War on Drugs a Success

gallup-marijuana.png


drug availability estimates in the united states
 
Last edited:
pmoseman said:
"And from my own memory and research I know smoking a few cigarettes a week never killed anybody.
Click to expand...
I do recall now that the statement was with lung cancer. It did not increase your risk of lung cancer. But of course, I always point out that you clearly run the risk of addiction at this amount and will find this habit unbearable.

Also, as I see, the other consequences of smoking: shortness of breathe, phlegm, etc. are present even in this level of use. This statement also did not include heart disease.

I also said in a WEEK not in a DAY.
Someone has trouble reading.

It was likely just not proven to cause harm, rather than proven to not cause harm. I would have to find it again, somehow. I don't know why I keep bringing it up... it seems to only cause people to get upset. As if I made it up, which why would I even bother. Not sure what it would prove anyway. It is only surprising 2nd hand smoke got so much traction as a health problem. I see it as a problem of learned behavior, the solution being to keep smokers outside where they are not seen as fitting in.
 
Last edited:
psood0nym said:
Yeah, why post an op-ed from 2011? If the argument is that the drug war has been successful we should have seen a steady and predictable decline in use year after year from its inception until now. That would be evidence of it working. Instead we have a sharp decline throughout the 1980s and a modest increase since the turn of the century:
NSFW:
longtermnsduhjpg.jpg
Click to expand...

I guess the question becomes "what went wrong in the early 90s?" And, just to play devil's advocate, why can't the DEA and etc do what they did in the 80s again, which was arguably effective for a while...
 
You are exactly the bluelighters I was looking for here this evening.

I'm not on anyone's side. I'm not going to weigh in on your hearty argument.

Two things.
one. I have a friend who has gone to jail. Now I'm seriously asking if jail helps. It would seem to me that it doesn't. But I don't know for sure.
Fortunately for me, everyone here is certain of whether or not it works.

(Kierkegaard either or nerds.)

I appreciate everything I've read here but I understand less about whether or not jail works. I'm going to try to wrap my head around it but I'm not sure I'll be able to decide in the life I have left if jail works, or does not work.

I know. "Define 'work'." I know.

I don't want to write a blog here, so just try to understand what I mean based on the thread so far.

two. I saw on my home page yesterday that fatal car crashes due to cannabis consumption is up an alarming amount.
I did not read the article but since this thread is also discussing ridiculous marijuana statistics, I remembered the article, and wanted to share it with you.
However, now I can't find the article. I did not read it so it isn't in my browser history. I searched and did not find.

I know you are all very into quoting sources, but I can't quote mine. At least not yet.
When I read the title and first few lines in my home page news line up, I thought it sounded wrong so I scrolled right past.

Have you seen the article to which I am referring? I would like to know if it's even possible to know if cannabis for sure was the cause of a fatal accident.
 
Any "help" from jail is beyond offset by the gross violation of human rights that is locking someone in a cage for a victimless crime. That is somewhat like me getting rid of my Raynaud's syndrome when someone tied me up and cut off my hand.

I have been in rehab with these people who sing the "jail saved my life" song. These people are another reason why the war continues. If even 1 in 10 people who goes through the system for drugs come out the other end and praises the system in this way, then they have more than enough emotion on their side.
 
It might be something like this one?

Fatal Car Crashes Involving Pot Use Have Tripled in U.S., Study Finds

TUESDAY, Feb. 4, 2014 (HealthDay News) -- The legalization of marijuana is an idea that is gaining momentum in the United States, but there may be a dark side to pot becoming more commonplace, a new study suggests.

Fatal crashes involving marijuana use tripled during the previous decade, fueling some of the overall increase in drugged-driving traffic deaths, researchers from Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health report.

"Currently, one of nine drivers involved in fatal crashes would test positive for marijuana," said co-author Dr. Guohua Li, director of the Center for Injury Epidemiology and Prevention at Columbia. "If this trend continues, in five or six years non-alcohol drugs will overtake alcohol to become the most common substance involved in deaths related to impaired driving."

The research team drew its conclusions from crash statistics from six states that routinely perform toxicology tests on drivers involved in fatal car wrecks -- California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and West Virginia. The statistics included more than 23,500 drivers who died within one hour of a crash between 1999 and 2010.

Alcohol contributed to about the same percentage of traffic fatalities throughout the decade, about 40 percent, Li said.

But drugs played an increasingly prevalent role in fatal crashes, the researchers found. Drugged driving accounted for more than 28 percent of traffic deaths in 2010, up from more than 16 percent in 1999.

http://consumer.healthday.com/publi...pot-use-have-tripled-in-u-s-study-684515.html
 
I dont know if I really believe those kinds of articles personally.

Over here I hardly read about many (if any) fatal car crashes which have been linked to cannabis consumption. I'm sure there probably have been a heap, but the ones I mainly seem to see in our media here are alcohol and prescription drug ones.
 
The few people I know who have been to jail have come out worse as far as I've seen and now know more crims and more ways to do crimes.
 
poledriver said:
It might be something like this one?

Fatal Car Crashes Involving Pot Use Have Tripled in U.S., Study Finds

TUESDAY, Feb. 4, 2014 (HealthDay News) -- The legalization of marijuana is an idea that is gaining momentum in the United States, but there may be a dark side to pot becoming more commonplace, a new study suggests.

Fatal crashes involving marijuana use tripled during the previous decade, fueling some of the overall increase in drugged-driving traffic deaths, researchers from Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health report.

"Currently, one of nine drivers involved in fatal crashes would test positive for marijuana," said co-author Dr. Guohua Li, director of the Center for Injury Epidemiology and Prevention at Columbia. "If this trend continues, in five or six years non-alcohol drugs will overtake alcohol to become the most common substance involved in deaths related to impaired driving."

The research team drew its conclusions from crash statistics from six states that routinely perform toxicology tests on drivers involved in fatal car wrecks -- California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and West Virginia. The statistics included more than 23,500 drivers who died within one hour of a crash between 1999 and 2010.

Alcohol contributed to about the same percentage of traffic fatalities throughout the decade, about 40 percent, Li said.

But drugs played an increasingly prevalent role in fatal crashes, the researchers found. Drugged driving accounted for more than 28 percent of traffic deaths in 2010, up from more than 16 percent in 1999.

http://consumer.healthday.com/publi...pot-use-have-tripled-in-u-s-study-684515.html
Click to expand...

wonder how this compares tho this data as it looks like overall crashes are down, and injury crashes are also down during a period were the use of MJ was rising with the medicinal?

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/StatePatrol-Main/CBON/1251593175702

"If this trend continues, in five or six years non-alcohol drugs will overtake alcohol to become the most common substance involved in deaths related to impaired driving."
Click to expand...

Id love to hear why this person thinks this.

until we have a test to determine if a person was actually high at the time of the accident then I will have to defer to the hundreds of thousands of miles I have driven high with out an accident and the studies that have already been done that dispute your of hand speculation.. jack ass.

i
 
Last edited:
S.J.B. said:
Let's see:



1: In 1978, the U.S. population was 223 million.

2: "Prior to 1979, data were not totaled for overall drug use and instead were published by specific drug type only." So where is he getting that 25 million figure?



3: From the 2009 NSDUH data, 21.8% of Americans over the age of 12 years have used illegal drugs in the past month. So that would leave 78.2% who do not use illegal drugs.



4: In 1971, there were 898 deaths in the United States caused by overdoses on all painkillers (including heroin) and fever-reducing drugs. In 2010 (latest CDC data available), there were 3,094 heroin overdose deaths.



5: In 1976, there were 1,067 deaths caused by painkillers (including heroin) and fever-reducing drugs.



6: As my previous numbers show, the number of heroin overdose deaths in 2010 was roughly three times the number of all painkiller and fever-reducing drug deaths combined in 1976.

Anyway, I'm fucking tired and had to re-search some of these numbers after I noticed that the article was from 2011, so I'm stopping there for now... but do I get the beer? The guy's got some numbers right (21 million illicit drug users, 200,000 heroin users - although it's jumped up to 335,000 since then) but some of them are evidently bullshit.
Click to expand...

Excellent. I CBF'd unravelling these "facts" yesterday when I first saw this, though was sorely tempted. You've done an admirable job of it, kudos.
 
S.J.B. said:
Let's see:



1: In 1978, the U.S. population was 223 million.

2: "Prior to 1979, data were not totaled for overall drug use and instead were published by specific drug type only." So where is he getting that 25 million figure?



3: From the 2009 NSDUH data, 21.8% of Americans over the age of 12 years have used illegal drugs in the past month. So that would leave 78.2% who do not use illegal drugs.
Click to expand...
I have to laugh.
First it seems I owe you a beer, as long as you consider it a friendly beer, for that you are entitled.

I cannot think of any reason he would say the population was 280 million in 1978. Clearly he *did* mean that because the 20% reduction only works if you use that false population value.

Secondly, I would guess he got at 25 million by using addition. It would be nice to see some references for the article, but this guy obviously ain't got time for that.

The other reason I have to laugh is because you said 21.8 percent have past month use.
So it seems also you owe me a beer.
I was truly dismayed for a moment.

"In 2009, an estimated 21.8 million Americans aged 12 or older were current (past month) illicit drug users, meaning they had used an illicit drug during the month prior to the survey interview (Figure2.1). This estimate represents 8.7 percent of the population aged 12 or older."

I was never dismayed over the DEA using statistics like a bear uses teeth to get a Danish roll, but that I could have been so deluded. I mean I have no problem whatsoever making you all feel like crackheaded idiots, not really, but to be wounded myself? Being slightly wrong by not saying 91.3% hurts enough.

I hope you do go back and check those other numbers. If you have the time. No more betting you beer though.
 
Last edited:
pmoseman said:
I do recall now that the statement was with lung cancer. It did not increase your risk of lung cancer. But of course, I always point out that you clearly run the risk of addiction at this amount and will find this habit unbearable.
Also, as I see, the other consequences of smoking: shortness of breathe, phlegm, etc. are present even in this level of use. This statement also did not include heart disease.
Click to expand...

That's a rather convoluted way of admitting that you were wrong.


I also said in a WEEK not in a DAY.
Someone has trouble reading.
Click to expand...

Lol, feel free to cite the literature which shows smoking fewer than 7 cigarette's a week is harmless.

It was likely just not proven to cause harm, rather than proven to not cause harm. I would have to find it again, somehow. I don't know why I keep bringing it up... it seems to only cause people to get upset. As if I made it up, which why would I even bother. Not sure what it would prove anyway. It is only surprising 2nd hand smoke got so much traction as a health problem.
Click to expand...

Feel free to cite some evidence, rather than this fly by the seat of your pants feelpinions
 
I mean I have no problem whatsoever making you all feel like crackheaded idiots, not really, but to be wounded myself?
Click to expand...
love this. It would hurt if I had any respect at all for you P. So I say go drink your beer (not drug beer).. remember not to pat yourself on the back with the hand that holds your beer. Continue to look at your numbers and laughs based off a sudo science. Some of us have been there and done that. we either see or have seen how it is. So i guess it irritating trying to spoon feed a close minded observer what most of us already know.
 
Last edited:
RedLeader said:
I guess the question becomes "what went wrong in the early 90s?" And, just to play devil's advocate, why can't the DEA and etc do what they did in the 80s again, which was arguably effective for a while...
Click to expand...

Not a bad question, though I wouldn't prejudice it by assuming that the decline was solely the result of prohibitionist policy.

Going out on a limb, I certainly haven't looked into it in any depth - though I might in a bit when I get the time - I can think of at least two global events that would have severely interrupted the flow of drugs into the United States:

#1. The end of US involvement in Indochina and the Vietnamese invasion of Laos and Cambodia.
#2. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

Both occurred in 1978-79 - right at the time the decline in usage begins, it could have had as much to do with the drop in supply of heroin to the American market as it did any efforts of drug law enforcement.

The 1986 trend acceleration is also interesting, it coincides with the invasion of Panama and the arrest of Noriega, a notorious bolt-hole for drug smugglers - arguably a result of the "war on drugs" but also arguably as much a result of US foreign policy - so shades of grey there.

It also roughly coincides wiith the sentencing reforms of 1984 - so maybe that drug war policy "succeeded" in the sense that a large proportion of drug addicts were removed from the streets and incarcerated, meaning they no longer show up in the survey data.

Again, that's just a stab in the dark, but if the accelerated decline was a result of drug law enforcement that resulted in a massive spike in incarcerations, I'm not sure you'd class that as a policy "success"
 
Last edited:
^ ???

not sure if you guys are right here

"By the last decade of the millennium, it appeared that fewer people were using drugs. Gallup polls showed little change in the percentage of adults who said they had used marijuana -- 34% of Americans said they had tried it in a 1999 poll. According to the Gallup Youth Survey, however, the percentage of teens admitting to marijuana use also continued to drop, from 38% in 1981 to 20% in 1999. PDFA reported that teens' "trial" use of marijuana, inhalants, methamphetamines, LSD and -- for the first time -- cocaine, had declined in 1999."

Decades of Drug Use: The '80s and '90s

could it be that the economy and life was hopping then?
 
Watching pmoseman continually humiliate him/herself in these arguments is a joy to behold, the gift that never stops giving =D
 
neversickanymore said:
^ ???

not sure if you guys are right here

"By the last decade of the millennium, it appeared that fewer people were using drugs. Gallup polls showed little change in the percentage of adults who said they had used marijuana -- 34% of Americans said they had tried it in a 1999 poll. According to the Gallup Youth Survey, however, the percentage of teens admitting to marijuana use also continued to drop, from 38% in 1981 to 20% in 1999. PDFA reported that teens' "trial" use of marijuana, inhalants, methamphetamines, LSD and -- for the first time -- cocaine, had declined in 1999."

Decades of Drug Use: The '80s and '90s

could it be that the economy and life was hopping then?
Click to expand...

I think the discrepancy here is the difference between "used in the last month" and "used at least once in your life" - pmoseman and his/her DEA-hack article have latched onto the former because it better suits the purposes of their argument, but if you look a bit deeper (as you have done here) you see that drug use is a lot more prevalent than their cherry-picked metric suggests.
 
1999?! Are you fuckin kidding me?! That right there shows why those polls aren't even worth pissing on! More good MDMA pills than you could even imagine, heroin fucking cheap, pure and everywhere...a ton of real LSD still around...there was a lot more shit around then, than there is now! Especially ecstasy and heroin...1999?! What year did this website start and for what reason?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top