February 25, 2002

2:30 PM

Drug War roundup. The US will end drug-related sanctions against Afghanistan and Haiti. Neither country stopped producing drugs, they need loans sanctions stop them from receiving. A British journalist compares the drug policies of Holland to Britain. Noteworthy: despite heroin being half the price, there are 25% fewer Dutch addicts. The FARC and Columbia are openly warring again. So far, only civilians have been killed. The California Medical Association voted to lobby the state government to raise the smoking age from 18 to 21.
posted by raaka (22 comments total)

thanks raaka. here's one i just read in the economist about how plan columbia is reviving coca and opium production in peru, with attendant problems.
posted by kliuless at 2:55 PM on February 25, 2002

FWIW, I'd like to make a distinction: "drugs" and tobacco are often lumped into the same category, along with alcohol. You know, lots of people say, "I don't smoke, drink, or do drug," and so on. I'd argue that tobacco does not belong in the same category as drugs & alcohol...drugs & alcohol are used expressly for the purpose of altering one's perception of reality and compromising one's ability to reason. My two cents.
posted by davidmsc at 2:59 PM on February 25, 2002

I don't think the distinction is as clear as that, davidmsc. Tobacco doesn't have the same knock 'em sock 'em effect as, say, crack cocaine, but it does alter your perceptions and moods, and it is an addictive substance (in the medical, physical-dependency sense, not the bogus "psychological dependency" phrase the prohibitionists cooked up. So sure, it's a drug, if you define such as something that alters one's perceptions. So are caffeine, sugar, chocolate, and smooooth jazz.

I'd also disagree with the idea that drugs are only used for 'compromising one's ability to reason'. But that's not the sort of argument in which anybody's mind gets changed, so I'll leave it be.
posted by ook at 3:06 PM on February 25, 2002

so the girl i went out with on saturday night is a drug? i definately went out with her for the sole purpose of altering my perception of reality and compromising (among other things) my ability to reason.

i definately had a long lasting buzz even hours after she left and i keep wanting to have more more more.
posted by tsarfan at 3:07 PM on February 25, 2002

close paren after "cooked up". Delete 2nd para. Purchase red pen.
posted by ook at 3:09 PM on February 25, 2002

You think ciggies don't alter mood? Tell that to a hard smoker who doesn't get his/her morning drag...
posted by owillis at 3:09 PM on February 25, 2002

David, if you think tobacco and caffeine aren't mood-altering, perception-altering drugs, you're naive beyond belief.

While everyone's correcting you, you might also put this into your pipe and smoke it:

Tobacco and alcohol are both *hard* drugs. They are physically-addicting drugs.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:13 PM on February 25, 2002

I'd argue that tobacco does not belong in the same category as drugs & alcohol...drugs & alcohol are used expressly for the purpose of altering one's perception of reality and compromising one's ability to reason.

Nicotine is an addictive drug. It is a central nervous system stimulant. What makes it seem different from other drugs is that your body normalizes to its effects much faster than it does to most other substances. This gives the illusion that it has no mind-altering properties but it's just an illusion. And, frankly, if you choose to continue smoking after knowing what is now common knowledge about its destructive effects on your body, your ability to reason has been compromised.
posted by plaino at 3:17 PM on February 25, 2002

I almost posted this story today: a author of how-to grow pot books got raided by police, but they only found orchids in his greenhouse.
posted by mathowie at 3:18 PM on February 25, 2002

even though i believe in the Land of the Free concept. i think that if "kids" under 21 can't drink, they probably shouldnt be smoking either. unless they're in combat.

even though there are plenty of good reasons that might make a young person want to pick up a pack of smokes, i think that starting at 21 gives them plenty of time to build of that layer of tar in their lungs.

does this mean im now a conservative?
posted by tsarfan at 4:38 PM on February 25, 2002

A lot of addicts get very little high from whatever they're addicted to. The reason they keep doing it is to avoid the crash. And tobacco isn't the drug; nicotine is. We should try to be clear.

And as far as the real consequences of the drug war, the facts are out there for anyone that wants to look.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 4:42 PM on February 25, 2002

The drug war is a sham. Sorry for not adding anything insightful, but I think the whole concept is waste of money, time, and puts people in jail needlessly. Drugs ought to be treated as a health issue, as they have a corrosive effect on society. The drug war only adds to the corrosion.
posted by cell divide at 4:49 PM on February 25, 2002

My interest is more with the idea posted that we are waqiving drug thing for Afghanistan for "security reasons" --that is, so they can grow a crop to sell to Americans. I guess the right wing was wrong when they said they wanted to be able to fight a two-front war: drugs and wherever we are next going to attack.
How to know what is and is not addictive: try doing without it and see the results and how long you can stay away from it.
posted by Postroad at 5:10 PM on February 25, 2002

Great quote from a senior Dutch police detective from the Guardian article:

What's the point of making war on part of your own country? Drugs are here and they're always going to be. This is a social problem, not a criminal one, and the whole of society has to tackle it - not leave it to the police on their own.

(ps: raaka, brother, does this mean we are on the same side now? Anti-war, like?)
posted by sylloge at 5:29 PM on February 25, 2002

Postroad if I used "try doing without it and see the results and how long you can stay away from it" as a measuring tool, by that definition computers should be illegal controlled substances.

There's too much money involved in the drug war. It's one of those wars designed to make money for all concerned, excepting of course those who take a bullet for a living.

Find out why people feel the need to medicate themselves in order to continue living, and fix that. Then there'll be no drug problem. However, no one's ever going to figure that out. Why? Because there's no money in it.
posted by ZachsMind at 5:49 PM on February 25, 2002

Find out why people feel the need to medicate themselves in order to continue living, and fix that.

That is the best suggestion, in the simplest terms i have ever heard.
posted by Zool at 6:03 PM on February 25, 2002

i've been smoking cigarettes for years now, specifically as a drug. i use it as a replacement for anti-depressants, which often have the unwanted side effect of affecting one's libedo. plus ciggies just taste better.

more on topic - the "the netherlands system works!" argument just doesn't seem to work. it's not about chosing a system that works and implementing it, it's about politicians not wanting to seem soft on drugs, because for years they've been pumping the population with anti drug propoganda, that they can't just turn around on in a matter of years.

that ridiculous superbowl ad is a prime example of why no politician in their right mind will ever risk their career on drug law reform.

america - the leader of the free world? what a load of crock. america - the liar and destructor, more likely.
posted by titboy at 6:08 PM on February 25, 2002

Well, the problems with FARC are not directly related to the "drug war" -- they happen to be related to the "civil war", because FARC started kidnapping politicians again. This led to Pastrana immediately cancelling all the concessions he'd given in the last 3 years in the vain hopes they would begin acting like human beings. (Just so nobody over-idealizes these warm, fuzzy little amoral cretins.)
posted by dhartung at 6:11 PM on February 25, 2002

I don't think anyone's in a mood to romanticize FARC. On the other hand it's hard to argue that FARC's foundation was laid in the ONDCP office in Washington. We have Wm. Bennet, McAffrey et al. to thank for initiating the cycle of violence which may well end up creating a whole new Marxist enclave in the Western Hemisphere. Thanks a lot drug warriors! I hope you all thank your lucky stars that you weren't born in the countries you are destroying... or, for most of you, that you weren't born a visible minority, entitled by the WoD to frequent "stop and frisks", and to traffic stops for driving 31 in a 30 zone.

As for the Super Bowl ad, I wonder what kind of acid one has to drop to think that this is not the single most offensive piece of cr*p ever funded by the money I'm forced to send the IRS with every single paycheck... with the possible exception of the Drug Czars' constant efforts to invalidate every democratically-ratified medical marijuana initiative to date.

The so-called "War on Drugs" -- which really should be known as what it is, America's war on its own citizens -- is fundamentally unamerican. It is directly aimed at stopping the freedom of choice of the American people to do what they want, and has proven again and again to be not only undemocratic, but expressily anti-democratic. However what it constitutes, in effect, is a gateway to greater and more intrusive police actions in what is supposed to be a free society, and a greater militarization of civilian police forces as a way to defeat the checks and balances which were intended to limit the intrusion of government in the private lives of Americans. In that sense the WoD seems to be itself the ultimate gateway drug.
posted by clevershark at 6:56 PM on February 25, 2002

yeah, sylloge. We were always anti-War. I see the Drug War as Cold War-lite. I think the disagreement was legalization. You, Nader, my own study and an old friend turned me. Conservative childhood to a drug-addled young adulthood.

dhartung, the problems with FARC are directly related to the Drug War. The renewed fighting was sparked by the kidnapping of a senator last week, but the rebel movement is partially funded by the drug trade. Certainly it’s a civil war, but the landscape would be dramatically different without the Drug War.

Russian mob trading arms for cocaine with Colombia rebels
“guerrillas fired on a U.S. government helicopter involved in an anti-drug mission in Colombia...”

tsarfan, read that link about Holland and Britain. It says educating young people about drugs does more good than simply outlawing their use. If some 18-year-old learns all the possible ill effects of smoking (in a less than inflammatory manner) and still decides to light up, who’s to say he shouldn’t?
posted by raaka at 9:27 PM on February 25, 2002

ZachsMind: Find out why people feel the need to medicate themselves in order to continue living, and fix that. Then there'll be no drug problem. However, no one's ever going to figure that out. Why? Because there's no money in it.

Not willing to consider the possiblity that it won't happen because some people do need to medicate themselves in order to continue living?

davidsmc: I'd argue that tobacco does not belong in the same category as drugs & alcohol...drugs & alcohol are used expressly for the purpose of altering one's perception of reality and compromising one's ability to reason.

As someone who has used drugs and alcohol for other purposes, I have to disagree. Alcohol (and many other drugs) are often just used to relax. And one of the big incentives to do certain drugs, especially hallucinogenics, is the idea that "one's perception of reality" when sober is not necessarily the whole picture. Hence Huxley's idea (borrowed from Blake) of the "doors of perception" that can be opened through mescaline. Setting aside the issue of whether this idea is even valid (though I think it is), I hope you at least understand that a lot of people hold it.

Also, I've done some drugs because I thought it might make some movie-viewing or music-listening experience more intense or interesting, and that has often been the case.
posted by bingo at 11:46 PM on February 25, 2002

also, cuz i think it's often ignored, drugs can be seen as a religious sacrament.
posted by kliuless at 8:40 AM on February 26, 2002