The Collapse of Meth

[Os Cangaceiros]

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/09/the-collapse-of-meth-the-rise-of-pot.html

[Rusty Shackleford]

god i fucking hate meth.

[Seth]

The number one reason to legalize marijuana.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

I still think the ban on weed is all economics and insane.

The stats on meth however are greatly welcome, from the reports I heard awhile back I was concerned.

[CommunityBeliever]

Legalise weed.

[Comrade-Z]

I find stimulants useful on occasion and in moderation. Meth gets an unfair reputation from its users who abuse it, as does any drug. A small amount, taken orally and infrequently, is little different from Adderall. Yes, it can be addictive and it can kill people...just like alcohol. There is little objective justification for our drug war persecuting some drugs and not others...and since we get by okay allowing adult use of alcohol, there is no reason why we need to criminalize any other substance. Please do not be fooled into supporting a program that systematically persecutes people of color disproportionately and that distracts people from the class war, making them think that "drugs" are the reason (rather than a symptom) for the decline of inner cities, rather than racism, white flight, capital flight--in short, capitalism.

[freakazoid]

De-criminalize all "drugs".

[Tablo]

Meth is bad. We all know this. Even meth users know this. I love that meth use has gone down, but meth isn't all it is depicted to be. Still, seeing people avoiding this particularly destructive narcotic makes me very happy. There is very little to be happy about when it comes to the drug war and decreased use of meth, whether as a result of law enforcement or not, is a welcome and celebrated outcome. Still, fuck the police. People should do whatever they want as long as it doesn't directly hurt others.

[Delenda Carthago]

Meth is bad. We all know this. Even meth users know this. I love that meth use has gone down, but meth isn't all it is depicted to be. Still, seeing people avoiding this particularly destructive narcotic makes me very happy. There is very little to be happy about when it comes to the drug war and decreased use of meth, whether as a result of law enforcement or not, is a welcome and celebrated outcome. Still, fuck the police. People should do whatever they want as long as it doesn't directly hurt others.
Ιs the use of drugs alienated from our social behaviour?Are drugs a matter of self or a social one? Drug addiction in a society is a matter of the individuals or of the whole society?

[Quail]

Ιs the use of drugs alienated from our social behaviour?Are drugs a matter of self or a social one? Drug addiction in a society is a matter of the individuals or of the whole society?
It all depends on the way in which the drugs are used. It's possible to use substances such as heroin or cocaine without becoming a barely functioning wreck. Drug addiction does hurt other people in most cases (although it is possible to be a functional addict) but it's often a result of social conditions such as poverty and a lack of opportunity. The rates of unhealthy drug use would go down if we lived in a world where everyone had hope for a fulfilling future.

[Princess Luna]

Ιs the use of drugs alienated from our social behaviour?Are drugs a matter of self or a social one? Drug addiction in a society is a matter of the individuals or of the whole society?
If a person is addicted to drugs and it is interfereing with their lives, then society has a responablity to take care of that person, however if a person is not addicted to a drug they use or has a addiction but functions fine (like all the tobacco users in America) then it becomes a individual problem. Also the entire reason for the rise of meth, was because it was cheap to make and could be made anywhere, meaning it didn't have to be smuggled into the U.S. like organics. If everybody could grow pot in their backyard or buy a bag of pure cocain at Wal-greens for $4.50 , the market for meth would vanish.

[Delenda Carthago]

If a person is addicted to drugs and it is interfereing with their lives, then society has a responablity to take care of that person, however if a person is not addicted to a drug they use or has a addiction but functions fine (like all the tobacco users in America) then it becomes a individual problem. Also the entire reason for the rise of meth, was because it was cheap to make and could be made anywhere, meaning it didn't have to be smuggled into the U.S. like organics. If everybody could grow pot in their backyard or buy a bag of pure cocain at Wal-greens for $4.50 , the market for meth would vanish.
Thats the perfect idea! Lets throw cocaine in the market to avoid meth.Thats the answer society is looking for!

[Delenda Carthago]

It all depends on the way in which the drugs are used. It's possible to use substances such as heroin or cocaine without becoming a barely functioning wreck. Drug addiction does hurt other people in most cases (although it is possible to be a functional addict) but it's often a result of social conditions such as poverty and a lack of opportunity. The rates of unhealthy drug use would go down if we lived in a world where everyone had hope for a fulfilling future.
Thats right! So in a society that poverty grows with huge steps, how catastrofic is to promote the idea of individualism on the matter of drug use? How "personal" is the choise to use heroine and turn to a junky? How is a big percentege of people becoming addicts a personal and not a social issue? Isnt it like the right wing story of personal responsibility in failure? Isnt the story about the personal choise hiding the real social reasons people turn to drugs?The fact that we live in a world that is totaly agressive towards to us has nothing to do with the big addiction ratios?

[Comrade-Z]

Meth is bad. We all know this. Even meth users know this. I love that meth use has gone down, but meth isn't all it is depicted to be. Still, seeing people avoiding this particularly destructive narcotic makes me very happy. There is very little to be happy about when it comes to the drug war and decreased use of meth, whether as a result of law enforcement or not, is a welcome and celebrated outcome. Still, fuck the police. People should do whatever they want as long as it doesn't directly hurt others.

The fact that you refer to meth as a "narcotic" instantly erases all credibility of what you say in my eyes with regards to drugs. The word "narcotic" is not a pharmacologically-meaningful word--or rather, it means too many things in different contexts to be a useful word. Physicians don't use the word, or if they do, they use it to signify CNS depressants such as opiates, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, and alcohol. Amphetamines are about the most polar opposite from that possible.

Politically, the word "narcotic" is just a scare word signifying, "A drug that I think is dangerous." The use of this word in reference to meth only adds mystification to the discussion.

As for "everyone knowing that it's bad for you," you probably learned that from D.A.R.E. class or some other instrument of U.S. government propaganda, no?

Whenever asserting anything about a drug, the statement must always be qualified with:
*The specific drug (because different drugs have very different effects and abuse potentials).
*The amount of the drug (because different amounts have very different effects and abuse potentials).
*The method of administration (because different methods of administration have very different effects and abuse potentials).
*The psychological and social context in which the drug is consumed (because different contexts can create very different drug effects (particularly with psychedelics) and abuse potentials (particularly with dopamine agonists)).

For example, I would assert, based on personal experience and reading of secondary sources, that 1mg of MDPV taken orally with the intention of finishing work before a deadline is safer than 4 shots of vodka taken orally with the intention of getting drunk.

The War on Drugs has nothing to do with the objective risk of various drugs and everything to do with giving the government excuses to persecute blacks and the poor and to invest in police-state infrastructure, as well as to give the government access to unaccountable funny-money for CIA covert-ops.

Leftists should unconditionally reject the War on Drugs. Insofar as they are worried about the potential for harm of certain drugs, leftists should address those drugs as a public health issue in a way that acknowledges that willful alteration of brain chemistry and state of consciousness is ubiquitous throughout human history, and that infantile efforts at Prohibition are doomed to failure.

[RichardAWilson]

The problem is people aren't always going to make rational and calculated decisions with regard to the use of psychoactive substances.

In that regard, methamphetamine is much worse than alcohol because it has more abuse potential and is often more psychologically and physically addictive than alcohol.

You can, of course, die from alcohol withdrawal (After years and years of abuse). For more short-term and medium term users, methamphetamine withdrawal is worse than alcohol withdrawal. Also, as our bodies differ, stimulates, which are damaging to one's cardiac muscle and circulatory system, can lead to a serious increase in incidences of stroke, aneurysm and heart-attack, whereas depressants, such as alcohol and pain-killers, take much longer to undermine those systems and muscles.

Making methamphetamine even more dangerous in relation to alcohol is that methamphetamine leads to a short to medium term depletion in the brain's serotonin (a brain chemical connected with pleasure), making it much harder to break the addiction and contributing to almost immediate depression following cessation. Depression connected with methamphetamine withdrawal can be dangerous and has led to suicide.

On another side note,


Over 20 percent of people addicted to methamphetamine develop a long-lasting psychosis resembling schizophrenia after stopping methamphetamine which persists for longer than 6 months

Alcohol has an obvious effect on one's mind. Some of those effects are long-term (A Literal Degeneration of the Mind). However, alcohol abuse is correlated with mental illness (Not the other way around). Methamphetamine abuse is a two way st. (the correlation works forward and reverse).

Nonetheless:

I remain opposed to the War on Drugs.

I think there are much more effective means of rehabilitation and prevention than throwing millions of men and women into a jail cell and forcing them to have a charge on their record that will make it much harder to find a job when they're released.

[Tablo]

The fact that you refer to meth as a "narcotic" instantly erases all credibility of what you say in my eyes with regards to drugs. The word "narcotic" is not a pharmacologically-meaningful word--or rather, it means too many things in different contexts to be a useful word. Physicians don't use the word, or if they do, they use it to signify CNS depressants such as opiates, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, and alcohol. Amphetamines are about the most polar opposite from that possible.

Politically, the word "narcotic" is just a scare word signifying, "A drug that I think is dangerous." The use of this word in reference to meth only adds mystification to the discussion.

As for "everyone knowing that it's bad for you," you probably learned that from D.A.R.E. class or some other instrument of U.S. government propaganda, no?

Whenever asserting anything about a drug, the statement must always be qualified with:
*The specific drug (because different drugs have very different effects and abuse potentials).
*The amount of the drug (because different amounts have very different effects and abuse potentials).
*The method of administration (because different methods of administration have very different effects and abuse potentials).
*The psychological and social context in which the drug is consumed (because different contexts can create very different drug effects (particularly with psychedelics) and abuse potentials (particularly with dopamine agonists)).

For example, I would assert, based on personal experience and reading of secondary sources, that 1mg of MDPV taken orally with the intention of finishing work before a deadline is safer than 4 shots of vodka taken orally with the intention of getting drunk.

The War on Drugs has nothing to do with the objective risk of various drugs and everything to do with giving the government excuses to persecute blacks and the poor and to invest in police-state infrastructure, as well as to give the government access to unaccountable funny-money for CIA covert-ops.

Leftists should unconditionally reject the War on Drugs. Insofar as they are worried about the potential for harm of certain drugs, leftists should address those drugs as a public health issue in a way that acknowledges that willful alteration of brain chemistry and state of consciousness is ubiquitous throughout human history, and that infantile efforts at Prohibition are doomed to failure.
Sorry I used the word narcotic in a way you don't like? I don't see what is scary about the term. I don't see how this invalidates the rest of what I said. I never said I support the war on drugs. I oppose it as a sane human being and as a drug user. I love how you make random assumptions about me and go on to be a complete asshole about the misuse of a word. Die in a fire.

[Comrade-Z]

Sorry I used the word narcotic in a way you don't like? I don't see what is scary about the term. I don't see how this invalidates the rest of what I said. I never said I support the war on drugs. I oppose it as a sane human being and as a drug user. I love how you make random assumptions about me and go on to be a complete asshole about the misuse of a word. Die in a fire.

I don't like people misusing the word "narcotic" for the same reason that I don't like people misusing the word "socialist." A person might say, "Oh yeah, we should have socialism like they have in Sweden!" *Facepalm.* It brings confusion and misleading mystification to the debate. You have to stop and explain, "No, that's not what socialism is..." just like I had to stop and explain, "No, the only quasi-coherent definition for "narcotic" is a CNS depressant." And I'm sure you would understand why, from that point on, that person would lose all credibility in my eyes regarding anything they said about socialism, until they gave me reason to think otherwise.

Perhaps this is not what you intended, in which case I apologize, but from my experience, most drug warriors use the word "narcotic" with the conscious intention of grouping all illegal drug-use together as if they were all equally risky or harmful in all situations with regards to all quantities. This is why I consider such a trifling matter of terminology important. This terminology obscures the profound differences in the effects of different drugs administered at different amounts by different methods in different settings. If a narcotic is defined as a "harmful drug" (as most people understand the word to mean, especially if you are including meth in the category such that narcotic can't possibly mean "CNS depressant"), and you say that "meth is a narcotic," then you are (wrongly, I think) asserting that X amount of meth taking orally for Y purpose is harmful, where "X" is a small amount and "Y" is a well-defined purpose with a clear goal and endpoint.

So, IF we were using the word "narcotic" to mean "a harmful drug," I'd be willing to say that 10mg of MDPV administered intranasally for the purpose of getting high and escaping from a purposeless existence for an undefined amount of time would be a "narcotic," but that same 10mg of MDPV taken in 1mg doses orally over a 10-week interval, once a week, for the purposes of writing papers, I would not consider "narcotic."

If you want a word that describes the action of meth or MDPV in the abstract, regardless of amount and method of administration and context, then the words stimulant, or maybe dopamine-agonist stimulant (to distinguish it more specifically from caffeine), are suitable because this will be a quality of the drug that is true given any amount, method of administration, or context.

Hopefully you see how the word "narcotic" is a way for drug warriors to win the debate before the debate even gets off the ground with a trick that is embedded in the questions themselves.

In any case, I am glad that you are not for the War on Drugs. Salud on that point! :)

[tachosomoza]

Decriminalize all drugs. :thumbup1:

[Comrade-Z]

I also want to clarify that I'm not saying that people who use drugs in ways that I deem dangerous should be penalized. I'm just trying to counter this image that all illegal drug use is abuse.

If someone's drug use truly is dangerous, the health consequences will be disincentive enough, which, combined with a public health approach, could help a lot of addicts either overcome their addictions or at the very least cheaply function in society as addicts. For example, if heroin (or any other opiate) were mass-produced and could be legally bought with a doctor's prescription in standardized dosages of known purity for the purpose of maintaining a stable addiction (something doctor's are currently prohibited from doing), then opiate addicts would look little different from the "nicotine addicts" we have "plaguing" our society today. Those opiate addicts might be cronically constipated, but otherwise you'd probably never know by looking at one that that person was an opiate addict, especially if that person had been weaned away from injection towards oral administration.

[Leftsolidarity]

Fuck the war on drugs. I'll stick to my alcohol, cigarettes, and pot though.

Q4pf3QtQIjw

[Tablo]

I don't like people misusing the word "narcotic" for the same reason that I don't like people misusing the word "socialist." A person might say, "Oh yeah, we should have socialism like they have in Sweden!" *Facepalm.* It brings confusion and misleading mystification to the debate. You have to stop and explain, "No, that's not what socialism is..." just like I had to stop and explain, "No, the only quasi-coherent definition for "narcotic" is a CNS depressant." And I'm sure you would understand why, from that point on, that person would lose all credibility in my eyes regarding anything they said about socialism, until they gave me reason to think otherwise.

Perhaps this is not what you intended, in which case I apologize, but from my experience, most drug warriors use the word "narcotic" with the conscious intention of grouping all illegal drug-use together as if they were all equally risky or harmful in all situations with regards to all quantities. This is why I consider such a trifling matter of terminology important. This terminology obscures the profound differences in the effects of different drugs administered at different amounts by different methods in different settings. If a narcotic is defined as a "harmful drug" (as most people understand the word to mean, especially if you are including meth in the category such that narcotic can't possibly mean "CNS depressant"), and you say that "meth is a narcotic," then you are (wrongly, I think) asserting that X amount of meth taking orally for Y purpose is harmful, where "X" is a small amount and "Y" is a well-defined purpose with a clear goal and endpoint.

So, IF we were using the word "narcotic" to mean "a harmful drug," I'd be willing to say that 10mg of MDPV administered intranasally for the purpose of getting high and escaping from a purposeless existence for an undefined amount of time would be a "narcotic," but that same 10mg of MDPV taken in 1mg doses orally over a 10-week interval, once a week, for the purposes of writing papers, I would not consider "narcotic."

If you want a word that describes the action of meth or MDPV in the abstract, regardless of amount and method of administration and context, then the words stimulant, or maybe dopamine-agonist stimulant (to distinguish it more specifically from caffeine), are suitable because this will be a quality of the drug that is true given any amount, method of administration, or context.

Hopefully you see how the word "narcotic" is a way for drug warriors to win the debate before the debate even gets off the ground with a trick that is embedded in the questions themselves.

In any case, I am glad that you are not for the War on Drugs. Salud on that point! :)
Alright. I apologize for calling you an asshole. I understand how the misuse of terms annoys you. It pisses me off when it comes to politics and economics(particularly the misuse of the term 'socialism'). Since I'm not well versed in the terminology related to 'substance use' I'm definitely in the wrong with misuse of the term narcotic. Yeah, the war on drugs is such fucking authoritarian crazy bs.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Comrade-Z has it.

What I find astonishing is that no less than a hundred years ago, Western society had a completely different attitude to drugs. Opiates and cocaine could be bought freely if I remember correctly.

So what the hell happened?

[Tablo]

Comrade-Z has it.

What I find astonishing is that no less than a hundred years ago, Western society had a completely different attitude to drugs. Opiates and cocaine could be bought freely if I remember correctly.

So what the hell happened?
I don't know, perhaps the 3rd Great Awakening? Maybe capitalists saw drug use as a competitor? I think all pot smokers have heard how cannabis was outlawed to the benefit of paper companies. The past 100 years really has been quite crazy.

[cb9's_unity]

Historians will probably look back on the illegality of marijuana as one of the more dumbfounding parts of today's society (and thats saying something). Even more perplexing is that we still have government officials, that apparently with a strait face, put weed in the same category as drugs like heroin and meth. Strange times.

[RichardAWilson]

Comrade-Z, I'm still awaiting a response.

[RichardAWilson]

The problem is people aren't always going to make rational and calculated decisions with regard to the use of psychoactive substances.

In that regard, methamphetamine is much worse than alcohol because it has more abuse potential and is often more psychologically and physically addictive than alcohol.

You can, of course, die from alcohol withdrawal (After years and years of abuse). For more short-term and medium term users, methamphetamine withdrawal is worse than alcohol withdrawal. Also, as our bodies differ, stimulates, which are damaging to one's cardiac muscle and circulatory system, can lead to a serious increase in incidences of stroke, aneurysm and heart-attack, whereas depressants, such as alcohol and pain-killers, take much longer to undermine those systems and muscles.

Making methamphetamine even more dangerous in relation to alcohol is that methamphetamine leads to a short to medium term depletion in the brain's serotonin (a brain chemical connected with pleasure), making it much harder to break the addiction and contributing to almost immediate depression following cessation. Depression connected with methamphetamine withdrawal can be dangerous and has led to suicide.

On another side note,


Over 20 percent of people addicted to methamphetamine develop a long-lasting psychosis resembling schizophrenia after stopping methamphetamine which persists for longer than 6 months

Alcohol has an obvious effect on one's mind. Some of those effects are long-term (A Literal Degeneration of the Mind). However, alcohol abuse is correlated with mental illness (Not the other way around). Methamphetamine abuse is a two way st. (the correlation works forward and reverse).

Nonetheless:

I remain opposed to the War on Drugs.

I think there are much more effective means of rehabilitation and prevention than throwing millions of men and women into a jail cell and forcing them to have a charge on their record that will make it much harder to find a job when they're released.

[Comrade-Z]

Comrade-Z has it.

What I find astonishing is that no less than a hundred years ago, Western society had a completely different attitude to drugs. Opiates and cocaine could be bought freely if I remember correctly.

So what the hell happened?

Around the turn of the century, Protestant missionaries in the Far East and Africa increasingly started to use the idea of teaching (and later, enforcing) abstinence from "intoxicating substances" among their "pagan" converts as justification for their missionary work. The English and (shortly thereafter) American governments jumped on this issue as a fine justification for imperialism. Regulation of the international opium trade, for the good of the "pagan" peoples of the Far East and Africa, was a fine way for these Western imperialist governments to prove the righteousness of their "moral" mission to "uplift and Christianize" these "pagan" peoples.

Protestant missionaries then started to take their ideas about opium use back home. I'm not really familiar with how it played out in England, but in America the missionaries' objection to opium use mixed with existing racism towards Chinese on the West Coast, as well as existing nativist Prohibitionist sentiments (there had already been a vigorous Prohibition movement directed against alcohol since the 1840s, led by middle-class WASPs looking to defend against the "onslaught" on this great, Protestant country by those poor, filthy, alcohol-drinking, Catholic Irish).

An excellent article on this subject is:

Reasons, Charles. "The Politics of Drugs: an Inquiry in the Sociology of Social Problems." The Sociological Quarterly 15, no. 3 (Summer 1974): 381-404.

The first few pages of the article are sociological theory. Feel free to skip that.

If you don't have access to a journal database, then see if your local library has:

Grim, Ryan. This Is Your Country on Drugs: The Secret History of Getting High in America. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2009.

This book has less detail with regards to the origins, and it doesn't really cover the missionary aspect that well, but it's also pretty good.

[Tablo]

Around the turn of the century, Protestant missionaries in the Far East and Africa increasingly started to use the idea of teaching (and later, enforcing) abstinence from "intoxicating substances" among their "pagan" converts as justification for their missionary work. The English and (shortly thereafter) American governments jumped on this issue as a fine justification for imperialism. Regulation of the international opium trade, for the good of the "pagan" peoples of the Far East and Africa, was a fine way for these Western imperialist governments to prove the righteousness of their "moral" mission to "uplift and Christianize" these "pagan" peoples.

Protestant missionaries then started to take their ideas about opium use back home. I'm not really familiar with how it played out in England, but in America the missionaries' objection to opium use mixed with existing racism towards Chinese on the West Coast, as well as existing nativist Prohibitionist sentiments (there had already been a vigorous Prohibition movement directed against alcohol since the 1840s, led by middle-class WASPs looking to defend against the "onslaught" on this great, Protestant country by those poor, filthy, alcohol-drinking, Catholic Irish).

An excellent article on this subject is:

Reasons, Charles. "The Politics of Drugs: an Inquiry in the Sociology of Social Problems." The Sociological Quarterly 15, no. 3 (Summer 1974): 381-404.

The first few pages of the article are sociological theory. Feel free to skip that.

If you don't have access to a journal database, then see if your local library has:

Grim, Ryan. This Is Your Country on Drugs: The Secret History of Getting High in America. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2009.

This book has less detail with regards to the origins, and it doesn't really cover the missionary aspect that well, but it's also pretty good.
Do you think this is tied to the Third Great Awakening? I'm not so familiar with that time period(been more focused with early history and prehistory with my major). I ask you because you seem to know a lot more about the drug war than most here.

[Comrade-Z]

Comrade-Z, I'm still awaiting a response.

I pretty much agree with everything you said.

There are calculated risks in anything that we do in life. Driving a car, eating seafood (as someone who has had food poisoning, let me tell you it's NOT fun!...but that doesn't stop me from continuing to eat seafood. I'm just aware that every time it's a calculated risk...)

Taking meth, or ritalin, or MDPV, or heck, even legal drugs like aspirin is always a calculated risk.

One way of measuring risk is the LD50/ED50 of the substance...the ratio of the dose at which 50% of lab mice die to the dose at which the drug manifests the desired effects for 50% of test subjects. You want a large ratio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_index
As you can see, stimulants have a relatively low ratio (15 to 1), but it's still higher than alcohol (10 to 1). So if you feel safe drinking a few bottles of beer, you should feel safe taking a moderate dose of a stimulant (assuming no pre-existing heart problems...just as one wouldn't want to drink alcohol if one had pre-existing liver problems.)

As for the risk of addiction, you can look at two things:
*What percentage of users of this substance get addicted?
*How much self-control or susceptibility to addiction do I have in general? How does my self-control compare to that of the average user of this substance?

If you know that you have an addictive personality, or if you have a lot of problems in your life that might make you want to escape, then you've got to be extra careful. As for the first question, finding reliable statistics can be very difficult. Many studies are funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse or similar politically-motivated sources, and they will subject the mice to dosages to ridiculous amounts of the substance by weight and then point to the horrible effects of the drug.

Now, should we allow people to take these calculated risks? Considering that we are planning on trusting workers with the far more important and risky task of revolution and the running of society, I don't see how we could justify nannying them on this one issue? Plus, its futile. Humans have used various substances throughout human history, and there is even some evidence of drug use prior to the neolithic revolution (and thus class society). I think we are on the same page here.

[RichardAWilson]

National Institute on Drug Abuse or similar politically-motivated sources.

In Washington D.C. (while I was on vacation), I noticed the Metro Bus Ad that hired cocaine addicts for research.

You remain anonymous and I'm sure the research is based on your own patterns of consumption.

There is room for bias in such research (after all, heavy addicts are more likely to sign up than casual users).

However, I'm sure such research is unbiased with regard to those use patterns and consumption. -

The Research is, after all, based on drug abuse.

[Comrade-Z]

Do you think this is tied to the Third Great Awakening? I'm not so familiar with that time period(been more focused with early history and prehistory with my major). I ask you because you seem to know a lot more about the drug war than most here.

The Third Great Awakening definitely bolstered the Temperance Movement, and insofar as it spurred missionary work, it would have indirectly less to the criminalization of opium (and eventually other substances as well), but from what I gather it did not really influence the criminalization of opium directly. Up until the turn of the century it was perfectly respectable to take a tincture of laudanum for alleviating a common cold.

The first blow really came from the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 (ironically the same piece of legislation inspired by Upton Sinclair's socialist propaganda piece The Jungle that middle-class Americans completely mis-interpreted (whether ignorantly or purposefully) as an indictment of the health standards of the meatpacking industry). After 1906, patent medicines had to list their contents, and it became revealed that pretty much ALL of them used laudanum or cocaine, which, combined with the missionary zeal against opium coming back to the states, racism against Chinese, Mexicans, and blacks, and the rise of the Temperance Movement and the (closely associated) Progressive movement, led eventually to the Harrison Act of 1914.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Narcotics_Tax_Act
(The wiki article actually touches on most of these issues pretty well).

[RichardAWilson]

I also believe we're on the same page. Nonetheless, I believe that there should be mandated rehabilitation for heavier users.

[freakazoid]

What I find astonishing is that no less than a hundred years ago, Western society had a completely different attitude to drugs. Opiates and cocaine could be bought freely if I remember correctly.

So what the hell happened?

Racism, that's what happened. I remember watching an interesting series on the History channel about the history of different drugs that had talked about it.

[Comrade-Z]

I also believe we're on the same page. Nonetheless, I believe that there should be mandated rehabilitation for heavier users.

Sounds reasonable.

What I'd do in communist society is handle drug addicts in the same way as we currently handle schizophrenics. Either voluntary self-commitment, or if the authorities (whether it is a local council or socialist state or whatever) deem the person a threat to themselves or others, then that authority can commit the person until the person is rehabilitated and takes some education classes or whatever. Let's say, if a person has to go to the hospital for acute or chronic health complications relating to drug use more than 3 times in a year, or if that person is on the verge of death from prolonged drug use?

(Of course, if the person does something like drunk driving and hitting another car, or going on a psycho PCP binge and beating up a little old lady whom the person thought was an evil leprechaun, then that person would be punished for those specific harms done to others...and operating heavy machinery while inebriated on judgment and coordination-reducing drugs should be punishable even if no harm results from that particular instance).

Do we also want to say that we will involuntarily intern the person for treatment if that person misses a certain amount of work due to drugs in a year? Tough question...maybe yes?

What, then, to do about hypothetical Joe Schmoe who works just enough to get enough money to survive and buy drugs (or let's say this is communist society, and he works just enough to meet his obligation to his workplace), and the rest of the time he spends eating, sleeping, and doing drugs. Sure, he is an anti-social disappointment to his friends, family, and community, but somehow he is careful enough to not overdose or let his health get run down or let his drug use get in the way of his work...should the authorities involuntarily intern him? Tough question...I'd be predisposed to say, "no," but that's my anarchist bent showing.

[Quail]

Thats right! So in a society that poverty grows with huge steps, how catastrofic is to promote the idea of individualism on the matter of drug use? How "personal" is the choise to use heroine and turn to a junky? How is a big percentege of people becoming addicts a personal and not a social issue? Isnt it like the right wing story of personal responsibility in failure? Isnt the story about the personal choise hiding the real social reasons people turn to drugs?The fact that we live in a world that is totaly agressive towards to us has nothing to do with the big addiction ratios?
1. The use of heroin doesn't automatically make a person a junkie. I've used heroin and cocaine, but I'm not a junkie or a cokehead. You're confusing use with abuse.
2. People don't choose to be addicts. Nobody tries a drug for the first time with the intention of becoming addicted, so I'm not putting the blame on the drug user for becoming hooked.
3. Criminalisation of drugs causes all kinds of problems. It turns the addicts into criminals who buy their stuff from dodgy dealers who mix it with all kind of rubbish. It puts a stigma on addiction so people are more reluctant to seek help. It causes gang crime and forces addicts to steal to maintain their habit. More importantly, it doesn't stop people from taking drugs. If we want to tackle the problem of addiction (which is a mental health problem, and should be treated as such), we need to tackle the social causes of people becoming addicted in the first place, and make it as easy as possible for addicts to function in society and recover.

[socialistjustin]

Good news. Fuck meth. I have watched people go into shit because of it. I guess I could be biased living in Vegas, but I really dont care.

[RichardAWilson]

Do we also want to say that we will involuntarily intern the person for treatment if that person misses a certain amount of work due to drugs in a year?

Tough question...maybe yes?

I still believe random substance testing should be conducted in the workplace. However, it would no longer be used as grounds for termination. Drug testing would no longer be used as a method of termination. However, we do need to ensure workers aren't abusing drugs on the job and aren't missing too much work due to addiction and abuse.

As for the individual that works to use drugs, I think mandated rehabilitation would be in order if the individual has children.

If the individual is single, it's his or her choice. However, in such a case, the individual should be responsible for medical expenses that would be incurred from using the said substance over a long period of time.

Those that don't use drugs shouldn't be expected to subsidize the medical costs of those that do choose to use drugs. The same can be said for heavy drinkers and cigarette smokers. I'm a believer in Single-Payer Health Care. Nonetheless, a "Surcharge" should be added to those who drink, smoke and use drugs.

One idea would be to centralize alcohol, cigarette and drug production in the hands of the State, which would ensure safety and regulation.

State managed production and distribution would allow for external expenses, such as health care, to be reflected in the price for those recreational substances.

With that said, the transition to socialism would lead to a serious reduction in substance abuse. The transition to socialism would reduce the number of individuals abusing drugs and alcohol as a means of "escaping" from life. As fewer and fewer individuals are compelled to use drugs, there would be increased social (peer) pressure on those that continue using drugs.

[Comrade-Z]

If the individual is single, it's his or her choice. However, in such a case, the individual should be responsible for medical expenses that would be incurred from using the said substance over a long period of time.

Okay, but let's say we are talking about in communist society. The person gets medical care for free, and there's not really a currency to charge the person with...which is why I suggested mandatory rehabilitation if the person has to keep on using the medical services too often for drug-related health problems.


With that said, the transition to socialism would lead to a serious reduction in substance abuse. The transition to socialism would reduce the number of individuals abusing drugs and alcohol as a means of "escaping" from life.

Agreed.


As fewer and fewer individuals are compelled to use drugs, there would be increased social (peer) pressure on those that continue using drugs.

I hope not!

I mean, social pressure against drug abuse, yes. Just like it is considered ugly in most European (continental) cultures to let yourself get drunk, I'd expect that people would still consider it ugly if you turned yourself into a drooling idiot, or a tweaked-out zombie, with whatever drug you are abusing. But just as European culture doesn't have a huge hangup about alcohol, I'd hope that we wouldn't still be getting morally brow-beaten about responsible drug use.

Plus, not all drug use is about peer pressure. My first drug I ever tried was Salvia Divinorum. I was looking for an adventure, and I saw reference to it on the internet, did some research on it, and ordered some online. Peer pressure had nothing to do with it. I didn't know anyone else (at the time) who had even heard of the stuff.

[Aurora]

1. The use of heroin doesn't automatically make a person a junkie. I've used heroin and cocaine, but I'm not a junkie or a cokehead. You're confusing use with abuse.
2. People don't choose to be addicts. Nobody tries a drug for the first time with the intention of becoming addicted, so I'm not putting the blame on the drug user for becoming hooked.
3. Criminalisation of drugs causes all kinds of problems. It turns the addicts into criminals who buy their stuff from dodgy dealers who mix it with all kind of rubbish. It puts a stigma on addiction so people are more reluctant to seek help. It causes gang crime and forces addicts to steal to maintain their habit. More importantly, it doesn't stop people from taking drugs. If we want to tackle the problem of addiction (which is a mental health problem, and should be treated as such), we need to tackle the social causes of people becoming addicted in the first place, and make it as easy as possible for addicts to function in society and recover.
I think AttackGRs point was to focus on how capitalism blames the individual rather than recognizing that the individual is a part of society, just like how the capitalist argument goes ya know, poor people are poor because they don't work hard enough, is exactly the same as drug users become addicts because their bad people or stupid or whatever.
Rather than saying that poor people are poor because of extracted surplus value and economic crisis which leaves you fucked employment wise and drug abuse is wanting to escape this shitty alienated reality.

What I find astonishing is that no less than a hundred years ago, Western society had a completely different attitude to drugs. Opiates and cocaine could be bought freely if I remember correctly.
Ya capitalist vacillations huh, easily forgotten that coke was coke and heroin is a brand name. But hey i guess the mass drug abuse lead the priority to change to prison-industry and social control over drug markets.

And you anti-meth people, without meth we wouldn't have Breaking Bad and the world would be a poorer place lol