6 ms·

The problem with these kinds of articles is that they make the assumption that governmental drug fighting efforts are sincere. They probably aren't that sincere

by jksmith 18y ago

The problem with these kinds of articles is that they make the assumption that governmental drug fighting efforts are sincere. They probably aren't that sincere to their original intent now. Like most other government agencies, they start out with some presumption of sincerity, but then the old case of "the means becomes the ends" sets in. Reminds me of what Tom Wolfe meant when the lawyer character in Bonfire of the Vanities labelled the line of criminals waiting at the back of the courthouse as "chow." The DEA will probably never go away, because it keeps people employed for one thing, and helps large pharmaceutical companies keep small pharm companies (makers of class II, III drugs with expired patents) from building a legitimate enough business that would help these smaller companies spend money on new drug research. Keeping drugs illegal is good business; it has less to do with discouraging illicit drug use.

Andys 18y ago
Some people I know who have tried both legal anti-depressants and illegal drugs, and I can't see the difference, other than the legal one is patented. They both have pretty similar effects including fairly strong addiction.
- jibiki 18y ago
  Isn't this just BS, physiologically speaking? I have never heard of SSRIs increasing dopamine levels. Wikipedia even claims the opposite: "It is believed that sexual dysfunction is caused by an SSRI induced reduction in dopamine."
  - mnemonicsloth 18y ago
    1. "Anti-depressant" is not synonymous with "SSRI". Benzodiazepines are also used to treat depression and can create a strong chemical dependency. 2. The concept of addiction is hard to define, and is becoming more so. Some drugs (marijuana springs to mind) can be considered addictive, but don't seem to cause the unthinking crave-gratify-repeat cycle you see with cocaine or nicotine. Some have argued that checking email or Facebook, playing MMORPGs, and "consuming" pornography are addictive.
    - g__g 18y ago
      I second your take on addiction of drugs.
Xichekolas 18y ago
Honestly I think the whole reason for the "war on drugs" is to justify domestic surveillance and wire tapping. You make a valid point that it also has become it's own end, but I also think it's much easier to have strong and assertive domestic law enforcement when you can justify it by claiming they are "fighting the war on drugs".
- pwim 18y ago
  We can move on now as we have the "war on terror" to justify these now.
- ellyagg 18y ago
  I wish you and your parent would stick with Occam's Razor on this one. There really are a large percentage of reasonably minded people who think that legalizing drugs would cause more harm than good. Considering that alcohol has well-known negative effects on society, and is legal, it's not as if these folks' concerns are outrageous. I'm fully, passionately on board with legalizing drugs, but accusing your opponents of intellectual dishonesty all the time only impresses people who already agree with you.
  - Xichekolas 18y ago
    Well when I said that I wasn't trying to claim that everyone who supports the current drug laws was being intellectually dishonest. I was trying to say that I think the reason law enforcement (at all levels) pursues the 'drug war' so assertively is that it justifies a lot of spending, manpower, and surveillance, which may be good or bad. When something pays the bills and gives you a little more latitude to operate, you'll find ways to justify it whether you are winning or losing.
iamelgringo 18y ago
The problem with these kinds of articles is that they make the assumption that governmental drug fighting efforts are sincere. They probably aren't that sincere to their original intent now. I don't quite understand your usage of the word "sincere". As an ER nurse that's worked in the ghetto of Chicago, I have worked alongside many law enforcement officers. The thinking that hard drugs (cocaine, heroine, crack, meth) are bad and should be off the streets is a sincere and fairly universal belief. The majority of the efforts that I've seen first hand in getting these drugs off the streets are well intentioned and sincere albeit ineffective and futile. The DEA will probably never go away, because it keeps people employed for one thing, and helps large pharmaceutical companies keep small pharm companies (makers of class II, III drugs with expired patents) from building a legitimate enough business that would help these smaller companies spend money on new drug research. Keeping drugs illegal is good business; it has less to do with discouraging illicit drug use. Wow, that's a really cynical point of view, and sounds very conspiratorial. Mind you, I would have little problems with legalization of many drugs that are strictly controlled now. I've administered cocaine and very strong morphine derivatives to patients for years. I've also lost track of how many people's lives I've helped save from heroine OD's. People make choices to kill themselves with alcohol. They can also choose to kill themselves with cocaine as far as I'm concerned. If cocaine were as cheap and abundant as alcohol, there wouldn't be as much crime as far as I'm concerned. But the idea that Big Pharma is in collusion with the DEA to keep certain classes of drugs is silly as far as I'm concerned. A much simpler explanation is that a large percentage of the population thinks that these substances are evil or too dangerous to be freely available. You find quite of bit of support for legalizing marijuana on the Coasts, but even among the drug legalization crowd, I haven't really heard too many people suggesting that morphine/heroine derivatives like Vicodin and Oxycontin, or stimulants like cocaine be sold freely like alcohol or nicotine. I don't believe that our society is ready to accept that.
- rms 18y ago
  You must understand why people have conspiratorial attitudes here: the CIA has on more than one occasion been involved with drug trafficking. Iran-Contra at the very least. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking The particular conspiracy of the grandparent post doesn't make much sense though -- DEA scheduling is not what makes it hard for smaller pharma companies. Jksmith, could you explain your logic a little more with that?

by jksmith 18y ago

The problem with these kinds of articles is that they make the assumption that governmental drug fighting efforts are sincere. They probably aren't that sincere to their original intent now. Like most other government agencies, they start out with some presumption of sincerity, but then the old case of "the means becomes the ends" sets in. Reminds me of what Tom Wolfe meant when the lawyer character in Bonfire of the Vanities labelled the line of criminals waiting at the back of the courthouse as "chow." The DEA will probably never go away, because it keeps people employed for one thing, and helps large pharmaceutical companies keep small pharm companies (makers of class II, III drugs with expired patents) from building a legitimate enough business that would help these smaller companies spend money on new drug research. Keeping drugs illegal is good business; it has less to do with discouraging illicit drug use.

Andys 18y ago

Some people I know who have tried both legal anti-depressants and illegal drugs, and I can't see the difference, other than the legal one is patented. They both have pretty similar effects including fairly strong addiction.

jibiki 18y ago
Isn't this just BS, physiologically speaking? I have never heard of SSRIs increasing dopamine levels. Wikipedia even claims the opposite: "It is believed that sexual dysfunction is caused by an SSRI induced reduction in dopamine."
- mnemonicsloth 18y ago
  1. "Anti-depressant" is not synonymous with "SSRI". Benzodiazepines are also used to treat depression and can create a strong chemical dependency. 2. The concept of addiction is hard to define, and is becoming more so. Some drugs (marijuana springs to mind) can be considered addictive, but don't seem to cause the unthinking crave-gratify-repeat cycle you see with cocaine or nicotine. Some have argued that checking email or Facebook, playing MMORPGs, and "consuming" pornography are addictive.
  - g__g 18y ago
    I second your take on addiction of drugs.

Xichekolas 18y ago

Honestly I think the whole reason for the "war on drugs" is to justify domestic surveillance and wire tapping. You make a valid point that it also has become it's own end, but I also think it's much easier to have strong and assertive domestic law enforcement when you can justify it by claiming they are "fighting the war on drugs".

pwim 18y ago
We can move on now as we have the "war on terror" to justify these now.
ellyagg 18y ago
I wish you and your parent would stick with Occam's Razor on this one. There really are a large percentage of reasonably minded people who think that legalizing drugs would cause more harm than good. Considering that alcohol has well-known negative effects on society, and is legal, it's not as if these folks' concerns are outrageous. I'm fully, passionately on board with legalizing drugs, but accusing your opponents of intellectual dishonesty all the time only impresses people who already agree with you.
- Xichekolas 18y ago
  Well when I said that I wasn't trying to claim that everyone who supports the current drug laws was being intellectually dishonest. I was trying to say that I think the reason law enforcement (at all levels) pursues the 'drug war' so assertively is that it justifies a lot of spending, manpower, and surveillance, which may be good or bad. When something pays the bills and gives you a little more latitude to operate, you'll find ways to justify it whether you are winning or losing.

iamelgringo 18y ago

The problem with these kinds of articles is that they make the assumption that governmental drug fighting efforts are sincere. They probably aren't that sincere to their original intent now. I don't quite understand your usage of the word "sincere". As an ER nurse that's worked in the ghetto of Chicago, I have worked alongside many law enforcement officers. The thinking that hard drugs (cocaine, heroine, crack, meth) are bad and should be off the streets is a sincere and fairly universal belief. The majority of the efforts that I've seen first hand in getting these drugs off the streets are well intentioned and sincere albeit ineffective and futile. The DEA will probably never go away, because it keeps people employed for one thing, and helps large pharmaceutical companies keep small pharm companies (makers of class II, III drugs with expired patents) from building a legitimate enough business that would help these smaller companies spend money on new drug research. Keeping drugs illegal is good business; it has less to do with discouraging illicit drug use. Wow, that's a really cynical point of view, and sounds very conspiratorial. Mind you, I would have little problems with legalization of many drugs that are strictly controlled now. I've administered cocaine and very strong morphine derivatives to patients for years. I've also lost track of how many people's lives I've helped save from heroine OD's. People make choices to kill themselves with alcohol. They can also choose to kill themselves with cocaine as far as I'm concerned. If cocaine were as cheap and abundant as alcohol, there wouldn't be as much crime as far as I'm concerned. But the idea that Big Pharma is in collusion with the DEA to keep certain classes of drugs is silly as far as I'm concerned. A much simpler explanation is that a large percentage of the population thinks that these substances are evil or too dangerous to be freely available. You find quite of bit of support for legalizing marijuana on the Coasts, but even among the drug legalization crowd, I haven't really heard too many people suggesting that morphine/heroine derivatives like Vicodin and Oxycontin, or stimulants like cocaine be sold freely like alcohol or nicotine. I don't believe that our society is ready to accept that.

rms 18y ago
You must understand why people have conspiratorial attitudes here: the CIA has on more than one occasion been involved with drug trafficking. Iran-Contra at the very least. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking The particular conspiracy of the grandparent post doesn't make much sense though -- DEA scheduling is not what makes it hard for smaller pharma companies. Jksmith, could you explain your logic a little more with that?