War on Drugs a Success

S.J.B. said:
Drug prohibition in the U.S. started in 1914, arbitrarily choosing 1978 as a date to compare current drug usage rates to makes no sense.
Click to expand...

It's difficult to get a sense of exactly what he is basing the figures on because, of course, there's no reference list or bibliography but one would have to assume it is the landmark National Survey on Drug Use and Health that has been conducted in the US since 1979 and which is prefaced by a very clear warning that the data gathered before 1999 cannot be compared to data gathered after 1999 due to changes in methodology (1.2. Limitations on Trend Measurement) - yet that would appear at first glance to be exactly what this ex-DEA hack is doing in this very misleading op-ed.
 
I don't care if Jesus Christ went door to door wearing white robes and a pair of sandals with a questionnaire, it proves absolutely nothing....
 
BlueHues said:
I don't care if Jesus Christ went door to door wearing white robes and a pair of sandals with a questionnaire, it proves absolutely nothing....
Click to expand...

Sure it doesn't prove anything - it's not supposed to - it's just an indicator of trends within society. As imperfect instrument for gathering data, survey's like this are the best and most accurate sources of data available to researchers and a lot of care goes into ensuring that, wherever possible, biases are identified and corrected.
 
Is it really worth locking up a million people to have 300,000 less heroin addicts? Even if you suppose the War On Drugs IS working (and it seems like it is NOT to me!) that doesn't necessarily equate to the human cost being worth it. Drugs can ruin lives, that is certain, but so can prison sentences, it makes a lot more sense to treat drug abuse as a medical issue than it does to treat it like a criminal justice issue. It is a failure in logic to say, "drugs ruin lives, so if we catch you taking them we will ruin your life any way by locking you up!"

Why is it relevant how many chemicals are in marijuana smoke, when several of them have been shown to have a medicinal benefit? If many of those chemicals are potentially beneficial then it is misleading to present the fact it has 468 chemicals in it as a bad thing. It also doesn't seem very relevant to claim it has 60% more carcinogens than tobacco smoke, without mentioning the fact that there has never been a case of cancer that can be solely attributed to cannabis use, where there are thousands that can be attributed to tobacco use. There is a tiny chance I am wrong on that last part, but I am fairly certain I am not. Regardless, several of the chemicals in cannabis have been shown to help fight cancer, which clearly offsets at least some of the carcinogen consumption.

I also think you missed Poledrivers point earlier pmoseman, his point was that cannabis is NOT more carcinogenic than tobacco smoke when it is used by means other than smoking, like vaporising and taking it orally. Considering that these are both perfectly viable means of ingesting cannabis the argument for banning it based on the health consequences of just one possible route of administration is pretty thin.
 
This is such bullshit. How do people get away with this crap? It should be illegal to publish something on the basis of fact, when it presents no evidence for it's outrageous claims. And circumstantial evidence from biased sources won't cut it either.

This article isn't just filled with random unbacked statistics but blatant and purposeful lies.
 
The carcinogens claim is bullshit derived from their biased testing methods. Notice how they do not claim it causes cancer. The primary carcinogen in tobacco is polonium-210, which is not present in cannabis, and the mass of polonium required to have the carcinogenic effect very small compared to other carcinogens such as nitrosamines. The 60% could easily be a mass measurement or a measure of the number of different chemicals that can cause cancer. The studies that did claim it caused cancer turned out to have not controlled for combining it with tobacco, Dur!
 
This guy is really trying to say that weed is worse for you than cigarettes right?

Too bad he left out the comparison of deaths (undeniably) caused by weed/cigarettes...weed: 0 (if any, and I would heartily debate this, it's at least in the single digits); cigarettes: at least hundreds of millions.

I rest my motherfucking case.

Besides, if anyone out there really believes that smoking weed is going to get you struck down by one of God's lightning bolts, I always tell them to look at two people: Willie Nelson and Paul McCartney. Those guys have both smoked unbelievable amounts of weed in their time (especially Nelson) and are both more than alive and kicking. Willie actually gave up cigarettes a few decades ago when he was having lung problems, but he was able to keep on smoking weed, up to the present.
 
omnipresenthuman said:
I rest my motherfucking case.
Click to expand...

14.gif
 
bit_pattern said:
It's difficult to get a sense of exactly what he is basing the figures on because, of course, there's no reference list or bibliography but one would have to assume it is the landmark National Survey on Drug Use and Health that has been conducted in the US since 1979 and which is prefaced by a very clear warning that the data gathered before 1999 cannot be compared to data gathered after 1999 due to changes in methodology (1.2. Limitations on Trend Measurement) - yet that would appear at first glance to be exactly what this ex-DEA hack is doing in this very misleading op-ed.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
60% more carcingogens than cigarettes is as far from the truth as you can get. If there are even 6% more than cigarettes, maybe atleast one person would've died from it.

this article is the stupidest, most under-researched, propaganda-filled piece of shit ive ever read on the internet. you have no valid arguments in any of your posts, and this article confirms you are merely playing devils advocate. this former dick enforcement agent is as blind as they come.. i mean, it claims heroin OD deaths are down. there are four fuckin articles about overdoses on this page. the only thing the war on plants has succeeded in doing is killing/jailing a considerable portion of our population, raised the national debt, and cripple a large majority of latin america.
 
Last edited:
i think that you guys are thinking about the war on drugs in the wrong way way. it DOES work, and they (dea, govt, etc) ARE winning. think about what the REAL goals of the drug war are. not the "save the children" garbage but population control. in that way, the drug war has been a MASSIVE success at controlling people and resources.
 
success and failure are subjective; not a reliable measure of validity. its a matter of perception and our governments' perception is a byproduct of corrupted reality.
 
drug_mentor said:
Is it really worth locking up a million people to have 300,000 less heroin addicts? Even if you suppose the War On Drugs IS working (and it seems like it is NOT to me!) that doesn't necessarily equate to the human cost being worth it. Drugs can ruin lives, that is certain, but so can prison sentences, it makes a lot more sense to treat drug abuse as a medical issue than it does to treat it like a criminal justice issue. It is a failure in logic to say, "drugs ruin lives, so if we catch you taking them we will ruin your life any way by locking you up!"

Why is it relevant how many chemicals are in marijuana smoke, when several of them have been shown to have a medicinal benefit? If many of those chemicals are potentially beneficial then it is misleading to present the fact it has 468 chemicals in it as a bad thing. It also doesn't seem very relevant to claim it has 60% more carcinogens than tobacco smoke, without mentioning the fact that there has never been a case of cancer that can be solely attributed to cannabis use, where there are thousands that can be attributed to tobacco use. There is a tiny chance I am wrong on that last part, but I am fairly certain I am not. Regardless, several of the chemicals in cannabis have been shown to help fight cancer, which clearly offsets at least some of the carcinogen consumption.

I also think you missed Poledrivers point earlier pmoseman, his point was that cannabis is NOT more carcinogenic than tobacco smoke when it is used by means other than smoking, like vaporising and taking it orally. Considering that these are both perfectly viable means of ingesting cannabis the argument for banning it based on the health consequences of just one possible route of administration is pretty thin.
Click to expand...
It is hard to make any arguments against your prison ruins lives stance because no reason is given. Prison has undoubtedly helped a great many people.

Several chemicals in Tobacco smoke have anti-cancer, anti-cardiovascular disease; nicotene is a remedy for Alzheimer's, depression, Parkinson's; tobacco has historically been used against tooth decay, glanular diseases, ulcerated abscesses, fistulas, sores, inveterate polyps, etc. It was renowned for its medical value and known as "holy herb".

These chemicals can be taken by methods other than smoking, such as skin patches and vaporizing.

Tobacco is associated with death because a causal link has been proven. When you burn any plant material you get a phone book of new compounds being created. The fact that marijuana starts off with 60% more carcinogens should be fair warning.

If pole driver was making a point rather than asking a serious question, then it is hard to read his meaning.
 
Last edited:
I orginially thought that article was the stupidest thing ive ever read on the internet. I was wrong. None of what youve said is even close to being true and you know it. used AGAINST tooth decay? are you shitting me? dude that is beyond ignorance and denial. Like I've said before, you cite nothing, and you make grandiose claims like weed causes cancer (not one death attributed) while claiming tobacco does the opposite. And the only thing prison has helped anyone do is continue a life of crime and signs the paychecks for wardens, etc..
 
Hmmm,...heroin ODs cut in half, but more deaths from prescription painkiller ODs than heroin and cocaine combined. Oh my, did the "former a administrator of the US DEA" forget to factor in that part?

Didn't factor in the much, much, much more common use of Narcan and the fact that it is more easily available to the public, too. Along with EMS, police and fire now commonly carrying it.

But nooooo....it was the almighty War on Drugs that is savings so many lives. We all owe so much to these bureaucratic dickheads.
 
Last edited:
RTrain said:
Hmmm,...half the heroin OD deaths, but more deaths from prescription painkiller ODs than heroin and cocaine combined. Oh my, did the "former a administrator of the US DEA" forget to factor in that part?
Click to expand...
I am sure he did. But here I am sort of losing the definition of drug war. So even legal medications are the fault of the war on drugs now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top