The Next Generation of Cocaine-Smuggling Drug Submarines

Make all drugs legal. Treat same as alcohol. People who want to are going to do them anyway. All we're doing is feeding a massive crime industry. Therefore all we have to lose is the crime.

Portugal decriminalized all drugs, and they now have fewer drug users and addicts.

I dunno Bob... that sounds nice and all in theory, but the only reports I've seen stories written about regarding Portugal were done by the Cato Institute, which is a libertarian think tank, and therefore naturally has a bias in this matter.

I'm thinking that I've seen a whole lot of pain and suffering on a personal/family level due to hard drugs, how would legalizing actually help that situation? The formulations would become stronger, the price paid lower, and every addict I know would simply take more.

All alone, that doesn't sound too bad... but have you ever seen kids who were so neglected by a couple of addict parents that they looked like they were just pulled from a concentration camp? I have. In person. And I certainly don't want even more people to have even more access to the same drugs that turned their parents from the normal people I knew in high school to something not much better than wild animals. While not all hard drug users are this bad, quite a few are, and I'm certainly not keen on seeing more of them. And I would suggest that anyone who differs in that opinion needs to go see how the lives of these children are before responding. Barely enough food to survive, sometimes alone for days, living in their own filth, some of the younger ones haven't ever even learned to speak a single word by the ages of 2 and 3. It's sad, so very sad.

And as we live more and more in a world of shared responsibility due to government programs (which I'm not a fan of, but that's what we currently have), allowing people to mess themselves up medically and financially and then relying on the rest of us to work to take care of them is not something a whole lot of people would agree with.

If people who got high on hard drugs only hurt themselves, I'd likely be all for it. But the truth is that in the real world they don't. They hurt a lot of other people. And for that reason, I hope they never legalize the hard drugs in this country.

I HAVE seen the situation you talk about, and I still think drugs should be legalized. When drugs are illegal, there is a negative stigma that comes with them that keeps users from seeking help when they really need it. Nobody but those around the drug user ever see these drug problems until it's too late because they hide their habits from public eyes. And the drug being illegal doesn't mean people don't have access to it, they just have to find shady people to sell it to them. and then who knows about purity or strength? At least if you know exactly what potency the drug is, there's a lower chance of accidental overdose. We never had a crack epidemic until cocaine prohibition, never had a problem with heroine until opium prohibition, etc. I feel the key to America's drug problem lies in education and support, rather than prohibition and incarceration.

Illegal drugs bad. Abusing perscription drugs bad too.

Eat your veggies\fruits\grains\then meat\excersise and get a productive happy life.

The Monitor and Merrimack weren't submarines.

"Never had a problem with heroine until opium prohibition."

That is a flat lie. That is like saying we never had a problem with alcohol before prohibition or afterwards - and yet there was a little "rebellion" over some "wiskey" tax and countless lives ruined and ended due to abuse and dependence.

Go read the letters of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, as he laments his addiction and the toll it takes on his life and relationships.

People do abuse legal drugs all the time to the detriment of their health, their families, and societies. Furthermore, prohibitions work. They do not stop use, but they do reduce it.

If you really want to fix the problem, then what you need are punishments that serve as real deterants. Put mandatory capital sentences on posession, transportation, consumption, or influence of any drug and its use will plumet (both one way AND the other).

When the only consequence is time/money, those with nothing to loose risk nothing entering the drug trade. When the penalities for use are so light (since, after all, the user is the "victim" who needs "treatment" no punishment) - it is no wonder that many turn to it.

The victims of drugs are the families and friends of the users, victimized by the behavior of the user selfishly not living up to his familial and social obligations (like a slow suicide).

The dealers and transporters are really only guilty of violating trade laws meeting a black market demand - a lesser crime by far than neglecting a child, isolating a spouse, or failing to become a productive member of society.

So, if you are a drug user arguing for legalization, get clean, get a job, and become useful to your species. If you feel you MUST escape, no matter the cost to your loved ones, go pick up a nice large caliber pipe and smoke high-velocity lead instead for the ulitmate escape. I promise it will put your brain up so high that you will never feel it coming down.

I think everyone is missing the bigger issue: The Monitor and Merrimack weren't submarines.

The only way to stop the new Narco subs is for the US Navy to do what is did in WW2 to stop U boats attacking convoys, that is to build and deploy a fleet of anti sub blimps.
For more information try the AT10 page of my airship related site: www.hybridairship.net

I hear ya rettaH-daM, I read that and just shook my head. Yes they are both submerged now but they were not made to. Its one thing to call one of them a sub but to call both of them one is kinda ridiculous.

@marcoreid.

I can appreciate your concern, but:

They're going to do them anyway.

"They" can't keep hard drugs away from 13 year olds now in all cities in America.

Portugal shows fewer addicts because without fear of imprisonment, more addicts came in for help.

I think the gov should manufacture them, make them safer, possibly less addictive, more fun, and cheap enough to put all the cartels out of business. Tax them of course. Put chemical markers in them that the police can use to test drivers if need be.

I know a Green Beret who worked the drug situation in the 1980's and testifies that we spend so much money on the 'war on drugs' we could afford to hire each addict a chaperone for life and still be far better off from a $$ standpoint.

I would ask you not to ignore the high levels of crime happening right now that affect people who have nothing to do with drugs. Older ladies getting hit on the head for the 5 bucks they have walking back from the store - and a million other stories. I care more about them than I do people who make bad choices in their life.

How about the guys getting killed jumping off of mountains with wingsuits. Should we go save them too? Rhetorical.

With illegal drugs and kids you have the 'cool' factor. Kids will do stuff purely because it's illegal. Get the dealers off the street, get the drugs into specialized point of sale outlets and far fewer kids will be doing drugs.

This is not going to change so it's all academic. Just kicking it around. Too many people, bible belt and otherwise think it's their job to save everyone.

The facts don't bear out your argument though from what I believe I know about it.

Hey Bob, I'm with ya on much of what you're saying about too many people who think its their job to save everyone. I really am. I'm a big fan of giving everyone as much freedom as possible, as long as they don't hurt anyone else. And I'm happy to kick this around with you a bit.

Of course, people can hurt others with just about anything, from a piece of paper to a hammer, and I certainly don't want us banning paper or hammers. But I think those things have a use/value, and just using a hammer normally doesn't alter your mental state to the point where you no longer care about anything (including yourself) except for swinging it some more. But I believe that mind-altering substances are somewhat unique.

Society is maintained in a large part because people have built-in mechanisms that push them to self-preservation. We inherently realize that without the group, our chances of survival go down. And so we conform, even though it limits us. Conformity is a naturally evolved survival mechanism. 20,000 years ago, if you didn't conform to the group, you were removed from the group, and you died. Those who didn't conform to the group and didn't subject their own wills to the group at least enough for the group to happily survive were simply naturally deselected. If you wanted to wander off and express your individuality, you became some predator's lunch or died of exposure. If you didn't have enough brain power to stay with the group, you became some predator's lunch or died of exposure. If your thinking became impaired enough that you left the group or were ostracized by it, you became some predator's lunch or died of exposure.

We're really not all that different today. We willingly subject ourselves to rules and laws and governments - and for what? Safety and stability. If everyone really believed tomorrow that no social cohesion (government) could keep us safe, we'd instantly have mass anarchy. And the more someone is addicted to a truly mind-altering substance, the less they care about themselves, those around them, society as a whole. As long as they can get their fix, they'll conform as much as needed. But if they can't get it, when they want it, they increasingly become anti-societal to get it. And least that is my personal experience with quite a few people I've tried to help (to get a job) over the years.

A society is just individuals with desires, desires that they feel can be more easily obtained in a stable society. Otherwise the society would not exist. The society seeks to protect itself from harm because the individuals who make up the society understand that if the society is harmed, they are also harmed. So what happens when certain members of a society threaten it through their actions? Those people are ostracized or banished or punished or "rehabilitation" is attempted to "help them return" to the mindset of protecting the society. Whether that's a person who kills others or destabilizes the society in any meaningful way.

Now, certainly people also have the desires to be lazy and still get the benefits of the society, or to attempt to deceive others to get ahead, etc. But all of that is predicated upon the society existing so they can exist nearer the top of it.

But it is natural for human beings to create societies and to protect those societies from destruction, and thus prevent their own destruction or suffering. Always has, and always will, whether they use logic or patriotism or religion, or anything else as justification. A little anarchy here and there is tolerated by the group, but don't expect that the group will allow extreme stress to be placed upon it without serious reaction.

So, the point? The point is that in the end we draw much of our morality from group survival and elevating our place within the group. If murdering destabilizes the group, we ban it, and it seems like most of us are ok with that. It's all about how much of the group believes that an activity destabilizes the group that determines the group's policies and the amount of members of the group that support those policies. And I'd suggest that people who take mind-altering substances are inherently seen as a destabilizing force on the group. A few might be tolerated, as long as we believe the problem is under control. But if it gets out of control... watch out.

We might just round them all up, give them wing suits, and take them on an all-expenses paid trip to somewhere very high, knowing full well that their own instability will quickly rid us of their destabilizing influence.

Of course, that's just my $0.02.

Well, that, plus the fact that the Monitor and Merrimack weren't submarines.

Absolutely no alcohol, drugs, etc. on punishment of death?

Yes, I get it, freedom is only guaranteed for stuff you deem good. Freedom of speech should end with a bullet in the head when people swear too, right?

I'll tell you what. I'll keep my engineering job (which is clearly in no way beneficial to society), and I'll keep my whiskey too, and if you wanna grab a rifle and make me stop, good luck. Worst case, I'm taking you with me.

@marcoreid
If kids are not being treated well, they should be placed with more hospitable guardians, whether the reason is drugs, alcohol or other.
That problem should not spill over and rationalize putting millions of people in jail, propping up dangerous cartels and bootleggers, and creating incentives towards more potent drugs.
All your points were already applicable in the age of alcohol Prohibition. Are you suggesting things we bring back alcohol Prohibition (including bootleggers and related gangs)?

By the way you talk of "hard drugs" as if that is a category. Can you clarify how it is categorically defined and why that affects the economic logic (drug prohibitions spawn crime and create a net negative on society)?

marcoreid - " A few might be tolerated, as long as we believe the problem is under control. But if it gets out of control... watch out."

I believe this is the focal point of the discussion - or it's mine anyway.

I believe fewer people would be doing dangerous drugs if they were legal, prior to 1920??(I could look it up but it's not critical) all drugs were legal in the US. We didn't fall apart as a nation that's for sure.

I believe FAR fewer kids would be doing drugs without lawless dealers deploying them into the neighborhoods.

I don't see it much different than alcohol. Some people destroy themselves with it. Kids grow up understanding what over-use of it can do to a person, and most people come out Ok. Uncle Bill would be off in never-never land when the nieces and nephews came over to visit and I'd bet the vast majority would look at Uncle Bill as having a big problem and would be motivated to avoid having the same problem themselves. Again, alcohol is a great canary in the coal mine to lead the way. I think most people would smoke weed and weed is less harmful than alcohol that's for sure. When was the last time you read a news article about someone crashing a car or killing someone because they had too much weed. I don't believe I ever have but we can easily agree there are stories everyday about problems, perps, and alcohol use.

Just like anything else some small percentage of people are going to have a big problem with (flll in the blank) and the vast majority are going to be Ok. Most people do come out Ok. Interestingly, the folks were having the biggest problem with are the kids born to single women who pop them out like pieces of toast into zero opportunity, drug and crime infested environments. I'd vote for tackling that problem as a society before we worry about someone using drugs.

To me honestly, People who want them are going to do them anyway. If the underworld crime can be eliminated, I see that as substantial progress.

Again though, We will never know ;-)

Again with the ridiculous call to legalize drugs. There's a reason they're illegal folks. They are REALLY BAD for you; not bad like drinking too many soft drinks, but devastatingly bad. Drugs ruin lives and kill people. Soft drinks don't.

We already have a problem with people driving intoxicated with the legal drug, alcohol. Why would we want to increase the number of people driving intoxicated with, say, heroin, meth, cocaine, or marijuana by allowing easier access to illegal drugs?

All of you making the "they're going to do it anyway, so might as well legalize it" argument, do you ever consider for a moment what you're saying? Try applying the analogy to something else. Well, psychopaths are going to kill people anyway, so you might as well make it legal. Sound stupid? So does legalizing drugs.

Drugs in Portugal are illegal, if you get caught with more then what you can prove to be for personal use you get busted as a drug smuggler, but if the quantities are small and you have a clean criminal record you're sent to a mandatory program, also heroin users have free treatment if they want. I don't know where you got the idea that Portugal had decriminalized drugs, it has not! It's illegal, I know I live in Portugal, the only change they did to the law was the difference between a drug user and a drug smuggler.
As far as the subs, sink them all, free targets for the NAVY!

Reading from Wikipedia,
"...Submarine gunboatsUSS Monitor had had very little freeboard so as to bring the mass of the gun turret down, thereby increasing stability and making the boat a smaller and therefore harder target for gunfire. At the end of the American Civil War, the U.S.Navy Casco-class monitors had large ballast tanks that allowed the vessels to partially submerge during battle. This idea was carried further with the concept of the Royal Navy's R class of submarine gunboats..."

The Monitor being partially submerge was reference as a partially submerged submarine gunboat, which related directly to the type of vessel in this article.

Looking at the Merrimack, its deck was level with the water line and look similar to design to the Monitor. I would consider them a type of beginning hybrid vessel\submarine and completely get the relationship Retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey references. Take care. ;)

"Again with the ridiculous call to legalize drugs. There's a reason they're illegal folks. They are REALLY BAD for you;"

OK, we need some basic facts here. First, let's start with why drugs were outlawed in the first place.

Opium smoking was originally outlawed because of the fear that Chinese men were luring white women to have sex in opium dens. They didn't outlaw all uses of opium. In fact, kids could still buy it over the counter in the store. They just outlawed the Chinese custom of smoking it in opium dens. At the same time, they outlawed the chinese custom of wearing their hair in pigtails and banned them from going into various businesses.

Cocaine was outlawed because of the fear that superhuman Negro Cocaine Fiends would go on a violent rampage and rape white women and shoot white men. It was believed that cocaine made them better marksmen and impervious to bullets, prompting police departments across the nation to switch to larger caliber pistols. Caffeine was almost outlawed at the same time, for the same reasons. The only reason caffeine escaped being illegal was because it was found in so many common foods.

Marijuana was outlawed for two major reasons. The first was because "All Mexicans are crazy and marijuana is what makes them crazy." The second was the fear that heroin addiction would lead to the use of marijuana -- exactly the opposite of the modern "gateway" idea.

Only one medical doctor testified at the hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. The representative of the American Medical Association said there was no evidence that marijuana was a dangerous drug and no reason for the law. He pointed out that it was used in hundreds of common medicines with no significant problems. In response, the committee told him that if he wasn't going to cooperate,he should shut up and leave.

The only other "expert" to testify was James C. Munch, a psychologist. His sole claim to fame was that he had injected cannabis directly into the brains of 300 dogs and two of them died. When they asked him what he concluded from this, he said he didn't know what to conclude because he wasn't a dog psychologist.

He also testified in court, under oath, that marijuana could make your fangs grow six inches long and drip with blood. He also said that, when he tried it, it turned him into a bat.

Mr. Munch was the only "expert" in the US who thought marijuana should be illegal, so he was appointed US Official Expert on marijuana, where he served for 25 years.

That's only the tip of the iceberg. The drug laws are a history of absolute lunacy, run by lunatics. For anyone who wants to read about it, you can find a number of good histories of the subject, as well as hundreds of original historical documents, all full text, at www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/history.htm

"There's a reason they're illegal folks."

Just for grins, I will list some of the reasons that prohibitionists have claimed marijuana needs to be illegal, starting with the earliest. Note that this is not a complete list by any means.

-- "All Mexicans are crazy and marijuana is what makes them crazy."
-- Heroin addiction leads to marijuana (circa 1920s)
-- There is no connection between marijuana and heroin. (testimony of Harry Anslinger, 1937)
-- Marijuana is the certain steppingstone to heroin. (testimony of Harry Anslinger, 1951)

-- It causes insanity, criminality, and death.
-- It causes violent activity.
-- It causes pathological lethargy.
-- It causes diarrhea.
-- An unnamed high school girl knew another girl who smoked a joint with her boyfriend and it made them go crazy and elope.
-- It will make your fangs grow six inches long and drip with blood.
-- It will turn you into a bat.
-- It is a communist plot to destroy America.
-- It will turn boys into girls.
-- It will give you cancer (pick a type of cancer, any type)

And so forth. That isn't the end of the them, by any means.

Historically speaking, you can divide the reasons for the marijuana laws into two sections. There are the reasons given when people still believed that it would turn you into a bat. Then there are the reasons given after people stopped believing that it turned people into bats.

As for the actual reasons for the laws, pick the stupidest ones out of the bunch in the list above. Those are the real original reasons for the laws. The original reasons were so stupid that people just laugh out loud when they hear them today.

ok. just got a new account because i wanted to comment on this article. I want to make sure everyone understands my position on this one. I understand where those individuals who want to legalize these drugs come from (for the record, we are discussing all substances that are illegalized.) I understand that you guys believe that there would be a drop in crime rate and that this would boost our economy and that there are a lot of upsides to it. I also understand that there are a lot of you who would like to keep it the way it is. Illegal.
the point is, we live in a democratic republic. the fact is that our government was founded upon the idea that those who have the ability to act for the betterment of others and the betterment of society have a responsibility to act. we have a right and a duty as citizens to vote to help other people. to me, this means trying to stop drug usage. the fact is that there will always be individuals who break the law, but that doesn't mean that we don't have responsibilities to them. For example there will always be people who are willing to commit murder, however, this doesn't mean that we legalize murder. I realize that most individuals who read these comments are probably already decided one way or another. Most of those who disagree with me have probably already stopped listening, but for those of you who got this far and still have an open mind, let me tell you a story.

This is a story about a teenage girl. she was the youngest in a family of six other girls. Her parents were both educated, religious, good people. It's possible that she felt that she wasnt getting enough attention, its possible that she was just a rebellious child, but whatever the reason, she got in with the wrong crowd. she started off with tobacco and alcohol. Her religion and her parents both taught her to never even try these, but they were both legal so how bad could they be? at first, she only did them to look cool or to get some attention from her parents. unfortunately, she decided one day that it wasnt enough. she tried something a little harder. drugs effect the development of adolescent brains in ways that are not fully understood, but whatever the root cause, her drug usage eventually resulted in a borderline personality disorder. finally her parents got her some help. she met with church leaders, rehabilitation specialists, everything to get her clean, and finally she was. she met a great guy who loved her for who she was, and had a beautiful baby boy. but as time went on, her husband began to notice some irregularities in her personality. her ability to tell truth from fiction seemed warped. Even after she was caught lying, she would act as though nothing was wrong. She dipped back into drugs, and eventually her husband left her and took their son to her parents. he couldn't raise him alone, but his wife was not safe. she still struggles with drugs. she has fallen into prostitution. this is a true story. i realize that most of you won't believe this, and you'll just discount it as another internet tail, but the fact is, drugs destroy lives. they destroy the lives of, not just those who use them, but all who care for that individual. Now imagine that the girl in the story was your mother, your sister, your daughter, maybe even you. legalization of drugs would unleash this scenario into the lives of law abiding citizens. thats why its wrong, we have a duty to uphold.

"We already have a problem with people driving intoxicated with the legal drug, alcohol. Why would we want to increase the number of people driving intoxicated with, say, heroin, meth, cocaine, or marijuana by allowing easier access to illegal drugs?"

Yes, alcohol causes more problems in society than all the illegal drugs combined, and the comparison isn't even close. Alcohol accounts for about half of all deaths from homicide, suicide, auto accidents, fires, and drownings. It also accounts for about half of all domestic abuse and two-thirds of all sexual assaults on children. By some estimates, it also accounts for as much as forty percent of all inpatient hospital care.

The only drug that even comes close to alcohol's wide toll is tobacco. Alcohol kills about 100,000 people per year. Tobacco kills about 400,000. All the illegal drugs combined kill about 20,000.

So, if we were going to prohibit any drug to protect society, the first and most obvious choice is alcohol. All the currently illegal drugs are small change by comparison.

But there is only one reason that alcohol is legal. That is because we tried prohibition and proved conclusively that it caused far more problems than it solved. It was such a disaster that no one seriously considers it even almost 100 years after it was passed.

That's the problem with prohibition. It causes more problems than it solves. It was that way with the currently illegal drugs, too. You can read a good history of how this prohibition disaster got started at www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm The first drug prohibition law was decried as a national disaster by medical societies across the nation as soon as it was passed. It took a small problem and made it a huge one.

Nice story, alexclarke. However, the drug laws never had anything to do with those kinds of reasons.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that drug prohibition improves any of the problems you are worried about. In fact, all of the available research indicates that drug prohibition is just about the worst thing we could do for those problems.

The reason is that prohibition is not control. Prohibition is the complete lack of control.

You don't have to take my word for this. You can read the full text of every major government commission on drugs from around the world over the last 100 years at www.druglibrary.org/schaffer under Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy.

Just FYI, I have never met a person with your opinion who has read any of that research.

"I'm thinking that I've seen a whole lot of pain and suffering on a personal/family level due to hard drugs, how would legalizing actually help that situation? The formulations would become stronger, the price paid lower, and every addict I know would simply take more."

To start with, there have been heroin maintenance clinics in Switzerland and England that have allowed addicts to have as much as they wanted and they soon found that the addicts stabilized at a regular dose -- just like the tens of thousands of people who use medical morphine on a daily basis in the US.

In addition, the clinics found that once the addicts were stabilized on a regular dose, most of them were able to become gainfully employed and drug-related crime dropped about 80 percent. In addition, because they were on a regular medical regimen, overdose deaths dropped to zero, there were lower rates of related diseases, etc., etc. In short, most of the addicts were able to regain fairly normal lives once they had a maintenance dose -- not much different than the tens of of thousands of people who use medical morphine on a daily basis in the US.

You can read about one of them at www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/60minliv.htm

It was like that in the US until 1925. Before 1906, there were no restrictions at all. Kids could buy heroin, cocaine, or anything over the counter. They sold tobacco cheroots laced with crack cocaine. Cocaine was in everything from toothache drops to soda pop. Heroin was included in baby colic remedies. Lots of patent medicines were fifty percent morphine.

There were no labeling laws so people didn't even know what they were taking. There were no advertising laws so sellers claimed that their concoction would cure any problem had by you or your mule. Many were advertised as good for kids. Even the Pope was in ads telling people to drink cocaine wine for the wonderful health benefits.

What is notable is that, even under those conditions, the addiction rate wasn't any different than it is today. However, there was virtually no drug-related crime and no drug gangs.

In 1914, the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act was passed which outlawed the opiates and cocaine. There was no popular movement for this law, as there was with the prohibition of alcohol. The reason is that the opiates and cocaine were not perceived by the public to be nearly as bad as the problem of alcohol.

The Harrison Act contained an exemption for medical use. Some doctors used that exemption to continue heroin maintenance programs for addicts. The Feds didn't like that, so they prosecuted a Dr. Linder. The case went all the way to the US Supreme Court. The USSC ruled 9-0 that the Feds had no business interfering in the doctor-patient relationship, even if the doctor was doing prescribing heroin to addicts.

The Feds ignored the ruling and indicted thousands of doctors across the nation, anyway. They sent the doctors false information about the ruling. They never brought any of the cases to trial because they knew they would lose every case. But they also knew that no doctor could afford to fight them, especially when the Feds controlled their licenses to prescribe medicine.

That is how heroin maintenance clinics were wiped out in the US and how the Federal Government got absolute control over the doctor-patient relationship. Google Linder v. US.

Interesting bit of history.

What is the single biggest cause of epidemics among US children?

Answer: Anti-drug campaigns.

The first example was the huge teen drinking epidemic during alcohol prohibition. Prohibition was passed with a campaign of "Save the Children from Alcohol". (similar to some of the pleas here.)

Within five years there were record numbers of kids in hospitals and courts for alcohol problems. The average age at which people started drinking dropped dramatically. Teen girls frequented bars for the first time. Schools had to cancel dances because so many kids showed up drunk. Many kids became involved in the bootlegging trade and sales of booze on school campuses were common. Early supporters of prohibition turned against it because they said prohibition made it easier than ever for their kids to get drugs.

Alcohol prohibition was repealed with a campaign of "Save the Children from Prohibition."

See www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults.htm

Other examples of teen drug epidemics triggered by anti-drug campaigns include LSD, speed, and marijuana. You can read about them in Licit and Illicit Drugs at www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm

Did you ever wonder how glue sniffing got started? See the chapter titled "How to Launch a Nationwide Drug Menace" in Licit and Illicit Drugs.

Here is a test for any prohibition supporters with an interest in history.

Name any supporter of drug prohibition in the first 50 years of drug prohibition who wasn't a lunatic.

Or, just tell us when these laws stopped being about absolute lunacy. You know, like the fact that catching these subs costs more money than the subs and their cargo do. We spend huge sums to seize inventory that is small change to the people who lose it.

Drug policy does indeed breed illegal activity...as well as submarines disguised as cartoon sharks.

It is the addictive nature of drugs and the bad\awful mental problems that push people in the actions to do bad things to acquire more drugs is the problem. A person with drug problem is not an island unto themselves.

We as a society are positive and want to keep the people healthy and not encourage hurting others. This is why drugs are illegal. Our country is all about FREEDOM. But a person freedom cannot destroy their life and those around them. When a person become addicted to a drug, in fact they have just lost their own Freedom and are now being told what to do in life to feed they addiction, because of the their drug addiction.

Making drugs illegal is in fact support for individual freedom and the freedom of society in general around that individual.

Sorry, robot, but that wasn't the reason for the drug laws. Your argument fails for a number of reasons.

The first is that, if someone actually harms someone else, then you don't need a drug law to arrest them. You know, same as alcohol. You can can get drunk, but if you endanger someone else, then you can be arrested.

The second is that alcohol leads the field in causing harm to other people. All of the other illegal drugs combined don't even come close, and they never have. For every bad thing you hear about illegal drugs, about ten of the same happen from alcohol. If your argument was correct then people ought to get life in prison for possession of a single beer.

And, BTW, that isn't because alcohol is legal and the others aren't. If you read the history, you will find that alcohol has always been the major problem, no matter what the laws were on any of them.

Read the history. At its core, the drug laws were largely about racism. They were passed specifically to punish unpopular minorities. They still function that way today. For example, more than 90 percent of the people who went to jail under the crack mandatory minimums were black. In some places, blacks are 22 times as likely to go to prison for drugs than whites, even though rates of use are the same in the black and white communinities.

It is logical to assume that the drug laws had something to do with protecting people, or reducing drug addiction, or something good and wholesome like that. The problem is that no such thing ever happened. It was lunatics with the worst intentions. Read the history.

You all know me, you all know how I can be neutral on subjects, but this is where I stand.
When it comes to drugs, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Legalize and have them under gov't control, then there's a firestorm of controversy, and the FDA gets in and we have all the people against drugs voting out the people who legalized it and nothing gets changed.

Keep it illegal, and you have what we'll always have, drug wars and crime and the horrors that come with these disgusting things.

Fighting drugs is like fighting a hydra. Kill a cartel, and a thousand replace it. Try to appease it and it just keeps demanding more.

There is no answer at all to the problem, and we can banter about it for a month a year and a day until we figure that out.

As for the Monitor and the Merrimack, neither were subs, but the Confederacy did create the second submersible fighting craft. The first was the Turtle during the revolution, and both were to kill blockades.

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
Mark Twain

Can't decide if this site should be renamed popular-politics or political-science...
I'd like to know more about these submarines, as well as the SCIENCES behind their operation. I used to love reading popsci because it dissected, no, vivasected! stories with cutaway drawings and detailed explinations. Now we have stories that barely scratch the surface, as well as an entire publicized peanut gallery of non-scientists and faceless opinions.
Tomorrow, which is my birthday, instead of renewing my annual sub to popular science magazine, I will be trying out the Scientific American for a year to see if it fits my fancy. Besides, I learn more from the comment section than from the articles on this site. Lolz

I'd like to chime in here since I have tried just about every drug at least once in my life; some for fun, others just to know.

Some drugs absolutely should not be legal, ever.

They include:

-PCP
-Heroin
-cocaine(yeah, it's fun for a while but then addiction gets ya)
-crack cocaine
-Meth
-Bath Salts
-salvia
-ketomine

Why? All of the above have serious debilitating effects and/or extreme addictive properties which lead continuous users to harm themselves or others.

All others I've tried have should probably be legalized. None of them had the scary mythical effects they were labeled with on Saturday morning cartoons. While any of rest, including pot, lsd, mushrooms, peyote, etc, could be used to excess and would make the person less productive, they were no more harmful to that person than eating at McDonalds on a regular basis.

GregN913,
What is the point of science? It is to serve society. So yes, society does have a right to voice their opinions, if only we are speaking from the peanut gallery. Your voice matters too.

If you want strictly science and strictly scientific responses, go back to college sir, participate and enjoy the lectures.

This is a public forum.

Phoenixamaranth, Sorry, but your idea doesn't hold water. For one thing, you are pretty vague about which ones have addictive/debilitating properties. So let's break it down a little.

As for addiction, you can find the relative rankings of addictive qualities, as done by the NIDA at www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/basicfax5.htm In truth, alcohol and tobacco are pretty much the equal of any of them, and worse than most. Alcohol and tobacco also have the most addicts by far, so it is clear that addiction never was really a criteria for the law.

As for debilitating properties, alcohol and tobacco beat nearly all the ones you listed. Alcohol and tobacco combined kill more people every year than all the people killed by all the illegal drugs in the last two decades. Tobacco ultimately kills about one-third of its users. The per-user death rate for both alcohol and tobacco is higher than for almost any illegal drug.

Besides, the "debilitating" argument doesn't even make sense. What's the plan here? Are you going to throw these people in prison, and seize their property to protect their health? How is that supposed to help them be healthy? The very idea shows how stupid prohibition really is? Why don't we just horsewhip them to teach them to have healthy habits? That would be a lot cheaper.

If that is your plan, then you ought to be throwing people in jail to protect them from eating too many cheeseburgers. Cheeseburgers (obesity) kill about 350,000 people per year - compared to fewer than 20,000 for all the illegal drugs combined. How about we just horsewhip everyone standing in line at the local burger shop?

Let's also get some facts straight. Heroin, which you think is so evil, is just another form of ordinary hospital morphine. The only difference between the two is dosage. One grain of heroin equals three grains of morphine. Otherwise, they are identical and they are both converted to the same form of morphine once they enter the body. Medically speaking, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two. They can be used interchangeably.

So why does heroin need to be completely banned when morphine is used routinely in medicine every day? The reason heroin is banned is because Congress made the same mistake in 1924 that you just made. That is, they made a judgment without really knowing what they were talking about. They got hysterical - as most people like to do because righteous hysteria feels good - and went off on a holy crusade. You can read all about it in Licit and Illicit Drugs - already linked above.

As for the harming others part, we already covered that. 1) If they harm someone else, then you don't need a drug law to arrest them. 2) Alcohol leads the field in harm to others, and it ain't even close. If you are not calling for beer drinkers to be jailed for the safety of society then your position is just plain hypocritical.

And let's not forget the major point -- prohibition doesn't do anything productive. You know, same problem we had with alcohol which causes far more problems than all the drugs you listed. If any drug should be prohibited because it is a danger to society, it is alcohol.

However, we proved conclusively that prohibition doesn't work for alcohol. It only made the problems worse. As one major study said, the more dangerous you assume the drug to be, the more important it is to treat it in a non-criminal manner. The reason is that making it a crime only drives the problems underground where it is harder for ordinary social services to deal with them.

Start your reading with Licit and Illicit Drugs, already linked above. It will give you a good summary of what you would learn if you read all the other major studies.

Teslasdisciple wrote:

"Fighting drugs is like fighting a hydra. Kill a cartel, and a thousand replace it. Try to appease it and it just keeps demanding more."

OK, so you didn't read the history. Start with Licit and Illicit Drugs, already linked above. Drug gangs and drug-related crime were unknown before drug prohibition.

Just FYI, once you have read the research you will be able to instantly tell when someone else has not read it.

@Dumky,

I agree that kids should be protected regardless of the source of abuse. The issue here is that a parent who often uses a seriously mind-altering and addictive substance starts to care a whole lot less about that child's welfare, and not caring leads to much higher instances of neglect and abuse. A guy can use a hammer to pound nails all day long without the amount he cares for his children changing.

To answer your question, I would be OK if society decided as a whole to bring back prohibition. I'm sure that the 10,000+ people who die each year from drunk drivers wouldn't mind either. And yes, every time you ban something, you're going to have secret groups appear who try to do it anyways. But if that should keep us from banning things, why ban anything? Why not just legalize theft or assault or anything that is currently done by groups in secret that is illegal?

To answer your question about my definition of "hard drugs", they are substances that can change your mental state severely enough as to make you act in a way that you would never think of acting without them. So weed, in my definition, would not be a hard drug, as being more relaxed is a passive response, not an active one.

----------

@Bob_F,

"prior to 1920??(I could look it up but it's not critical) all drugs were legal in the US. We didn't fall apart as a nation that's for sure."

That is a pretty dangerous comparison to try to make, for a number of reasons. One, many of today's drugs didn't even exist back then, and those that did were often not widely available in as potent a form as we can get now. Two, our culture was very different 100 years ago, particularly with regards to moral standards. Three, economic changes over the last 100 years have given people much more disposable income and time which could now be used for drug use. Four, advances in communications, information, transportation, and distribution have made it a whole lot easier to know about, make, buy, move, and consume drugs. So I'm not sure that comparing us to 100 years ago really makes much of a point.

"To me honestly, People who want them are going to do them anyway. If the underworld crime can be eliminated, I see that as substantial progress."

I like progress, and crime elimination too. But the concern is that people who don't currently want them are going to suddenly want them, and all the associated societal problems. Ideally we'd all reap the rewards of our own choices, but in the real world we live in, that's far from the case.

---------

@wm97ab

The purported history isn't nearly as important as what we know now. Who cares what they thought of these drugs 50 or 100 or 200 year ago? The same people back then thought cigarettes were good for you. It doesn't really matter. We need to look at what we know about these substances today and make a decision as a society based on that.

Oh, and citing a bunch of "research" from a pro-drug site that doesn't even bother to cite back to any site other than itself is certainly not going to convince any logical person of the validity of the information. The site you list links only to itself, obviously has a bias, and very obviously refers only to like-minded ideas. Not exactly authoritative. Give me 6 hours and I can put up something similar about any topic, for or against it. Real information would come with multiple outside citations by multiple independent bodies with little to no reason to have a bias. If anything, the site you list pushes me away from believing you, not towards it. If you want to be believable by citing, then cite believable sources.

But regardless of all your railings against why certain things are really banned, it cannot change the reality of what I have seen and experienced with drug users that I personally know. For most of them, it is almost as easy to obtain the drugs as it is to go to the store and buy food. And yet, the ease of obtaining it doesn't change how they act towards everyone else once they start using them. They don't even think they act differently, but everyone else around them certainly sees it. Nobody will ever convince me that these substances don't cause physical harm to its users and societal harm to everyone around them, because I see it all the time. Could they be useful in limited form in regulated medicines? Sure. But available to anyone whenever they want? I cringe at the thought.

"Just FYI, once you have read the research you will be able to instantly tell when someone else has not read it."

Sounds like an infomercial ("here, buy our book and you'll instantly be able to know the secrets of this or that and make millions!"). I've read it (as much of a pain as it was to read it with the lack of structure and objectivity), most of it now anyways. And I still don't buy into your opinions. Does my not agreeing with you make you think that I've simply not read it?

Marcoreid,

The people who passed alcohol prohibition realized that it was a disaster and campaigned for its repeal, but you are still hanging on. Okaaaaay. Glad we got your frame of reference straight.

I am also glad that you read all that material. There were several books worth of stuff there, so you must be an exceptional reader.

Now that you have read it, maybe you can answer some questions that I typically ask of people who have read it. Like for instance:

1) Name three factual items that you disagreed with in Licit and Illicit Drugs. Tell me what they got wrong.

2) What was the biggest study of the drug laws ever done? Who commissioned the study? What did they conclude?

3) Name any significant study of the drug laws in the last 100 years that supported drug prohibition.

I stand ready to learn from your extensive knowledge of the subject.

Who wouldn't want to have their own submarine? I would love to have one of these things!

@Bob_F Legalization is not the same thing as decriminalization. Drug use and possession are still illegal in Portugal; drug use merely does not carry criminal penalties, only administrative guidance (the illegal drugs are still confiscated). Drug abusers are "aggressively targeted" for therapy. Portugal still has the highest rate of needle-transmitted HIV in Europe.

It's one thing to say that people will do whatever they want, so just let them. The trouble is, it doesn't stop there. Just a week ago, 2 children, ages 6 and 12, asleep in their home were attacked. The 12 year-old girl had her throat slit after a man attempted to rape her; her 6 year-old brother was killed when he attempted to protect her from the man. The culprit was a well-known, loved, friendly man in the neighborhood, who had earlier smoked marijuana laced with PCP.

Your solution is to allow people to get into this state? My solution is to blow their brains out. Guess which of the two options actually stops people?

Prohibition worked. Ending Prohibition did not. It's been almost 100 years since Prohibition ended, but 40k people/year still die in alcohol-related accidents and domestic violence triggered by alcohol. This is more than ever died from Prohibition-era violence. What's your next step; start forcing people to drink it?

@wm97ab I glanced over the first chapter of "Licit and Illicit Drugs." One thing that stuck out to me is the lack of any sort of time frame. The author speaks as if the Pilgrims were popping pills when they landed in this country. He certainly tries to portray opiates as common, daily-use medicines. The reality is, opiates were far more difficult to obtain and use throughout most of history than they are today, and that change began in the late 19th Century. Pure morphine was isolated until 1817 and heroin in 1874. It took more than a decade before society began to realize that these drugs are addictive. U.S. culture also liberalized its acceptance of recreational drug use, particularly through the influence of immigrants. So, about the time that opiates became common in the U.S., society realized; first, that it did not want to become like opium-addicted China; and second, that opiates could be a public menace, and so restricted them.

"Prohibition worked. Ending Prohibition did not."

Alcohol prohibition had:
-- Biggest teen drinking epidemic the US has ever seen.
-- Record numbers of people arrested for public drunkenness and related offenses.
-- Women going to bars for the first time.
-- Corrupt police being sent to prison literally by the trainload.
-- Organized crime went from small gangs to national forces.
-- Al Capone owned the town of Cicero and had the local cops escorting his shipments.
-- Al Capone set a world record for personal income that lasted clear into the 1960s.
-- US Government actually threatened by criminal bribery and corruption.

Those were some of the reasons that the original supporters of alcohol prohibition realized it was a disaster and campaigned for its repeal.

As for your information on morphine and heroin, that is wrong, too.

In addition, you only read one chapter of Licit and Illicit Drugs, and apparently didn't read it very well.

So much for that. Just FYI, this is the way these arguments always go on the internet.

I don't know this as scientific fact but it's worth checking into. I tend to believe that people who do stupid, reckless and negligent things on drugs, do stupid, reckless and negligent things without drugs.

@wm97ab, I'm going to try to be as polite as I can considering you naively dismissed my actual experience taking these drugs. It occurred to me you've probably only seen a handful of these drugs in real life and so you don't really have any experience with them.

First off, I gave you an explicit list of the drugs that have very bad debilitating effects, whether those effects were their addictive properties or their other harmful effects. I have seen first hand what those drugs can do to people. I've had them in my own body. Until you have truly been there, you don't know what you're talking about.

Let's go through the list:

People on PCP can't tell reality when they are on it which makes them a danger to themselves and others. I had a friend run 6 miles from his house in the night and break into a stranger's house to hide from whatever he imagined was chasing him.

Heroin, you seem to love comparing this to medically controlled morphine. Street heroin gives one of the greatest orgasmic feelings in the world but it comes at a price. While on it, you can't really do much but wallow in the pleasure. When coming off it the cravings and withdrawals are extreme and painful. This drug is very costly and very addictive with a high potential for overdose. You'd be broke living in the streets quick without a strong will.

Cocaine, the infamous party drug. Fun and relatively harmless except for the damage to your septum and your wallet. I know many people who after years still haven't kicked this addiction. While not really as dangerous as others on my ban list, this one does ruin people financially.

Crack cocaine, do I really need to go into this? Have you never seen a crackhead?

Ah, Meth, the devil in disguise. Poor man's coke. This is quite possibly the most dangerous drug on this list and yet it's the easiest to get or make. You can now make it in single servings in a 2 liter coke bottle. This nasty drug will have you and you're friends picking your skin and scratching until bloody scabs appear. Soon your teeth will literally rot out because you quit eating and shitting. Keep on and you're likely to look like a malnourished corpse ready to steal from anyone for money. I've seen way too many friends and one lover go down because of this one.

Bath Salts, one of the new derivative drugs. Well, we've all seen the face eating, but aside from the extreme cases, do you understand that it so blinds the user's mind that they cannot tell what they are doing. That sounds like fun running around your neighborhood and your kids right?

Salvia, this one seemed like it would be okay right up until my friend bolted into the street in a mad craze because she thought her friends were demons. This drug is a dangerous dis-associative which, like my friend experienced, can have you doing some unsafe things.

Ketomine, nothing like seeing someone in a k-hole. My problem with this drug is the obvious effect it has on people's brains afterward. People on this drug pretty much become motionless zombies and frequent users never seem to fully recover. Seen a few people abuse this one too much and they were never the same after.

Now all that covered, what you don't seem to understand is these drugs can ruin your friends and families lives. They can ruin them financially or physically. I've had friends wreck their cars, steal, break into houses and cars, get into deadly fights, one friend overdosed, and several are still trying to fix their dental problems.

I don't believe in locking these people in prison but they do need help getting off this crap when it goes too far. And I don't want to see my friends and family in jail because they were more likely to commit a crime while strung out.

You can quote books and medical journals all day but until you actually experience those drugs you don't understand them at all.

As I said before, marijuana, most psychedelics, low level painkillers, etc. don't really do any more harm than we already legally allow with other substances, like McDonalds (yes, I believe fast food can be more harmful than marijuana), but if you think people in this country could handle those other drugs being legal you are fooling yourself.

wm97ab, you need to chill out and so something else for a while.

If you think that legalizing all drugs with absolutely no restrictions is a good idea, then you are an idiot. You have SOME valid points, but so do other people here, and you can't just ignore that. The fact is that many drugs such as meth and heroin have nasty side effects with regular or prolonged use. At the very least, they should be subject to FDA approval, with the consideration that most of them have absolutely no purpose other than entertainment/pleasure (I'm aware that marijuana has some medical benefits). With this, I would expect that some drugs like heroin would be banned outright (like a dangerous prescription drug), some like marijuana would be mostly legalized with an age restriction (recent study showed that people who smoked weed regularly in their teens saw a negative effect on their IQ later in their life, see bottom of comment for more), and some would fall in between.

I mean, seriously. You're fine with the fact that I need a doctor's prescription to get my acne cream, but you think I should be able to walk down the street and pick up some crack with nothing more than some cash? You're simply ignorant.

Also, the comparisons to alcohol don't hold a lot of water. They sound good, but alcohol really is a special case. Man has been consuming alcohol since the dawn of man. The earliest known recipe is a beer recipe. It's so ingrained into human culture that banning it simply isn't practical, or even possible. Beyond that, it's already very tightly regulated. You can't do much more from that standpoint.

The marijuana study:
"Persistent cannabis use was associated with neuropsychological decline broadly across domains of functioning, even after controlling for years of education. Informants also reported noticing more cognitive problems for persistent cannabis users. Impairment was concentrated among adolescent-onset cannabis users, with more persistent use associated with greater decline. Further, cessation of cannabis use did not fully restore neuropsychological functioning among adolescent-onset cannabis users. Findings are suggestive of a neurotoxic effect of cannabis on the adolescent brain and highlight the importance of prevention and policy efforts targeting adolescents."
Sources: www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57501243-10391704/smoking-marijuana-regularly-as-a-teen-may-lower-iq-scores-as-an-adult/
www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/08/22/1206820109.abstract

I often wonder how the countries where illegal drugs are produced might respond if we simply took the drugs we capture and sent them back, freely giving them to their populations? Perhaps it might inspire them to be more responsive to the overall problem. I think this would either level the playing field, make it more difficult for them to be as illegal drug productive as they are or both.

The Monitor was a ship, and in so way could be considered a submarine. It was a reinforced ship with an unusually low freeboard. It could not submerge and then surface, which is pretty much a basic requirement of a vessel if it's to be considered a submarine. If the Monitor was under water, the Monitor was sunk. retta is correct and the other guy is wrong. And neither the Wikipedia page for Submarine nor the Monitor claims the Monitor was a submarine. Because that would be, you know, wrong.

In no way, not "in so way". Sorry.

phoenixamaranth, the only thing taking drugs can teach you is which drugs can give you a good time, or not.

Taking drugs cannot tell you what makes good drug law to limit the damages of drugs.

"Drugs are bad" is not the same as "prohibition is the solution."

Get the difference?

"I often wonder how the countries where illegal drugs are produced might respond if we simply took the drugs we capture and sent them back, freely giving them to their populations?"

The cops seize 15 billion dollars worth of growing marijuana every year in California. So your plan is that they should capture all that and distribute it on the streets of California? No real need to do that. The growers are doing it already.

Just FYI, the Rand Corporation studied the issues and found that trying to stop production in other countries was the LEAST cost-effective method of dealing with the problem. Of all the ways to spend the money, this idea was the worst.

"wm97ab, you need to chill out and so something else for a while."

Sorry, but I have been having too much success with it. A few years back the History Channel did a four-hour special out of my web site, and the US Drug Czar called me for help.

"If you think that legalizing all drugs with absolutely no restrictions is a good idea, then you are an idiot."

If you think I said that, then your own judgment applies to yourself.

"The fact is that many drugs such as meth and heroin have nasty side effects with regular or prolonged use."

1) The fact is that the drug laws never really had anything to do with that.

2) There never was any evidence presented to show that drug prohibition is a good approach to the problem. All the major government commissions on drugs have said that this is the wrong approach. You know, like trying to treat a headache with a hammer.

"At the very least, they should be subject to FDA approval, with the consideration that most of them have absolutely no purpose other than entertainment/pleasure"

Actually, most of them have legitimate medical uses.

"(I'm aware that marijuana has some medical benefits). With this, I would expect that some drugs like heroin would be banned outright (like a dangerous prescription drug),"

Heroin is simply another form of ordinary hospital morphine. If morphine is legal for medical use then there is no rational reason to outlaw heroin. Read the thread above for more info, or read Licit and Illicit Drugs, already linked above.

"I mean, seriously. You're fine with the fact that I need a doctor's prescription to get my acne cream, but you think I should be able to walk down the street and pick up some crack with nothing more than some cash? You're simply ignorant."

I'm ignorant? Perhaps you would compare your list of readings on drug policy with mine. You can see mine at www.druglibrary.org/schaffer Let me know which items you have read and can discuss.

"Also, the comparisons to alcohol don't hold a lot of water."

Yes, the best example of the total hypocrisy behind the drug laws -- making excuses for your favorite drug.

" They sound good, but alcohol really is a special case. Man has been consuming alcohol since the dawn of man."

they have been consuming opiates, marijuana, and cocaine, too, among others. Marijuana has been found lovingly buried with cave people.

" The earliest known recipe is a beer recipe. It's so ingrained into human culture that banning it simply isn't practical, or even possible."

The point is that banning drugs only makes the problems worse. This isn't about alcohol or any individual drug. It is about the bad effects of prohibition.

"Beyond that, it's already very tightly regulated. You can't do much more from that standpoint."

No, it is not very tightly regulated. If you are 21, you can drink yourself to death any day you choose. There are age limits and licenses required to sell it, but that is about it.

"The marijuana study:
"Persistent cannabis use was associated with neuropsychological decline broadly across domains of functioning, even after controlling for years of education. . . . "

1) This study was based on results from a grand total of ten actual people, as opposed to the 65,000 people studied in things like the Kaiser study.

2) The difference found - eight points - is about half of the normal variation that would be expected if the same people took the test multiple times.

3) As usual, they didn't attempt to distinguish between correlation and causation.

4) Tens of millions of people (kids included) have smoked pot in the US over the last several decades. If there was any serious effect, we wouldn't be guessing from studies based on ten people.

And . . . . .

5) This never had anything to do with the laws. Where did you get the idea that the laws were ever based on trying to improve IQs?

6) Even if this is completely correct, you still need one more piece of evidence. That is, you need something that shows that prohibition does anything to improve this problem.

You see, you are looking in the wrong place. We know that drugs can have various bad effects. That's a given.

What you need to show is that prohibition has good effects. The problem is that prohibition just makes all those problems worse.

"I don't believe in locking these people in prison but they do need help getting off this crap when it goes too far. And I don't want to see my friends and family in jail because they were more likely to commit a crime while strung out."

Then you don't believe in prohibition. Prohibition necessarily means that people will go to jail for drug problems. That's what prohibition is - criminal punishment.

So, if one of your friends or families has some emotional disorder that causes them to use drugs, the standard treatment will be a long stretch in jail. If you know people with a drug problem, then you have probably been able to see that lots of them have real and visible emotional problems. Like, for instance, some surveys have shown that as many as 80 percent of all female heroin addicts report that they were sexually abused as children. The reason they take heroin is because they are trying to self-medicate PTSD. They may have chosen the wrong way to self-medicate but it should be pretty obvious that sending such a person to jail is not going to improve their situation.

That's the real point -- throwing these kinds of people in jail only increases their problems. The Rand Corp. found that providing treatment saves three dollars in related social costs for every dollar spent. On the other hand, the criminal approach costs an additional seven dollars in related social costs for every dollar spent.

@ wm97ab - Keep up the good fight!

What always amazes me about the War on Drugs is how effectively the propaganda has brainwashed the masses. It really doesn't take much digging at all to realize that drug prohibition was began as and continues as a racially motivated policy disquised as a criminal policy.

The opinion that "I've personally seen what drugs have done to my friends/family, therefore, drugs are bad. Prohibition is good" is so shortsigted. Ask the families of the 80,000 plus Mexicans killed the last few years due to that country becoming the USA's minion in the drug war. They probably have a different opinion.

I'm often reminded of what that German pastor said about the Nazi's...

First they came for the drinkers
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a drinker

Then they came for the druggies
and I didn't speak out because I didn't do drugs

Then they came for the smokers
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a smoker

Then they came for the fatties
and I didn't speak out because my BMI is 6

Then they came for the 48 oz soda drinkers
and I didn't speak out because I don't drink soda

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak for me

To Marco and Bob (and everyone else):

There is a really very simple solution to your debate, that factors in the points of both sides - and as Monoxider pointed out above, it is exactly what Portugal did - instead of "legalizing" drugs, just decriminalize their use.
There is a difference.

You continue to make it a federal crime to manufacture, transport, or sell hard drugs. But purchase and use are considered a form of mental and/or physical illness. The consequence is mandatory treatment, not fines or prison, and the purpose is to help the user, not to punish them.

Why is it that so many extreme cases of illegal drug abuse exist (see phoenixamaranth's examples, above) and relatively so few with prescription drugs, which as wm97ab (accurately) pointed out are frequently similar or even identical chemical compounds, and would produce similar effects in the right dosage? Because there is much less profit to be made from selling something on the street which is already legal, but regulated.

It has also been pointed out that there are far more deaths due to alcohol and tobacco than to all illegal drugs combined. So if our goal is to protect people from their own choices, it would be more beneficial to restrict those substances further. Make them illegal to manufacture or sell (without a doctor's prescription), but legal to purchase and consume.

In fact, the mandatory treatment (of hard drugs, and alcoholism) could be reserved for those who actually show themselves to not be responsible users; drive while intoxicated (on anything) and you go through the whole DUI process, plus mandatory residential rehab. Commit a crime or get caught roaming the streets naked while yelling at imaginary people? Mandatory residential rehab (plus the standard punishment for whatever crime after rehab, but that is a separate thing - rehab for drug treatment, prison for the actual specific crime.)
Responsible adult chooses to take MDMA or LSD or smoke a joint or snort coke in the privacy of their own home around a few trusted friends? That's really nobodies business but their own.

If we want to avoid people messing up their lives entirely with crack and meth, maybe the best way to approach it to build a society in which no one is so poor and desperate to actually make such a stupid choice as trying it, given that everyone already knows just how much they mess you up. Locking them in prison is the opposite of that.

p.s. the first drug-smuggling vessels were SEMI-submersibles, not true submarines, so the comparison to the Monitor is appropriate

jacobaziza,

I agree with a lot of what you say. However, the problem with decriminalization is that drugs are big business. By some estimates, they may be as much as eight percent of world trade. That is too much money to leave in the hands of criminal gangs. In addition,there are no quality controls so people are taking unknown, underground stuff.

As with alcohol, it is better to have the products produced by known, licensed, manufacturers who have licenses to protect and will therefore follow quality, labeling, and age limit rules. It is also better to have the tens of billions of dollars that come from the trade in the hands of people with an incentive to be good citizens and follow the rules.

Judge James P. Gray (currently running for VP with Gary Johnson on the Libertarian ticket) has suggested a plan for heroin, cocaine, meth, etc., like the following:

-- Production is limited to a few carefully licensed companies.
-- Sales are only through pharmacies, to adults only, in plain brown wrappers, with no advertising allowed. If you want it, you have to specifically seek it out.
-- Packages must have labels with potency, warnings, and other cautionary info.
-- Each package would come with an 800 number where someone could call for immediate help with a drug problem when they wanted it.
-- Prices would be set high enough to discourage use but low enough not to create a new underground market. Most of the price would be taxes.
-- The taxes would fund the 800 number and treatment services.
-- Of course, if someone commits a crime while high, or does something else that endangers someone else while high, then they are held to account, just the same as a drunk would be held to account.

No system will produce a perfect result, but this one would be a few miles better than what we have now.

Legalize most drugs. This is the only way. We can't stop this. There are plenty of psychedelics that can be very therapeutic if taken intelligently with a good set and setting with a sitter. This whole drug war is ridiculous. Especially when it's against marijuana and psychedelics.

The USS Monitor was no more a submarine than the USS Missouri. Of course it has a portion of its hull under water. Its a fracking boat.

The genius of the Monitor's design was that it had minimal structure above the water line and a rotating turret. The structure above the water line and the turret were covered in iron armor, earning the boat a nickname of ironclad.

The CSS Virginia, which started the war as the USS Merrimack until salvaged and refitted by the good guys, was also an ironclad, although of a different design and was also a conventional vessel, not a submarine.

The CSS Hunley was a submarine used in the war between the states. it was also constructed of iron and powered by sailors turning a crankshaft connected to a propeller. The Hunley and her crew were lost after sinking a yankee ship off of Charleston, SC.

Thus ends the history lesson and begins the rant. Rebecca--you're a professional writer. I'm sure you have an editor or two. You're writing an article on submarines. Would it kill you all to hop on google to make sure the historical comment you made to spice up your article is accurate? How can I believe that you know the latest and greatest things about dope submarines when you can't get something right that I learned in junior high history?