Comments on: War on Drugs, by the numbers

War on Drugs, by the numbers

daksya — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:24:29 -0800

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.

By: OmieWise

OmieWise — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:46:36 -0800

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.

By: adzm

adzm — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:50:32 -0800

the cannabis deaths were coded as being due to some form of mental illness involving marijuana.

By: hortense

hortense — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:06:44 -0800

this is your brain (audio)

By: raedyn

raedyn — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:12:18 -0800

Bookmarked for further reading.

By: justkevin

justkevin — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:57:25 -0800

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.

By: kablam

kablam — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:59:05 -0800

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.

By: wilful

wilful — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:32:28 -0800

Interesting about cocaine purity, the small and large amounts have converged somewhat - typical, the the little guy gets squeezed.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:12:03 -0800

I was going to read this, but I can't, because I got high, because I got high, because I got high.

By: martinX's bellbottoms

martinX's bellbottoms — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:32:46 -0800

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).

By: jfuller

jfuller — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:43:58 -0800

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.

By: nomisxid

nomisxid — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:05:49 -0800

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.

By: twistedonion

twistedonion — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:36:18 -0800

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.

By: twistedonion

twistedonion — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:42:38 -0800

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.

By: jfuller

jfuller — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:23:37 -0800

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

By: mrgrimm

mrgrimm — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:50:26 -0800

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.)

By: telstar

telstar — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:21:32 -0800

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:29:33 -0800

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.

By: Penks

Penks — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:19:15 -0800

Thanks daksya, grat link. It's bookmarked now. Smedleyman, that made me laugh