War on Drugs, by the numbers

February 27, 2006 11:24 AM

In the "debate" over the War on Drugs, there's a lack of nice quantitative data presentation in one place. Brian C Bennett aims to rectify that. From trends in alcohol initiation relative to legal age limits, to investigation of the deaths classified by CDC as marijuana-induced. There are lots of charts, as for cocaine purity over the years, or treatment admissions, or arrest trends. The site map is your quick guide to the 2000 charts & articles.
posted by daksya (18 comments total)

This is a really great site, and I'm glad to know about it. Thanks for the FPP.

I was surprised to see that about 500 people a year are admitted to SA treatment for OTC drugs. Weird. I would assume that those must be cold medicines, but who knows.

The best graphic, or dumbest, I saw in my surfing around is the one that shows that only pot, of all the drugs targeted in the war on drugs, has any kind of volatility in pricing, that it's the only drug where the price hasn't just trended down over the years. Disappointing.
posted by OmieWise at 11:46 AM on February 27, 2006

the cannabis deaths were coded as being due to some form of mental illness involving marijuana.
posted by adzm at 11:50 AM on February 27, 2006

this is your brain (audio)
posted by hortense at 12:06 PM on February 27, 2006

Bookmarked for further reading.
posted by raedyn at 1:12 PM on February 27, 2006

Good resource, interesting stuff. I thought it was amusing that the code for "glue sniffing induced deaths" also included "absinthe addiction." I'm having a hard time thinking of two less related recreational substances.
posted by justkevin at 1:57 PM on February 27, 2006

Using wood to make chip, paper and other such refined products is as senseless as using only new production cars to make beer cans.

Not only would hemp be a higher quality replacement for this processed material, but it could also be produced in such quantity in the 3rd and 4th world that it would not only exceed their projected needs, but preserve vast areas of high grade forest and jungle.

America, especially would benefit not only from a new multi-billion dollar industry, but with the restoration of its fine quality woodworking industry.
posted by kablam at 1:59 PM on February 27, 2006

Interesting about cocaine purity, the small and large amounts have converged somewhat - typical, the the little guy gets squeezed.
posted by wilful at 2:32 PM on February 27, 2006

I was going to read this, but I can’t, because I got high, because I got high, because I got high.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:12 PM on February 27, 2006

kablam- my health teacher told us that the lumber industry was a major part of the reason pot was banned in the first place (although she made stuff up sometimes).
posted by martinX's bellbottoms at 3:32 PM on February 27, 2006

The "war on drugs" is better thought of as a war on two crowds of people -- the very nasty crowd that deals 'em, and the not-much-less-nasty crowd that, for recreation, supports the trade by buying 'em.
posted by jfuller at 3:43 PM on February 27, 2006

jfuller, I'd argue that the war truly only targets the user, and rather than targetting dealers, creates and sustains them. Think of the DEA as the world foremost drug monopoly enforcement group, busy creating an environment in which only ruthless, organized groups can compete.
posted by nomisxid at 4:05 PM on February 27, 2006

The "war on drugs" is better thought of as a war on two crowds of people -- the very nasty crowd that deals 'em, and the not-much-less-nasty crowd that, for recreation, supports the trade by buying 'em.

So I'm not-much-less-nasty than a criminal... that's nice of you to say so but so incredibily ill-informed. In what way is smoking a bit of grass "nasty"? I'd grow it if I was allowed and completely cut out my dealings with nastier people.

The war on drugs is simply another boogie man to keep us in line. If Alcohol could be made illegal you can be damn sure it would be.

Drugs don't kill people, the war on drugs does. By keeping drugs illegal you ensure supplies are contaminated with the shit that causes the real harm.
posted by twistedonion at 4:36 PM on February 27, 2006

the thing that actually bugs me most is that by making cannabis illegal (an extremely harmless drug in the grand scheme of things) the government ensures that the war on drugs carries on.

By making cannabis legal for personal use the Government would eliminate a huge money earner for these criminal gangs. Most talk about cannabis being a gateway drug is only true in the sense that you are forcing otherwise law abiding citizens to mix with criminals. Once labeled a deviant then it's easier to try "harder" drugs.
posted by twistedonion at 4:42 PM on February 27, 2006

twistedonion, you're angry now but you'll forget all about it as soon as you smoke up.

posted by jfuller at 5:23 PM on February 27, 2006

The "war on drugs" is better thought of as a war on two crowds of people

Nice try, Mr. Troll. Go back to your bridge ...

Great post, daksya. I was gonna say "What the hell is Daniel Dennett doing writing about the drug war?", but then I actually read your links.

(Don't let jfuller shit all over this post, please. Or rather, let him shit and play with it all by himself.)
posted by mrgrimm at 5:50 PM on February 27, 2006

The "war on drugs" is better thought of as a war on two crowds of people -- the very nasty crowd that deals 'em, and the not-much-less-nasty crowd that, for recreation, supports the trade by buying 'em.

Are you saying that a civil war is underway? Sure looks that way in some parts of town.
posted by telstar at 6:21 PM on February 27, 2006

If the war on drugs were ended, there'd be massive layoffs at the DEA, FBI, and umpteen police jurisdictions.

We can't be having that now, can we?

Must. Incarcerate. Pot-smokers.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:29 PM on February 27, 2006

Thanks daksya, grat link. It's bookmarked now.

Smedleyman, that made me laugh
posted by Penks at 7:19 PM on February 27, 2006