War on Drugs...... literally.

[Straydog]

From the LA Times.

Air Force May Have a Bitter Pill to Swallow in 'Friendly Fire' Incident
Stimulant use by pilots is focus of inquiry into the deaths of Canadians in Afghanistan.

By Greg Miller, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON -- The Air Force calls them "go pills," and that is what they do: keep pilots going in the air long after their tired minds and bodies would have preferred to fall asleep.

The stimulants have been used by fliers since World War II, and were doled out by the hundreds during the Persian Gulf War and in Afghanistan. But the practice is coming under new scrutiny in the investigation of two F-16 pilots who were taking Air Force-provided amphetamines when they mistook a midnight training exercise for hostile fire and bombed a gathering of Canadian soldiers.

Four Canadians were killed in the April incident, and eight others were wounded. The Air Force has taken the unprecedented step of pursuing criminal charges against the pilots, Maj. Harry Schmidt and Maj. William Umbach; each faces as long as 64 years in prison.

But if the case proceeds beyond a scheduled Jan. 13 preliminary hearing, the Air Force could find many of its own practices also on trial, including its distribution of drugs that are banned in commercial aviation.

A lawyer for one of the pilots said this week that he intends to argue that the airmen's judgments were impaired by repeated use of amphetamines prescribed by Air Force doctors in Afghanistan -- drugs, he said, that would cost the pilots their jobs if they were caught using them behind the wheel of a car instead of in an F-16.

"Were these pilots' perceptions affected by their use of dextroamphetamine? I don't know," said Charles Gittins, a Virginia attorney and former naval flight officer representing one of the pilots who bombed the Canadians. "But we're going to present it and let the [court] decide."

A Pentagon investigation of the bombing ruled out the use of stimulants as a factor, concluding instead that the pilots were guilty of "reckless" behavior and violated rules of engagement.

Experts say Gittins could have a hard time connecting the pilots' fateful mistake to the influence of a relatively small dose of dextroamphetamine. Even he acknowledges that the drugs aren't at the heart of his case.

Instead, he said, the accidental bombing was the result of a series of breakdowns, including the failure of the Air Force to notify the two pilots, both members of the Illinois National Guard, that there were training exercises in the area.

But the level of attention surrounding the case is calling attention to the Air Force's little-known drug policies. Some say that if the Air Force were forced to change those policies, it also would change the nature of its pilots' missions.

Many in the service see the use of stimulants as a prerequisite for nightlong fighter patrols and transoceanic bombing runs that are mainstays of the modern aerial campaign.

"They're used because pilots are sometimes required to fly missions that exceed 10 to 12 hours," said Col. Alvina Mitchell, an Air Force spokeswoman.

"Or they're [used for] missions that are scheduled during time when pilots would ordinarily be sleeping."

Mitchell stressed that use of the pills is voluntary, safe and monitored closely by Air Force surgeons, who prescribe them only after testing pilots' reactions to them on the ground.

The Air Force has never attributed a crash or other accident to the use of stimulants, she said. But, she said, "fatigue has been cited as a contributing cause in nearly 100 mishaps."

The military has a long and uneasy history of experimenting with stimulants as a means of enhancing the performance or endurance of its fighters. Histories of World War II indicate widespread use by German and U.S. troops. But pilots' use of amphetamines expanded dramatically during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, when pilots struggled to adapt to that conflict's largely nocturnal schedule.

Fliers were given "go" pills to keep them awake for night missions, and "no-go" pills, or sedatives, to help them sleep through the din and desert sun on base during the day.

Surveys show that roughly half of U.S. fighter pilots took amphetamines during the Desert Storm campaign. Some commanders were so alarmed by many pilots' growing addiction to the pills that they ordered subordinates not to use them.

Because of such concerns, the Air Force banned the use of the pills that year. But the decision was reversed in 1996, Mitchell said, because officials thought the pills could help pilots during lengthy missions in Bosnia-Herzegovina and in the Serb province of Kosovo in Yugoslavia.

The Navy also forbade the use of stimulants during the 1990s, but lifted the ban in 1999. The policy now leaves the decision to unit commanders. But Navy officials said only a tiny fraction of Navy pilots use the pills, partly because their missions tend to be shorter than those of Air Force pilots.

"A long flight for us is six to eight hours," said one Navy officer, who asked not to be identified. Besides, he said, "Do you want to land on an aircraft carrier at night on amphetamines?"

The drug distributed by the Air Force is commonly known by its brand name Dexedrine. It is primarily used to treat hyperactivity in children and narcolepsy, a disorder in which patients fall asleep suddenly. The drug is produced by United Kingdom-based GlaxoSmithKline.

The company's literature warns that the drug has a "high potential for abuse" and "may impair the ability of the patient to engage in potentially hazardous activities such as operating machinery or vehicles."

But experts concerning the use of amphetamines say the drugs are effective and generally safe when administered carefully. One likened the small doses distributed by the Air Force to cups of coffee.

"Amphetamines can show the same effects as low doses of caffeine," said Mark Rosekind, former director of fatigue studies at NASA's Ames Research facility in Mountain View, Calif. "When you use it right, it's helpful. When you take it too much, you get jittery."

The individual doses taken by the two Air Force pilots involved in the "friendly fire" incident -- between 5 milligrams and 10 milligrams -- are relatively small, he said. But the effect of the drug on the pilots would depend on how many doses they had taken in preceding weeks.

The pilots each had been in Afghanistan for more than a month before the strike, according to an investigation of the incident by U.S. Central Command.

Both "had complained about the 24-hour nature of the operations," the Central Command report said. "Both ... had been prescribed go and no-go pills for use in combating fatigue and in adjusting to the new time zones in the deployed region."

Each had taken a dose during the flight, which was shaping up as a relatively uneventful night in the skies over Afghanistan until Schmidt saw what he described as "fireworks" as they passed south of Kandahar.

The flashes were from Canadian troops engaged in a live-fire exercise at a former Al Qaeda training camp. But Schmidt and his superior, Umbach, believed they were under attack.

Schmidt, who taught at the Navy's elite "Top Gun" fighter pilot school, asked permission to strafe the ground with his cannon. He was told to hold fire and stand by, but instead he moved lower. After further flashes, he said he was "rolling in in self-defense" and, with a call of "bombs away," released a 500-pound, laser-guided munition.

A moment later, a ground commander warned that "Kandahar has friendlies" and to get the F-16s "out of there." By then it was too late.

Schmidt and Umbach both have been charged with four counts of manslaughter and eight counts of assault -- the first time such charges have been leveled against pilots for actions in wartime. The upcoming hearing at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana is to determine whether they will face courts-martial.

If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives.

[Silver Hilton]

This is pretty amusing. The Bush government would have us believe amphetamines are the worst pox on the planet, and that amphetamine users deserve nothing but jail, and lots of it. Unless, apparently the amphetamine user gets a US government paycheck, and is behind the stick of a multimillion dollar plane loaded with bombs and machine guns.

Anyone besides me see a bit of logical inconsistancy here?

It has been reported in other sources that many of these pilots sell these pills for extra income. Such are the distortions that our country's idiotic drug policies cause.

[RvW]

I guess there would be some relavence to the comparison if it were apples to apples.

You are refering to METHamphetamines which are produced by uneducated bathtub chemists who are only concerned about the money they will be getting for the drug.

On the other side of the coin, is pharmacuetical grade amphtimines which are obviously FDA approved. Many similar amphetamines are commonly prescribed for depression, narcolepsy, and a certain heart condition (I forget the name, but its when the heart just forgets to beat?)

I hadnt intended to reply to this absurd story, other than to shake my head and roll my eyes in disbelief, what can you do? what is there to say to such a profoundly idiotic charge of manslaughter? come-on!

I am sure the attorneys are the ones who introduced the drug issue, hell its a great defense, but is there some really strange double standards being set here? Not only with the drug issue, but these people are equiped to kill, they're in a "kill mode" and didnt the artical indicate they got a "go ahead" to fire?

What if the attack had been lethal on the enemy and not the allies?, is that not manslaughter too? And why is it not punishable by our laws? because someone ordered them to kill?

Well, "fire away" is all it takes to "fire away isnt it?

War is hell

Close to 25% of all american fatalities in the gulf war were shown to be a result of freindly fire.

Of the near 50,000, yep, 50K ameriacan fatalities and 300,000 wounded in the Veitnam war, it is estimated that nearly 25% of each were a result of freindly fire.
Can you imagine? 12500 american soldiers killed by way of thier own countrymen.

Uhh, were there 12500 manslaughter charges? nope...its called human error.

If these were illegal drugs, charge 'em and hang 'em.

Military issued medications? :
Leave the damn soldiers alone!

Human error is not a crime, especially if the error was made while under the influence of a military approved/prescribed drug!

[ 01-06-2003, 12:09 AM: Message edited by: cirrhosis-of-the-river ]

[Boedy]

Originally posted by Silver Hilton:
This is pretty amusing. The Bush government would have us believe amphetamines are the worst pox on the planet, and that amphetamine users deserve nothing but jail, and lots of it. Unless, apparently the amphetamine user gets a US government paycheck, and is behind the stick of a multimillion dollar plane loaded with bombs and machine guns.

Anyone besides me see a bit of logical inconsistancy here?

It has been reported in other sources that many of these pilots sell these pills for extra income. Such are the distortions that our country's idiotic drug policies cause.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Love how you blame it on the Bush Government like it didn’t happen under the last administration. As a gulf war vet I know just how easy it is to mistake friendly for enemies in a fast past wide open battlefield like the one we were faced with in the gulf. The Military fights so many of their battles in the Dark under Night Vision that I am surprised that there are as few as there are. Care to look up the Friendly fire stats from WWII and compare them to today’s? I think you would see that we have come a long way in trying to keep the number as low as possible but.

From the wise words of Jack Nicholson “Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You!?

[ 01-05-2003, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: Boedy ]

[RvW]

For the record, only the first three sentances were directed towards silver hilton.

The rest was a reaction to the story.

[lost_sailor]

So ... it's OK, because their crank comes from a factory instead of a trailer park ? :whazzup:

It would be fine to be hammered as long as it was single-malt scotch? It's OK to fly stoned if it's some righteous greenbud?

"Go pills" my @$$

[RvW]

Whats "OK"?

- Dextroamphetamine, the clinical name for Dexedrine, is usually prescribed by doctors to treat depression, fight narcolepsy and alleviate attention deficit disorders in children.

- Pilots take the drug to stay in the air for longer stretches. It stimulates the nervous system and wards off fatigue.

- One pilot known to have taken Dexedrine for long missions is U.S. Col. Robert Gass. He took a pill on a 20-hour mission during Operation Enduring Freedom last year to help him stay alert during a complicated mid-air refuelling.

- Gass said taking the pill was "similar to drinking a couple of strong cups of coffee," which gave him a short-term boost.

Compare apples to apples

"DEXTROamphetamine"

NOT "METHamphetamine"

"Nyquil" VS. "Johnny walker red"

industrial Hemp VS. Canibus Sativa skunk

Whos responsible? The prescriber!

[lost_sailor]

but, what kind of message does this send to our children ?

[Silver Hilton]

C. O. R.

According to my readings, the pharmaceutical effect of dextroamphetamine and methamphetamine are pretty similar. Methamphetamine was produced and given to german soldiers in WW II for the identical purpose that Dexedrine is prescribed now.
Back when I was in college, students took both to pull allnighters. The pharmaceutical dexedrine that you could get from the pharmacy was regarded as cleaner stuff, but the crystal meth worked similarly.

You're right in that meth is made in backyard labs, and that there is risk associated with that method of production, both to the ultimate user, as well as to those who encounter the aftermath and byproducts.

My point is that we have been conditioned to regard amphetamines from an emotional basis, as a chemical with absolutely no redeeming qualities, in order to motivate continued support for our War on Drugs. We are told that amphetamines instantly reduce the user to a quivering raging maniac, and that this means we should maintain a policy of prohibition and repression.

Yet, even while one arm of the government has maintained and enhanced this propaganda at our expense, another arm of government quietly uses drugs, and incidently creates an avenue of illicit supply.

I don't question the Air Force's stance on this issue. The literature clearly shows that most people are able to use amphetamines in this type of way without serious problem. It's a great data point that further demonstrates that the problem in our country isn't that drugs exist, it's that our policies surrounding them create an atmosphere of abuse and crime.

[Silver Hilton]

Boedy,

my comments are not directed at the Bush administration. The Clinton administration was chicken on this issue as well, as was the previous Bush administration, and the Reagon administration before that. I don't think it's a Republican vs Democratic issue. Both parties are perfectly willing to ruin our country for the sake of getting cheap votes on this issue. It's a matter of history that every administration since Truman has used inflamed passion and distorted facts about drugs and drug users to fan voters' fears in order to get elected.

If one looks at this issue rationally, the Republican position should be to end the drug war. Continuing the drug war is causing the expansion of a major branch of government, intrusion of the government into private citizens lives, reduction of competition, and constraint of free enterprise. It also has the perverse effect of making drugs more available to our children, and encourages dealers to market to underage kids.

I kind of thought the Republicans stood for reducing government and getting government out of the lives of private citizens. They also used to kind of want to protect at least unborn children.

Just remember, we have spent more on drug enforcement and put more people in jail every year since 1950. Every year has also shown an increase in the number and kinds of drugs available. Is it just possible that there is a cause and effect relationship?

But never mind the facts. Just keep thinking what the DEA and ONDCP want you to think, so their budgets expand. It only costs you $380 a year. $760 if your wife pays taxes too.

[ 01-06-2003, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Silver Hilton ]

[Silver Hilton]

Originally posted by cirrhosis-of-the-river:
[b]Whats "OK"?

- Whos responsible? The prescriber!

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">C.O.R.

I assert that the prescriber is not the responsible party. The user is.

If you drink too much, is the Safeway that sold you the case of beer responsible? Or are you?

[lost_sailor]

(SH) "... the problem in our country isn't that drugs exist, it's that our policies surrounding them create an atmosphere of abuse and crime."

That's it! The bottom line. I will VOTE for anyone who can admit this ! !

[Silver Hilton]

Lost Sailer

May I cordially suggest that you send your senators and representatives an email and tell them?

http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm

http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html

[Boedy]

Originally posted by Silver Hilton:
Boedy,

my comments are not directed at the Bush administration. The Clinton administration was chicken on this issue as well, as was the previous Bush administration, and the Reagon administration before that. I don't think it's a Republican vs Democratic issue. Both parties are perfectly willing to ruin our country for the sake of getting cheap votes on this issue. It's a matter of history that every administration since Truman has used inflamed passion and distorted facts about drugs and drug users to fan voters' fears in order to get elected.

If one looks at this issue rationally, the Republican position should be to end the drug war. Continuing the drug war is causing the expansion of a major branch of government, intrusion of the government into private citizens lives, reduction of competition, and constraint of free enterprise. It also has the perverse effect of making drugs more available to our children, and encourages dealers to market to underage kids.

I kind of thought the Republicans stood for reducing government and getting government out of the lives of private citizens. They also used to kind of want to protect at least unborn children.

Just remember, we have spent more on drug enforcement and put more people in jail every year since 1950. Every year has also shown an increase in the number and kinds of drugs available. Is it just possible that there is a cause and effect relationship?

But never mind the facts. Just keep thinking what the DEA and ONDCP want you to think, so their budgets expand. It only costs you $380 a year. $760 if your wife pays taxes too.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Are you saying we should legalize drugs? What’s your solution to the drug problem I love how people try and remove responsibility on the person doing the drugs and put it on someone else.

Because the government tries to stop illegal drugs there are more drugs is that what you are saying? Are you saying it’s because of the hype about how bad drugs are that makes people take them?

I flew in helicopters in the army and the only drugs I got where sleeping pills on a long flight to the Gulf. There is / was a job to do and those pilots are flying and dying for your freedoms and liberty so if they need help to stay awake then so be it! war is hell and there is always a price. Sorry about the Friendly fire deaths its an unfortunate side effect of dropping bombs in the dark when people are shooting tracers at you. I feel bad for those men but I understand how it could have happened if the pilots where taking stay awakes are not.

Some times mistakes happen and if the drugs had something to do with it then that’s too bad and I am sorry. Just think about how many US forces where saved because those pilots where able to spend more time on station and deliver their ordinance when the **** hit the fan. I’ve been in combat and anything that helps me stay awake and save my fellow solders lives is welcome, you take the good with the bad and sometimes you have to make decisions about the better of two evils and that is what they did and continue to do.. Get off your soapbox and quit trying to make an issue where there isn’t one.

[ 01-06-2003, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Boedy ]

[lost_sailor]

legalize one prohibited plant and then wait ten years. If the world doesn't go to heck, think about legalizing other drugs.

[RvW]

I dont think the issue at hand constitutes abuse.
I cannot disagree that there is somewhat of a double standard here, but the "safeway" comment, how does this even apply
Hey if safeway has me stocking the pickle shelf and provides me with a bottle of napa valley chardonay to get it done, if I drop a jar of garlic dills who is responsible? I maintain that since the drug alcohol is shown to have extreme effects on cordination etc. Safeway is liable for the pickle damage.

We are dealing with two very different issues here.

USE
and
ABUSE

These soldiers have not been found to be abusing any drug, they were obligated and afforded the opportunity to USE them when in combat to complete a mission.

The effects being the equivelent to a few cups of coffee are not even close to the effects of backroom methamphetamines, not a chance in hell. one in 10 meth users DIE from the first experience, 8 of 10 become addicted, weight loss, depression, bone and central nervous damage, as well as brain damage occurs an ALL users to a degree.
Children are poisoned without ever touching the substance, and I have never seen a hazardous chemical handler in full body protection approach a patient who is prescribed dexidrine.

again, apples to apples, Meth does not apply to this case, and neither does drug "abuse".

Lost Sailor hit it right on the bullseye

and I will add that an addiction to a substance should be treated, not PUNISHED!

[Silver Hilton]

Boedy-

I think we're agreeing on the use of sleeping and stimulant drugs by folks in the military. Among other things, they have a tough job to do, and have my unwavering support. In the friendly fire incident, everything I have seen thus far points to a breakdown in communications. Even if there wasn't, it is the individuals, not the drugs, that are responsible for what happens. I think the fact that most military users use these drugs without incident supports my statement that the drugs are not the problem. You yourself say that it's the individual who is responsible. I agree.

As to legalization, yes, I believe that our country would benefit from legalization and regulation. I believe that it would dramatically improve our ability to keep people from selling drugs to our kids, and that the harm associated with drug use would diminish. Not disappear, just be reduced. Other countries who are pursuing paths of decriminalization are already seeing this happen.

You ask whether I believe that the government keeping drugs illegal is what is causing the flood of drugs in this country. Yes, that is exactly what I believe. It's pretty easy to see why this is so.

Cocaine has a production cost of about $50 an ounce. It sells on the streets of the US for $2800 an ounce to the end user. Thats a 5600% markup.

Marijuana costs about the same as corn or tobacco to grow. Call it 5 bucks an ounce just to be conservative. It sells for 100 to 400 an ounce. That's at least 2000% markup.

Meth costs about 100 bucks an ounce to make, and sells for about 1200 an ounce. That's 1200% markup.

If you are an impoverished Colombian or Mexican farmer, are you going to grow coffee, which pays you 30 cents a pound, or coca leaf which pays you $12 a pound?

If you are an out of work, alienated factory worker whose unemployment just ended and who can't pay his rent with welfare, and whose kids are about to go hungry, would you think about cooking meth or growing pot?

If you're a semi-literate inner city kid, would you prefer to make $7/hr in a McDonalds, or $500 a day selling crack in the high school?

It's pretty obvious that people produce and market drugs because of the profit involved, and that that profit wouldn't be there if they weren't illegal. Nobody cooks aspirin in their garage. Therefore, the illegality of the drugs is directly causing the width of their distribution.

Now, this is just theory, and it might be wrong. So let's look at history.

In the early 20th century, we passed the Volstead act, which made alcohol illegal. What happened? Did Alcohol disappear from our society? Did alcoholism go away? No, it didn't.

What we saw was the creation of a criminal economy that haunts our country to this day. We created organizaed crime where it didn't exist before. We funded the introduction of the Mafia to this country. We caused enormous corruption of our police and judiciary. We saw our citizens lose respect for the law. And we saw alcohol use continue, because many people still wanted to drink. And some of those people continue to bealocoholics and ruin there own and their families lives.

Does this sound similar to what we see today?

So, yeah, I think the war and drugs is stupid, a waste of money, and counterproductive to the goal of keeping our kids off drugs. I believe anyone who actually researches the issue and thinks about it will come to the same conclusion.

[Silver Hilton]

C.O.R.

I agree with your point on usage, and agree that if Saefway gives you the Chardonnay, they are responsible when you drop the pickles. I absolutely agree that the pilots culpability in this sad incident is not increased by their usage of this drug.

On your statistics on meth use, um, well, that's just not so. I am by no means supporting or advocating use. It's a stupid drug. However, we won't make good policy decisions if we use faulty data.

According to the CDC in a study you can look at here , at least 4,000,000 people have used meth at least once. If your statistic was correct, that 1 in 10 die from the first use, then 400,000 people should have died from meth already. In the same CDC study, the actual number of deaths reported from meth use was 433. So, I'm not sure what your data source is, but it's off by a factor of 1000.

Now, that's still nothing to sit back and smile at. I suggest however, that the fact that these deaths are of people engaging in addictive behavior suggest that we should be focuing on the behavior more than the drug itself.

Again, I'm not suggesting that meth is anything any reasonable person wants to start their morning with. But the numbers don't suggest to me that it's any different, risk wise, from what we're giving our boys in the gulf. And if that's true, then our policies surrounding it are flawed.

[Boedy]

Are you prepared to deal with the addicts and the further drain on our heath care system?

To support the people who will turn into mindless zombies after ODing?

There is more to it then lets make it legal and reap the rewards from taxes and the money that we currently spend fighting drugs.

Drugs are illegal for a reason they do bad things to people they make people do bad things. They are highly addictive and cause a wide range of medical problems by there abuse.

They have to make laws to make people where seatbelts and helmets because given a choice most people would not where it and more people would die because of it.

But in your drugged out utopia you can trust someone not to become addicted to heroin or crack because it’s legal?

If you look back in time to when drugs where legal you can see how the opium problem almost took down China and what a big problem it was even here in this country in the 1800.

Turning you back on the problem doesn’t make it go away. You legalize drugs and you will be faced with a problem greater then the one we have now, just give it 10 or 20 years and you would see the effects of that policy. Our heath care would not be able to keep up with the ill effects of so many drug abusers. People cant keep them selves from becoming alcoholics what do you think will happen when they can run down to the store and pick up some LSD or Heroin when ever they want.

I know to many people that waste there lives doing drugs that have never been cough by the law they are still losers and the only thing that would change if drugs where legal would be making it even easier for them to waste away in a pot smoke filled haze.

Let’s start by controlling our wide open borders. And stop making it socially Acceptable to be a stoner. If you don’t address why people take the drugs when they are illegal what are you going to solve by making them legal?

[ 01-06-2003, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: Boedy ]

[Silver Hilton]

Boedy,

First, please don't get mad just because we disagree. Our opinions differ, but let's just talk about this issue and see if we can't understand what we want to do. The last thing I want to do is hurt this country. I strongly suspect that you feel exactly as I do on that point. We're just talking about what the best way to do it is. 'K?

Now, regarding the ills that you believe would happen if we relaxed drug prohibition. We already have all of what you point at. We have a huge population of addicts in this country. There are approximately 130,000 heroin addicts, 1,000,000 cocaine addicts, 13,000,000 alcohol addicts, and 72 million nicotine addicts. If you are genuinely concerned about healthcare costs, we could triple the number of addicts of recreational drugs, and make less than a 5% blip in treatment costs. Because the bulk of problem drug usage is in drugs that are already legal. You think treatment for cocaine addiction is expensive? Try costing out a lung transplant (nicotine) or a liver transplant (alcohol).

Addiction is here now, and it's here to stay. Prohibition just raises the costs, and under the current system, those costs are borne by the taxpayers, and those not yet addicted. That, my friend, is what is you and we have to think about.

Legalization wouldn't significantly change the problem usage. Anyone who wants to abuse a drug is already doing so. It may shift abuse between Xanax and cocaine, but abuse is abuse. Legalization would just get the criminals out of the game and reduce our financial costs. Addicts will be addicts. My question is, what costs should society bear, as we deal with this problem?

Look at it this way. If heroin or LSD became legal tomorrow, is there any amount I could pay you that would make you willing to shoot up? Of course there isn't. You are a functioning individual, and you're making healthy choices. Good for you. Some people don't, and we choose to make them criminals. We also have chosen to make laws that reduce our ability to keep this from happening.

There is one, and only one, law in the history of this country that immediately reduced drug usage. That was the pure food and drug act of 1906. That act required patent medicines to label themselves with their contents. Millions of people found out that they were taking cocaine and opium, and they stopped. Instantly.

A small number of those people, less than 10%, were physically addicted, and sought to continue their drug use. Predominantly, they did so through physician's prescriptions. We had no drug war problem, just a bunch of mostly housewives that were hooked to opium, but were otherwise living productive lives.

Then the Harrison Tax Act of 1914 came along, and physicians who treated addicts came under scrutiny. The addicts went underground, and we developed a drug economy.

Again, we should study history. When alcohol prohibition was repealed, we did not become a nation of alcoholics. You have to understand that alcohol and nicotine are the strongest reinforcing drugs known to man. I met one guy who had been a heroin addict and quit, but he couldn't quit smoking camels.

Despite the propaganda you have been subjected to, the worst recreational drugs known to mankind are legal and sold in supermarkets. Nicotine is going to kill 470,000 people in this country alone thise year. Alcohol will kill 100,000 users, and 50,000 people who happen to be unlucky enough to get in the way of a drunk.

Alcohol, according to a study conducted in 1994 by the US Department of Justice, is the only common recreational drug that is significantly correlated with causing it's users to become violent. The study included cocaine, speed, pot, and heroin. Yeah, I was surprised, too. But when I thought back about my checkered life, I realized that the only guys that I've ever seen throw a punch, have been drunk.

Boedy, This is an emotional issue, and its easy to let our emotions cloud our reason. It's not surprising, because we have been subjected to relentless propaganda on the issue, and it requires effort to dig through to get through to facts. Unfortunately, our government agencies are choosing to lie to us on this issue, for reasons known only to them.

I won't change your mind, because it's currently pretty set. But I thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss the issue. I hope you will ask yourself, what if this jerk Silver Hilton is, in fact, a reasonable, thoughtful guy with kids, and what if he has, in fact, just read a lot and wondered, what is right for our kids?

And if you have kids, or grandkids, or just love this country, please keep thinking about this issue.

[Boedy]

You make some valid points and I am not mad at you in fact I enjoy talking to people with different views and opinions then my own as occasionally I learn something. I may disagree with you but I respect your opinion all the same.

I don’t think ether of us are going to waver on what we think is right so I am content in conceding that we both want the same thing. And it’s just in how we go about getting to that point where we differ.

[Silver Hilton]

So, do we hug now?

[Silver Hilton]

and further, you catching any fish? We're not catching squat up here.

[Boedy]

How about a firm Handshake? :smile:

I have yet to get into a winter but plan on changing that this week as I have 3 trips planed so far will let you know how we do.

[RvW]

This might seem trivial after two well thought posts but I'd like some perpective.

I honestly think drug use would not increase a bit if it were in fact legal, not a chance.

Ask yourself, have you made the choice NOT to do drugs simply because it is illegal.

I'll be completely honest, Ive done about everything that can be done, and chose not to continue based on the health risks, the social impacts, and the simple fact that while I am completely straight and sober, I miss out on a heck of a lot of things I'd rather be a part of. When under the influence, I miss even more, and this defies my intention of life, to experience as much as I can.
Illegal had NOTHING to do with the decision to discontinue my use, but as I did, so will many others like me, you cant expect a person to permit thier government to make a choice for them! I DO believe that a significant portion of first time users have more of an interest to find out what all the fuss is about than actually getting "high" to begin with!

On the other hand, I know so many people who do use drugs, and I can tell you this, the CDC has a good reason to be biased with thier numbers, which are based solely on documented arrests and medical records of those treated.

We cant even begin to imagine what the "numbers" are and a good reason why is many addicts are killed or injured or locked up as an indirect result of thier use.
Intraveinous drug users share a wildly common infliction of Hepatitis c, which in most cases goes undiagnosed for years and years until cirrhosis is developed. And the cause of death isnt listed as drug abuse, its noted as cirrhosis.
I believe it would be impossible to estimate how many lives are effected by drugs, both directly, and indirectly, and I think the "tax" dollars for a struggling health care system are the least of our worries. An addicts health fails them, and the only thing a hospital is obligated to do is treat the effects, and not the cause. We can thank good ole Ronny Reagan for the demise of mental health treatment, or should I say the transformation of mentally ill to criminally ill. Addiction is a mental condition as well as a physical.

I would certainly be far more concerned with effective ways to educate, but then there is the issue of those like myself (who are not uncommon, dont kid yourself) who insist on relying on thier own oppinion rather than the threat of incarceration if I/we happen to make the choice myself.

Children need to have faith in a system that offers protection and guidance rather than consequence. In the current world they live in, it is impregnated into thier young minds that drugs are for losers, and you will be a failure, and a criminal and eventually die a miserable death if you try drugs!...what the hell does this do mentally to these young minds who are naturally defiant, curious, ambitious, socially challenged when they give in to the curiosity? Who in thier right mind wants the stigma of "former drug user"? In our society this is not only a permanent mental scar, but a lie they will have to make the choice to tell when it comes time for military duty, a school teaching job etc etc etc (oh, if you drop out of Harvard, and never actually inhaled, you might still have a shot at president of the united states [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img] )

I do believe drugs should be legal, but not in support of drug use, in support of the possibility that the illness of addiction can be treated as an illness, instead of a crime. In support of the choice we all should have the right to make, in supoort of the millions and millions of wasted dollars on prisons, drug enforcement agencies, law enforcement monies spent on stings and busts and undercover operations. And in supoort of the opportunity to take an interest in individuals who are at risk rather than a blanket policy that is good for the masses, but ignored by the defiant.

This may sound insensitive, but I honestly believe that addiction is no different than any other potentially terminal disease, it will kill everyone it can before it is gone, and I say LET IT, our policies simply extend the disease, and keep it alive.

A good example, alcoholism has only recently been shown to be a ginetic disorder, whereas it was viewed, and in some cases still is, as a social disease.
Alcoholism is present even in an individual that has never taken a drink. It involves a physical inability to process alcohol normaly. (a simple definition)
A very interesting study which helped determine this:

China has had alcohol in their civilization for some 4000 years, yet the most heavily populated continent on earth sees less than 2% of its population inflicted with the disease.

America has had alcohol at thier disposal for a mere 400+ years, yet it is assumed that nearly 80% of native americans are believed to be inflicted with the disease.

This is prooof in itself that alcoholism is a physiological disease, and NOT a social disorder!
When Africas population was wiped out by smallpox, there was only one thing that stopped it... DEATH to everyone who came in contact with it. Would it not be reasonable to assume alcoholism and possibly drug addiction will do the same?

As insensitive as it sounds, I say LET IT!
We can accomplish nothing by slowing it down and allowing the children of this country to be born into the doom of addiction only to lock them up when we catch them..The system is NOT WORKING!

Time to change the rules!

[ 01-06-2003, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: cirrhosis-of-the-river ]

[STGRule]

God, I love intelligent, thoughtful, eloquent discussion. It is the only way to learn. Thanks.

[Boedy]

It will never happen so we should spend our time figuring out how we are really going to fix this problem and stop dreaming about being able to pick up weed at the 7-11 at 3 am

Don’t get me wrong I see your point but the reality of it is that there is no way it is going to ever happen so what good is it to think of it as a real solution.

COTR I think we are in for a good day of fishing and conversation on Thursday looking forward to meeting you :grin: I will email you later and we can figure out when and where stuff.

[Silver Hilton]

COR and Boedy, when it's springer season, would love to spend a day in the boat with both of you.

COR, sounds like we have trod the same path. I too, can speak fairly knowledgeably about most of these things. I also wouldn't touch most of them again. In the same breath, however, my life was not ruined, so I think that our path as a nation must lie somewhere in between a raw orgiastic frenzy and a puritan denial of the pleasures of the flesh.

Good debate, guys, hope to meet you in the flesh some day.

[RvW]

Same here Hilt...same here!

Straydog, sorry I took part in the redirection of this topic. I think theres a few possitives in the fact that it did tho.

I maintain my oppinion that if it can be proven these soldiers were impaired by the use of a Military practice of taking the go pill, the military must assume responsiblity for the effects.

I can see why the Military might have a huge problem with this tho..outside of the double standard of amphetamine use.

Imagine the lawsuits when it is found that more and more deaths are claimed to be the result of this drug?

These soldiers are doomed even if they are found not guilty, the most profound in my opinion is that of having to live with the knowledge that thier comrades died as a result of thier error dispite the drug.

A very sad prospect.

[ 01-06-2003, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: cirrhosis-of-the-river ]

[Silver Hilton]

C.O.R.

With regards to the soldiers, I'm not sure I understand what your position is. Mine is, the primary responsible party in this case has to be the military itself and the government that put them there. The command structure has the responsibility for putting the right guys in the right place, with the right skills, the right training, and the right tools. People being what they are, some people are going to behave imperfectly in those situations. That is war. To hold the individual soldier responsible for the failure of the system is unfair.

Now, there are going to be cases where individual soldiers are going to go over the line. They have to be investigated and held accountable. I'm not sure at all that that is what happened here.

My Lai wouldn't have happened, for example, if we weren't fighting a questionable war to begin with.

[Silver Hilton]

Boedy,

One last thought. You say it will never happen.

Coming up with rational policies on any issue will only happen if we make it happen. We have to get educated, think, speak, and vote our consciences. Only 45% of America makes it to the polls in a given year. Of course the congress doesn't listen. They don't have to - most of america doesn't vote.

Have you written your congressman lately?

Many things have happened when the people got motivated. We freed slaves. We made alcohol illegal. Then we made it legal again. We gave women the vote. We gave minorities the civil rights they were due. We ended a stupid war in vietnam.

You may not agree with any of these individual actions, but they all speak to the fact that the people can make things happen in this country, if we choose to do so.

We just have to care.

As the bumper sticker says, "When the people lead, the leaders will follow."

[RvW]

I think that our path as a nation must lie somewhere in between a raw orgiastic frenzy and a puritan denial of the pleasures of the flesh.

This will stick with me for a very long time to come....as simple as it is. I laughed a true belly laugh. Thanks.

[sinker]

hhhmmmm, guess no one has ever taken any cold pills and then hopped in the car to run to the store or to drive to work when you're sick.
Up here in the Meth Capitol of the known world the stores are only allowed to sell 2 boxes at a time due to the fact that the ******** cook the stuff to get the dextroamphetamine out of it.
Now I can take a cold pill and feel a little wild. Now I've worked with some ******** that were bouncing for 3 straight days. It all comes down to it's intended purpose and the dosage. I've got a feeling the military didn't hand a huge bottle to the pilots and say here ya go, have fun. I would garauntee there were doctors involved.

This whole thing was well known during Desert Storm since the stealth bombers were flying round trip flights out of Missouri.

[Silver Hilton]

From a canadian newspaper, excerpted:

Although there has been talk out of Ottawa about decriminalizing possession of 30 grams of marijuana or less, Victoria Liberal MP David Anderson, who sits in cabinet as environment minister, said he has not had a chance to think hard on the marijuana issue.

Anderson said the first thing that occurs to him is the effect decriminalization or legalization would have on Canada's relations with the U.S.

He said with tighter security at the border these days the number of busts for drugs has increased. What effect would decriminalization have at the border?

"If we cause problems at the border it's another issue we have to take a look at," said Anderson.

...

Lucas said international attitudes to pot should not be a factor.

"Most of Europe right now has more progressive policies than even the decriminalization we're looking at. Really what we're talking about would be some disconcertment from the U.S. But since they have the highest drug usage rates in the world and they spend more money than anyone else in the world trying to curb those usage rates, we probably shouldn't use them as an example of how to govern our policy," he said.


Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Boedy]

They are Canadian what did you expect?

You wouldn’t want to put all those pot growing buddies up in BC out of a job when we legalized it ether.

The last place I want to look for advice on how to run a country is from Europe or Canada. Why don’t we ask Russia how to run a market economy while we are at it?

I was thinking about this legalized drugs thing and it dawned on me that all laws are overrated and we should look hard at taking away some that cost to much to enforce anyway.

Let’s start with one of my favorite things speeding and all traffic laws. Do you have any idea how much it takes to outfit all those cop cars with radar guns and keep police on the road all the time. People still speed and run red lights heck I even have been know to go over the limit from time to time back in my younger days. So I guess traffic laws don’t work so we should just make it legal to go how ever fast we like.

What good are fishing laws if some people don’t follow them. It takes a lot of money to print up all those regs year after year and police the rivers anyway right. I mean if some people think it is ok to do it why make every one else obey those laws. Just seems like a pain in the ass to worry about it.

Heck why do we have any laws because you know there are people out there that will just break them anyway and then we have to get the police after them and take the to court and then you have the cost of jails man I think I am on to something here if it cost to mush to enforce the law then just get rid off it how simple.

Why did we ban drugs in the first place?

Was it some plan to keep the lower class down so the “man” could get rich or did that plan come along later?

I think it safe to say that there are more issues regarding the drugs that this country has problems with then the fact that they are illegal. Granted we would save a lot of money and the people that would end up taking them and doing harm to themselves or others most likely would end up doing it anyway. So why try and save them from themselves why not save every body the time and effort and just take them out right now if they are worth so little and have no hope.

I drink and have smoked cigarettes in the past and it was hard to stop smoking but I have almost made it. You say I didn’t do drugs because I know better and I make the right choice when I was younger to not get involved in them and most people would do the same thing. I was told how bad smoking and drinking was from the time I can remember but they where socially acceptable and I started drinking and smoking at a young age. They where easy to get and I like being a rebel. Now the reason I didn’t get into drugs is because they weren’t socially acceptable and they weren’t easy to get. Take those two things away and I you can toss on crack addict and Heroin junky to the things I am trying to quit.

My thought is when you take away the stigmatism surrounding drugs and you make them easy to get you take away the fear as well and that fear my be the only thing stopping someone’s kid from shooting up heroin and becoming an addict.

[ 01-07-2003, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: Boedy ]

[Silver Hilton]

Well, shoot, Boedy, our behavior towards the canucks is hardly market oriented. We have a 27% tariff on trees, which is anti-freemarket. Just today there was an article in the paper here about a guy moving his truss mill to BC because he could import his trusses tax free, but lumber had a tariff. That's going to send more jobs out of the country.

Free markets? We wouldn't know one if it bit us in the moonhole.

BTW, there is a free market in this country. It's the drug market. That's about the only one.

[lost_sailor]

Originally posted by Boedy:

Don?t get me wrong I see your point but the reality of it is that there is no way it is going to ever happen so what good is it to think of it as a real solution.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">You are free to accept that, but I refuse. Nothing good will happen if we just roll over and expose our soft underbellies to the beast.

[lost_sailor]

Originally posted by Boedy:
...

Why did we ban drugs in the first place?

Was it some plan to keep the lower class down so the ?man? could get rich or did that plan come along later?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Actually, the prohibition of cannabis was motivated by greed - to eliminate hemp as competition for timber and petrochemical industries - fueled by racism (in the '30s, many users were Mexican or black - the propaganda used the Mexican word "marijuana" to confuse the "hemp" issue), but among the reasons given in Congress:

"Mexicans are all crazy, and this is what makes them crazy"

"(Marijuana) leads white women to fornicate with Negro jazz musicians."

Testimony from the American Medical Association to the contrary was covered up ... well, LIED about.

Ah, history ...

[Silver Hilton]

The history on why and how drugs were made illegal is quite complex.

All of today's illicit drugs were legal at the turn of the century. Opiates and pot were illegalized through surreptitious means. The agencies desiring the law change didn't think a straight out prohibition would fly, so they buried the prohibition in a tax act, the Harrison Tax Act of 1914. This made it illegal to sell opium or morphine without a tax stamp. This act created the underground drug economy, by forcing thousands of addicts into back alleys. Before this act, they were productive citizens getting their needs met by their doctor. After the act, their doctors were put in jail if they provided morphine, so we began our descent into the creation of organized crime.

The first prohibition of marijuana was in Utah. There the Mormon dominated congress passed a law to ban the smoking of pot, after a group of mormons who had lived for a time in Mexico returned to the state, and brought their pot smoking habit with them.

National prohibition of pot was achieved through the efforts of Harry Anslinger, an ambitious government agent who was envious of J. Edgar Hoover's success in the FBI. Anslinger conducted a significant propaganda and lobbying effort which culminated in the 1937 Marijuana tax act. The legislative passage of this act is notable by a comment by one of the legislators: "What is marijuana, anyway?" He was answered, "Something the Negroes smoke." He then asked, "Is the AMA for this?" He was answered, "Yes", which was false. The AMA's representative testified against the act.

The congressional record is rich with incidents of Anslinger flat out lying to further his case. The historical record makes it pretty clear that his main goal was personal achievement.

And now pot is evil.

We developed our current policies around heroin largely due to the gubernatorial campaign of Nelson Rockefeller. Nelson wanted to be Governor. He needed an issue. He created a press campaign about the horrors of crime from the rampant heroin abuse in New York Sate. He claimed that there was 5 billion dollars a year of property crime due to heroin abuse in the state, and that something, by gum, needed to be done about it.

As he was conducting this campaign, he was confronted by the police forces of NY, who were being made to look bad about this. They noted that, for his statistics to be true, every citizen in New York would have been robbed seven times a year. The arrest records did not support this statement.

Basically, Nelson lied. But he got elected. And heroin prosecution efforts were stepped up to maintain the facade. This is all a matter of public record.

In 1968, a has been politician named Richard Nixon observed what had happened in New York, and decided to use that for his oen campaign. He ran on a campaign of law and order, capitalizing on the fears of parents about why their kids were growing their hair long and protesting in the streets about the VietNam war.

After Nixon was elected, he created a commision, the Schroeder commission, to form a recommendation on national policy regarding drugs. The commission recommended a much softer stance towards heroin, oriented towards treatment, and decriminalization of pot. Nixon literally never read the study and threw it in the trash when he was told what the conclusions were.

As the 70's and 80's progressed, it became apparent that chemists could invent new drugs, nearly at will. So, in 1984, we passed the Designer Drug Act, which made it illegal to make, sell, or use anything that might make you feel good. It is not clear to me how Starbucks escaped prosecution under this act.

That's just a summary. I'm happy to provide more detail if desired.

[Silver Hilton]

Boedy,

On the benefit of laws. I think there are key differences between laws such as those on speeding and theft, and laws on personal behavior, such as drug consumption.

Laws about speeding are clearly grounded in the protection of society against acts of the individual. Society has a legitimate right in orderly traffic flow, for the general safety of the public. We all realize that without traffic lights, less traffic would get through town.

Laws on theft are clearly about prohibiting one individual from harming another.

Laws on recreational drug consumption by adults, on the other hand, are about restricting the activities of an individual, presumable so they won't hurt themselves. They are logically analagous to passing a law that says you will be in bed by 10:00pm. They involve society intruding into the sphere of activity of the individual and prohibiting private acts. It is also not clear to many of the individuals that the act is in fact harmful to them or anyone else. That is why there is such disagreement on the issue. Most of the putative victims don't feel victimized.

There is no fundamental difference between a law prohibiting me from smoking a doobie, and laws that prohibit me from eating more than 2500 calories a day. Either activity may lead me to a shorter life. Both are enjoyable, and neither leaves me feeling bad.

It's a specious argument to compare legalization of recreational drugs to eliminating other regulations in our lives. These other regulations are largely agreed to as being reasonable by the citizenry, and the creation of these laws hasn't created a criminal economy that damages our society. We may argue about what the speed limit should be, but everyone gets that traffic lights are a good idea.

Lastly, on whether you would have been more addicted if crack were legal. There are two things to note. The first is that all researchers agree that nicotine is by far the most addictive drug know to mankind. There are many alcoholics and heroin addicts that kick those habits, but can't quit smoking.

Second, the best way to keep folks from starting drugs is accurate information. If we stopped lying to kids about pot, they might start listening to us about coke. I have known a large number of folks that have used coke. Without exception, to my knowledge, none of them does anymore. The accurate message about coke is that it makes you feel good for a while, then you feel like crud, and some people have real problems with it. Do you think we might have better discussions with kids if we had that discussion, rather than lying to them and telling them they will all be instantly addicted?

[Straydog]

Wow, too much to respond too on this one too.

Let me say I am with Silverhilton 110% on this.

The primary reason I posted this seems to almost be lost although SH hits upon it with his take about lying to our kids.

The gross hypocricy this situation points out just drives me nuts. We spend billions trying unsuccesfully to convince our kids to 'just say no' to drugs yet allow the pharmacuetical industry to advertise 'wonder drugs' every 15 minutes on the tube and say it is ok for the military to use them but they are the scourge of the world if taken socially.

Without revealing too much about my past and some of the decisions I made as a younger person, let me just say the notions of 'flash backs' were a damn lie too!! At least, I keep waiting and haven't been treated to one yet. :grin:

I also have to agree with SH's notion of blow (cocaine) it is highly addictive and will give a few minutes pleasure followed by feeling like crap, being depressed and for some, doing what it takes to get more. Having said all that, know that there is a reason some call Meth "poor man's cocaine"..... :depressed:

[DanS]

Why don’t we ask Russia how to run a market economy while we are at it?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Boedy,

I think the point is, you use SUCCESSFUL policies to model your own upon. Obviously, the Russian market economy was unseccessful. So what did they do when their policies failed? They looked at OUR market economy (a successful one, albeit with flaws) to model their "new" economy on.

The point the Canadians makes is ....why would we want to model our drug policy using the US as an example, when their system is an obvious failure.

Why it's a failure is debatable. That it is a failure is clear to anyone.