the idiot masses who mindlessly subscribe to prohibition as 'right and good' hated the program and its success rate, and were working to kill it last time I checked.

Similar programs in Switzerland, Holland, Canada, Germany, and other places have similar very high success rates. All these programs produced a marked and measurable reduction in crime in the areas where they were implemented, and greatly benefited the people who were given access to the program.

It's so often you see some thoughtless plebeian regurgitate "you'd legalize heroin?! HEROIN!?", just like they were taught to say in rote fashion, in most any debate about ending this unbelievably stupid, destructive, and utterly failed attempt at drug prohibition around the world. But mindless regurgitation of propaganda and outright fantasies about such exist when ignorance and propaganda are used to form an 'opinion' on a matter. The head of the DEA reflects and propagandizes that sort of nonsense, and it's no surprise.

I shouldn't ask, but I am genuinely curious. Do you have a link or cite for the British studies? I am aware of the RIOTT, but since that doesn't say what you are saying there must be another study that I can't find.

rw2516
06-21-12, 05:35 PM
Saw a PBS documentary about drug use. The primary reason given for the illegalization of drugs in the early 20th century was that people could function while on these drugs and there was no way to know if someone was using them or not. The govt. didn't want surgeons operating on people while on cocaine.
We have drug testing now, which would become pretty prevalant if there is legalization. But what to do about the self employed?

NORML54601
06-21-12, 05:48 PM
Pure Heroin may not be harmful to the body, but you have to admit that it's highly addictive and that the body builds up a tolerance to it fairly quickly.

The war on drugs doesn't work, and I'm generally in favor of decriminalizing most drugs, but if we legalize a drug like heroin doesn't that raise a whole host of other concerns?

Not really. It's not like there's a huge group of people who want to try heroin but don't because of it's legal status. Legalazation would make the drug safer by regulating purity and addicts could come forward and get treatment without the threat of law enforcement getting involved.

focker
06-21-12, 05:50 PM
I support drug legalization and ending the drug war, but the assertion that heroin and methamphetamine aren't harmful in any way is simply false. In large doses heroin and other opiates will lead to respiratory suppression, coma and death. Prescription opiates made by pharmaceutical companies can have the same effects. Methamphetamine and related drugs can cause life threatening cardiac arrhythmias. These drugs can cause a variety of less serious side effects as well.

Both classes of drugs are relatively safe at reasonable doses, but they are not without risk.

Mordred
06-21-12, 06:10 PM
Not really. It's not like there's a huge group of people who want to try heroin but don't because of it's legal status. Legalazation would make the drug safer by regulating purity and addicts could come forward and get treatment without the threat of law enforcement getting involved.Where do new addicts come from though? If it were legalized is it unreasonable to think that more people would be willing to try it? I don't think it's the social taboo that makes people do heroin the first time. Cigarettes and alcohol are addictive, but I've never heard anyone say that after their first smoke/drink they couldn't wait until their next smoke/drink. I've heard heroin addicts say that exact thing though.

Like I said, I'm generally for legalization, but I guess I don't full see how the process would/should work.

Nausicaa
06-21-12, 06:56 PM
Is this surprising? The director of the ONDCP is literally prevented by law from saying anything which might support the decriminalization or legalization of any illicit substance.

Dr Mabuse
06-21-12, 09:36 PM
Saw a PBS documentary about drug use. The primary reason given for the illegalization of drugs in the early 20th century was that people could function while on these drugs and there was no way to know if someone was using them or not. The govt. didn't want surgeons operating on people while on cocaine.

That may be the 'primary reason given' in some show you watched, but none of that is in any way true as to why drugs are illegal. They are iilgal becaseu racial minorities used them, and the laws against the substances they used gave the government a way to use law enforcement to keep them X(insert racial epithet here) down. It's still used that way today.

This is historical fact, easily verifiable btw, not my opinion.

I support drug legalization and ending the drug war, but the assertion that heroin and methamphetamine aren't harmful in any way is simply false. In large doses heroin and other opiates will lead to respiratory suppression, coma and death.

In large doses water, oxygen, fluoride, aspirin, acetaminophen, ibuprofen, alcohol of every type, vitamin A, cough syrup, allergy medications, etc, etc, etc, will cause death. Stop repeating the nonsense you were taught to repeat.

Everything I posted is 100% accurate. Pure heroin does zero, 0, damage to any tissue in the body. Pure meth does less damage than any of the over the counter pain relievers like Tylenol or Advil. This is why today's 'meth head' has rotting teeth and a sunken face and dies on the street stuff, and Johnny Cash abused insane amounts of pure meth for decades and lived to a ripe old age with his wife, and still had all his teeth.

I do understand factual information clashing with the propaganda you and your peers have been bombarded with since you were young, thus causing a cognitive dissonance you weren't able to put in context. So you went with a carefully worded 'drugs r bad mmkay?' to resolve it. That's called social conditioning.

Artman
06-21-12, 11:58 PM
She probably thinks soda and theater popcorn are more harmful. Should we really be surprised? I'm almost at the point where I say let it all be legal...and let Darwin sort out the winners and losers. Unfortunately the losers would drag our society down even further than they already do.

DVD Polizei
06-22-12, 01:24 AM
I don't think they could. I'd take the mind of a heroin addict over a politician's thoughts ANY FUCKING DAY.

Case in point. Michele Leonhart.

maxfisher
06-22-12, 06:57 AM
Not really. It's not like there's a huge group of people who want to try heroin but don't because of it's legal status.

I'm for legalization, though I think it'd have to be a slowly implemented, carefully monitored process. With that stated, the 'people wouldn't try drugs just because they're legal' stuff has always struck me as a weak argument. My drug use was limited to light pot smoking in my early 20s and nitrous a handful of times around the same period. I don't use banned drugs now because they're not important to me and not worth the potential downside of nonsensical legal ramifications. If it were legal, I'd still smoke pot occasionally. If heroin, cocaine, etc. were legal and at regulated purity, I'd probably try them. If they'd been legal when I was younger, I'd definitely have tried them. As idiotic as drug laws often are, they do deter a significant number of people from using.

Ranger
06-22-12, 09:40 AM
If pot became legal, what would the new "gateway drug" be? I doubt it'd be meth or heroin.

RunBandoRun
06-22-12, 09:50 AM
While I support decriminalization of most drugs, there is a valid point to be made--illegal drug trade would still go on. Dealers would simply sell dosages above the maximum prescribed legally.

Tommy Ceez
06-22-12, 11:17 AM
While I support decriminalization of most drugs, there is a valid point to be made--illegal drug trade would still go on. Dealers would simply sell dosages among the maximum prescribed legally.

Are there people out there bootlegging high nicotine cigarettes or high alcohol content booze?

Talkin2Phil
06-22-12, 11:31 AM
Are there people out there bootlegging high nicotine cigarettes or high alcohol content booze?

There is still a small moonshine enterprise in dem hills of Tennessee. It is more about 'revenewers' and heritage than black market $$$.

maxfisher
06-22-12, 11:54 AM
Are there people out there bootlegging high nicotine cigarettes or high alcohol content booze?

I believe she was saying if someone could get a prescription for one dose of heroin a week, there would be people who would want more than that and there'd be a black market to serve those people. It's a valid point. As far as I know, no states limit someone to buying X quantity of cigarettes or alcohol per week or month. If daily smokers were limited to legally obtaining 5 cigarettes per week, a black market would surely pop up to serve them.

focker
06-22-12, 12:06 PM
In large doses water, oxygen, fluoride, aspirin, acetaminophen, ibuprofen, alcohol of every type, vitamin A, cough syrup, allergy medications, etc, etc, etc, will cause death. Stop repeating the nonsense you were taught to repeat.

Everything I posted is 100% accurate. Pure heroin does zero, 0, damage to any tissue in the body. Pure meth does less damage than any of the over the counter pain relievers like Tylenol or Advil. This is why today's 'meth head' has rotting teeth and a sunken face and dies on the street stuff, and Johnny Cash abused insane amounts of pure meth for decades and lived to a ripe old age with his wife, and still had all his teeth.

I do understand factual information clashing with the propaganda you and your peers have been bombarded with since you were young, thus causing a cognitive dissonance you weren't able to put in context. So you went with a carefully worded 'drugs r bad mmkay?' to resolve it. That's called social conditioning.

I actually agree in principle with what you're saying. I just think it's a bit hyperbolic to claim that heroin or meth have no negative effects. I'm not parroting some conditioned bias against drugs. I have actually witnessed life threatening complications of properly dosed legal opiates and amphetamines. I'm a physician; I actually know what I'm talking about.

On the other hand, when I see someone who overdoses on Percocet, I know that the Tylenol in the pills is a much bigger threat to their life in most cases than the oxycodone. I also fully acknowledge that cigarettes and alcohol are more addictive and more damaging to people's health than most illegal drugs. I don't think the possibility of side effects or complications is a legitimate reason to continue drug prohibition or a drug war that does far more harm to society than the drugs it purports to protect us from.

I'm on your side here, really. I'm just trying to bring some sanity to the discussion.

RunBandoRun
06-22-12, 12:15 PM
I believe she was saying if someone could get a prescription for one dose of heroin a week, there would be people who would want more than that and there'd be a black market to serve those people. It's a valid point. As far as I know, no states limit someone to buying X quantity of cigarettes or alcohol per week or month. If daily smokers were limited to legally obtaining 5 cigarettes per week, a black market would surely pop up to serve them.

That is exactly what I was saying. Thanks.

Navinabob
06-22-12, 12:54 PM
That may be the 'primary reason given' in some show you watched, but none of that is in any way true as to why drugs are illegal. They are iilgal becaseu racial minorities used them, and the laws against the substances they used gave the government a way to use law enforcement to keep them X(insert racial epithet here) down. It's still used that way today.

This is historical fact, easily verifiable btw, not my opinion.

In large doses water, oxygen, fluoride, aspirin, acetaminophen, ibuprofen, alcohol of every type, vitamin A, cough syrup, allergy medications, etc, etc, etc, will cause death. Stop repeating the nonsense you were taught to repeat.

Everything I posted is 100% accurate. Pure heroin does zero, 0, damage to any tissue in the body. Pure meth does less damage than any of the over the counter pain relievers like Tylenol or Advil. This is why today's 'meth head' has rotting teeth and a sunken face and dies on the street stuff, and Johnny Cash abused insane amounts of pure meth for decades and lived to a ripe old age with his wife, and still had all his teeth.

I do understand factual information clashing with the propaganda you and your peers have been bombarded with since you were young, thus causing a cognitive dissonance you weren't able to put in context. So you went with a carefully worded 'drugs r bad mmkay?' to resolve it. That's called social conditioning.

"Tissue damage" as a qualifier for safety is plain stupid. Heroin is very addictive (fact) and the user builds up tolerance quickly (fact) which can lead to overdoses (fact). It also mixes with alcohol rather disastrously which leads to people getting killed by their own vomit. That is why it is bad. Yes, you can OD on stuff like water. But since water does not provide a euphoric effect, is addictive, and quickly builds a tolerance in users, it does not typically cause death in the same manner heroin does. I'm sure the friends and family of the late Dee Dee Ramone, Layne Staley, & Sid Vicious wish they didn't use this harmless drug.

I'm not sure where you got this "pure meth" garbage from. This drug is harmful for the same reasons heroin is (addiction/tolerance) but adds a few gems to it's bag of tricks. How about long term use leads to psychosis in 20% of users?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1557685/?tool=pmcentrez

Dr Mabuse
06-22-12, 01:05 PM
I just think it's a bit hyperbolic to claim that heroin or meth have no negative effects.

I didn't claim that did I? You're moving the goalposts around. Everything is life has negative effects. There is literally nothing in our lives that has no negative effect. Being born and living has negative effects.

I'm not parroting some conditioned bias against drugs. I have actually witnessed life threatening complications of properly dosed legal opiates and amphetamines. I'm a physician; I actually know what I'm talking about.

On the other hand, when I see someone who overdoses on Percocet, I know that the Tylenol in the pills is a much bigger threat to their life in most cases than the oxycodone. I also fully acknowledge that cigarettes and alcohol are more addictive and more damaging to people's health than most illegal drugs. I don't think the possibility of side effects or complications is a legitimate reason to continue drug prohibition or a drug war that does far more harm to society than the drugs it purports to protect us from.

I agree.

I'm on your side here, really. I'm just trying to bring some sanity to the discussion.

In this regard, on an issue like this, there are no 'sides' really. It's more a thing of truth and facts, verses lies and deception about something in a society that is destroying millions of lives needlessly and creating the largest criminal organizations and crime wave in the history of the Earth.

There was nothing 'insane' about what I posted so no 'sanity' needed to be brought to he discussion. And again, whether you realize it or not, your reaction to simply factual information was indeed a reaction rooted in the cognitive dissonance created by such facts rubbing up against decades of propaganda and social conditioning about 'drugs r bad'. Simply reading something completely accurate like "heroin does literally no damage to the body in any way" caused it, whether you realize it, admit it, or not. It is not an accident, in fact it's by design that "you'd legalize HEROIN!?!?" pops out of many people in discussions like this. That is a taught and rote response conditioned into people en masse by social conditioning created by decades of propaganda.

This whole 'drug war' issue at this point is basically just what that video is about in the OP. How long will completely ridiculous lies in the propaganda continue to manipulate and fool the ignorant masses. That's the equation at this point. The overwhelming majority of the people and organizations who profit from the drug war(like that moron in the OP video) for their paycheck in the many law enforcement agencies, who expand the size, budget and influence of their agencies, further their careers in such agencies, get elected, grow their for-profit prison industry, all the judges, lawyers, etc, etc, etc, will repeat the lies until the drug war ends and millions of lives are no longer destroyed for something that is no crime. Then countless billions of dollars wasted, whole nations destabilized, the largest criminal organizations in the history of the Earth funded beyond the dreams of avarice, etc, etc, will end. And at some point the society no longer conditioned by propaganda(people are weak minded and easily controlled) will look back at this drug war stuff like most people look back on the prohibition of alcohol now, with a 'WTF were they thinking?' kind of perspective.

DeputyDave
06-22-12, 07:12 PM
I'm for most (if not all) drugs being legalized (I doubt the good Dr. thinks it is even possible for a cop to form this thought) but there would need to be a lot of thought put into it first. My number one issue would be instant testing (such as a breathalyzer).

DVD Polizei
06-22-12, 07:18 PM
There is still a small moonshine enterprise in dem hills of Tennessee. It is more about 'revenewers' and heritage than black market $$$.

Or it's more about idiots who don't have a television and/or read a newspaper, and can't even read a fucking road sign to get into town to save their life. For these people, moonshine is a blessing.

NORML54601
06-24-12, 04:43 PM
Where do new addicts come from though? If it were legalized is it unreasonable to think that more people would be willing to try it? I don't think it's the social taboo that makes people do heroin the first time. Cigarettes and alcohol are addictive, but I've never heard anyone say that after their first smoke/drink they couldn't wait until their next smoke/drink. I've heard heroin addicts say that exact thing though.

Like I said, I'm generally for legalization, but I guess I don't full see how the process would/should work.

I'm for legalization, though I think it'd have to be a slowly implemented, carefully monitored process. With that stated, the 'people wouldn't try drugs just because they're legal' stuff has always struck me as a weak argument. My drug use was limited to light pot smoking in my early 20s and nitrous a handful of times around the same period. I don't use banned drugs now because they're not important to me and not worth the potential downside of nonsensical legal ramifications. If it were legal, I'd still smoke pot occasionally. If heroin, cocaine, etc. were legal and at regulated purity, I'd probably try them. If they'd been legal when I was younger, I'd definitely have tried them. As idiotic as drug laws often are, they do deter a significant number of people from using.

Yes, there would be an initial spike in use, and addiction after legalization but it would level off when people's curiosity is satisfied. And while cocaine and heroin are more addictive than say alcohol, there are a lot of people out there now who use the drugs responsibly that aren't hooked. Also, heroin isn't just an automatic high, it can have side effects such as vomiting that would turn people off ater one use. Heroin is a very delicate drug in terms of getting the dose right.

NotThatGuy
06-24-12, 11:06 PM
In her defense....there are WAAAAY more ppl in prison bc of pot than heroin, so that is kind of dangerous.

DVD Polizei
06-24-12, 11:08 PM
Wonder what the food bill is for a prison with hundreds of pot users.

NotThatGuy
06-24-12, 11:14 PM
They probably eat better than most of the working poor in the country. They should get bologna sandwiches and water 3x365.

Dr Mabuse
06-26-12, 01:30 PM
Was just reading this on Forbes, interesting facts.

Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal

Drug warriors often contend that drug use would skyrocket if we were to legalize or decriminalize drugs in the United States. Fortunately, we have a real-world example of the actual effects of ending the violent, expensive War on Drugs and replacing it with a system of treatment for problem users and addicts.

Ten years ago, Portugal decriminalized all drugs. One decade after this unprecedented experiment, drug abuse is down by half:

Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal’s decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked.

“There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal,” said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction, a press conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the law.

The number of addicts considered “problematic” — those who repeatedly use “hard” drugs and intravenous users — had fallen by half since the early 1990s, when the figure was estimated at around 100,000 people, Goulao said.

Other factors had also played their part however, Goulao, a medical doctor added.

“This development can not only be attributed to decriminalisation but to a confluence of treatment and risk reduction policies.”

Many of these innovative treatment procedures would not have emerged if addicts had continued to be arrested and locked up rather than treated by medical experts and psychologists. Currently 40,000 people in Portugal are being treated for drug abuse. This is a far cheaper, far more humane way to tackle the problem. Rather than locking up 100,000 criminals, the Portuguese are working to cure 40,000 patients and fine-tuning a whole new canon of drug treatment knowledge at the same time.

None of this is possible when waging a war.

NORML54601
06-26-12, 04:36 PM
^ :up: Thanks for posting that

Navinabob
06-27-12, 04:45 AM
Was just reading this on Forbes, interesting facts.

The article is very misleading. Yes, they have decriminalized most drug use, but they still have a giant drug-war going on. They go after sellers and importers of drugs (with punishment that can be more severe then in the US). They will still arrest you for use. After arrest you are fined (failure to pay fines means jail), and you are forced into court supervision by a state health worker who either forces in (or out) patient treatment where failure to attend leads to jail time. You can't have more then a 10 day supply of drugs on you, and you can't have a few of the "harder" drugs still. Users are treated by society there as people to be pitied much in the same way we look at the mentally ill here.

So they have a "war" since they use police to bust users, sellers, and importers. They still jail people, they still have forced supervision, they still do most of what we say is bad about our drug war. They only thing they do different is treat use as a public health issue and push treatment over imprisonment. I love the idea and would love to see parts of it implemented in the US... but I get the feeling that most of the anti-drug war crowd have no idea what they are cheering for when they post Portugal stories like this. I think people just read "decriminalize" and just make up the details in their heads.

classicman2
06-27-12, 07:47 AM
Portugal doesn't have a neighbor to the south that supplies a great deal of the illegal drugs that come into the U.S.

wmansir
06-27-12, 07:09 PM
When discussing a 10 year old policy change why would they compare today's number to the all time high from 20 years ago? All that tells us is that the number was already declining when the policy was enacted. What we really need to know is what the number was 10 years ago, what was the trend of that number and what has been the trend since.

Anyway, regarding the original topic: Medical Examiner Finds Only Marijuana in Maimi Face Chewer System (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/27/medical-examiner-finds-only-marijuana-in-miami-face-chewer-system/)

I smell a Reefer Madness remake.