6 ms·

Of course racism was prevalent at the time, but does that discredit all arguments against putting cocaine in soda? Can we say that the social ill-effects are co

by Camillo 14y ago

Of course racism was prevalent at the time, but does that discredit all arguments against putting cocaine in soda? Can we say that the social ill-effects are completely imaginary just because at the time concern was focused on blacks? The article seems to be suggesting this, but stops short of saying "let's start drinking cocaine again". Is the journalist ultimately unconvinced by his own arguments?

Alex3917 14y ago
"Can we say that the social ill-effects are completely imaginary just because at the time concern was focused on blacks?" Cocaine isn't any worse than caffeine, which is to say that it's not bad at all. It's actually better in many ways, e.g. it's much less harmful to unborn children. As far as I know there aren't any health or social harms from cocaine, at least at the dosage and ingestion method we're talking about here.
- zevyoura 14y ago
  Do you have sources for this? My impression is that cocaine is significantly more addictive than caffeine, which seems like a very large negative. This page (which I believe is meant to be sympathetic to legalization) seems to imply cocaine is 'worse' on every metric: http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/28 http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/28
  - Alex3917 14y ago
    "Do you have sources for this?" The two best sources would be - The Consumer Union's Guide To Licit and Illicit Substances: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cumen... (Written by the same non-profit that writes consumer reports) - The WHO report on cocaine: http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2009/06/report-they-didnt-want-you-to-see.html http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2009/06/report-they-didn... "My impression is that cocaine is significantly more addictive than caffeine, which seems like a very large negative." It's not, the addictive potential is almost identical to that of caffeine. The page you're linking to is wrong, they're comparing people snorting (or smoking) cocaine with people drinking caffeine. They're also not comparing the harms caused by the drugs, but rather the harms caused to users. This might sound pedantic, but it's actually really important because the most hardcore drug addicts are drawn to the drugs that have the reputations of being the most hardcore. Which means that cocaine users on average have more health problems that caffeine users, but that doesn't mean that cocaine is any more dangerous.
    - zevyoura 14y ago
      Thanks for following up, this is very interesting reading.
      - njs12345 14y ago
        If you are interested in these kinds of things, you might find David Nutt's book interesting: http://www.amazon.com/Drugs-Without-Hot-David-Nutt/dp/1906860165/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1359682440&sr=8-1&keywords=drugs+without+the+hot+air http://www.amazon.com/Drugs-Without-Hot-David-Nutt/dp/190686... It's perhaps a little UK-centric, but I found it well argued and the author is eminently credible.
        Alex3917 14y ago
        FWIW the analysis that I'm criticizing as propaganda is straight out of Nutt's research. (Or else is very similar to Nutt's research, I didn't look at the source.)
Symmetry 14y ago
If a story lead us to better understand the world then it doesn't necessarily have to come with a neat morals. I'm sure that there were social ill-effects from old-style Coca-Cola, but the people who had experience with both it and liquor being available judged that alcohol was the more dangerous. But it looks like crack is a much more dangerous form of cocaine, so maybe we ought to keep that banned? Maybe an ideal drug control regime, by some metric, would be to allow beer and wine and old-style Coca-Cola but ban gin and crack? I won't claim to know, but debates on this ought to be based on historical evidence as much as possible.
betterunix 14y ago
"all arguments against putting cocaine in soda" What other arguments have been given? Alcohol is the only major drug to have been re-legalized after being banned in America. "Can we say that the social ill-effects are completely imaginary" What social ill-effects can you cite in the case of cocaine-infused soda? "The article seems to be suggesting this, but stops short of saying "let's start drinking cocaine again". Is the journalist ultimately unconvinced by his own arguments?" It is politically incorrect to argue against the war on drugs, regardless of the damage it has caused to society (much greater than any damage the drugs themselves cause). We are trained from an early age to assume that drugs are bad, and to assume without question that drugs should be illegal (naturally, "medicine" is in a different category). It makes no difference whether or not the war on drugs has been productive, effective at solving any constructive goal, or in any way beneficial when everyone is fed DARE-style propaganda from age 5. The reality is that in today's world, we should be more afraid of the DEA than of the drugs they "regulate," since their form of "regulation" involves assault rifles, grenades, and tanks (yes, really, surplus military vehicles including tanks and helicopters are routinely transferred to law enforcement agencies). The DEA, like the FBI, has amassed so much signals intelligence power that they are considered to be part of the US intelligence community. The DEA can and does recycle the proceeds from seized property into its own budget -- a practice that was authorized in the 1980s. The DEA can declare drugs to be illegal, without congressional action, for a year -- and prosecute people for possessing or distributing those drugs. The DEA can override congressional recommendations on drug regulation, as they infamously did with MDMA (ecstasy). Meanwhile, with only two major exceptions, we are getting no tax revenue from recreational drug sales, there is no regulation on the purity or safety of recreational drugs, doctors have no idea what drugs their patients actually ingested, there is no age limit that drug merchants respect (high schoolers can buy cocaine just as easily as working adults), and criminals have access to a massive, steady, and enormous market. There is no time that would be "too soon" to end the war on drugs, develop useful regulations on recreational drugs, and restore our democracy.
- IgorPartola 14y ago
  > What social ill-effects can you cite in the case of cocaine-infused soda? What social ill effects can you cite for not distributing bath salts with every hot meal lunch to grade schoolers? I don't believe that specific combination has been done recently (or ever) so we have no evidence it's bad. Let's do it! </sarcasm> Constructively speaking, perhaps we should do the research first, and put cocaine in soda after.

by Camillo 14y ago

Alex3917 14y ago

"Can we say that the social ill-effects are completely imaginary just because at the time concern was focused on blacks?" Cocaine isn't any worse than caffeine, which is to say that it's not bad at all. It's actually better in many ways, e.g. it's much less harmful to unborn children. As far as I know there aren't any health or social harms from cocaine, at least at the dosage and ingestion method we're talking about here.

zevyoura 14y ago
Do you have sources for this? My impression is that cocaine is significantly more addictive than caffeine, which seems like a very large negative. This page (which I believe is meant to be sympathetic to legalization) seems to imply cocaine is 'worse' on every metric: http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/28 http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/28
- Alex3917 14y ago
  "Do you have sources for this?" The two best sources would be - The Consumer Union's Guide To Licit and Illicit Substances: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cumen... (Written by the same non-profit that writes consumer reports) - The WHO report on cocaine: http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2009/06/report-they-didnt-want-you-to-see.html http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2009/06/report-they-didn... "My impression is that cocaine is significantly more addictive than caffeine, which seems like a very large negative." It's not, the addictive potential is almost identical to that of caffeine. The page you're linking to is wrong, they're comparing people snorting (or smoking) cocaine with people drinking caffeine. They're also not comparing the harms caused by the drugs, but rather the harms caused to users. This might sound pedantic, but it's actually really important because the most hardcore drug addicts are drawn to the drugs that have the reputations of being the most hardcore. Which means that cocaine users on average have more health problems that caffeine users, but that doesn't mean that cocaine is any more dangerous.
  - zevyoura 14y ago
    Thanks for following up, this is very interesting reading.
    - njs12345 14y ago
      If you are interested in these kinds of things, you might find David Nutt's book interesting: http://www.amazon.com/Drugs-Without-Hot-David-Nutt/dp/1906860165/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1359682440&sr=8-1&keywords=drugs+without+the+hot+air http://www.amazon.com/Drugs-Without-Hot-David-Nutt/dp/190686... It's perhaps a little UK-centric, but I found it well argued and the author is eminently credible.
      - Alex3917 14y ago
        FWIW the analysis that I'm criticizing as propaganda is straight out of Nutt's research. (Or else is very similar to Nutt's research, I didn't look at the source.)

Symmetry 14y ago

If a story lead us to better understand the world then it doesn't necessarily have to come with a neat morals. I'm sure that there were social ill-effects from old-style Coca-Cola, but the people who had experience with both it and liquor being available judged that alcohol was the more dangerous. But it looks like crack is a much more dangerous form of cocaine, so maybe we ought to keep that banned? Maybe an ideal drug control regime, by some metric, would be to allow beer and wine and old-style Coca-Cola but ban gin and crack? I won't claim to know, but debates on this ought to be based on historical evidence as much as possible.

betterunix 14y ago

"all arguments against putting cocaine in soda" What other arguments have been given? Alcohol is the only major drug to have been re-legalized after being banned in America. "Can we say that the social ill-effects are completely imaginary" What social ill-effects can you cite in the case of cocaine-infused soda? "The article seems to be suggesting this, but stops short of saying "let's start drinking cocaine again". Is the journalist ultimately unconvinced by his own arguments?" It is politically incorrect to argue against the war on drugs, regardless of the damage it has caused to society (much greater than any damage the drugs themselves cause). We are trained from an early age to assume that drugs are bad, and to assume without question that drugs should be illegal (naturally, "medicine" is in a different category). It makes no difference whether or not the war on drugs has been productive, effective at solving any constructive goal, or in any way beneficial when everyone is fed DARE-style propaganda from age 5. The reality is that in today's world, we should be more afraid of the DEA than of the drugs they "regulate," since their form of "regulation" involves assault rifles, grenades, and tanks (yes, really, surplus military vehicles including tanks and helicopters are routinely transferred to law enforcement agencies). The DEA, like the FBI, has amassed so much signals intelligence power that they are considered to be part of the US intelligence community. The DEA can and does recycle the proceeds from seized property into its own budget -- a practice that was authorized in the 1980s. The DEA can declare drugs to be illegal, without congressional action, for a year -- and prosecute people for possessing or distributing those drugs. The DEA can override congressional recommendations on drug regulation, as they infamously did with MDMA (ecstasy). Meanwhile, with only two major exceptions, we are getting no tax revenue from recreational drug sales, there is no regulation on the purity or safety of recreational drugs, doctors have no idea what drugs their patients actually ingested, there is no age limit that drug merchants respect (high schoolers can buy cocaine just as easily as working adults), and criminals have access to a massive, steady, and enormous market. There is no time that would be "too soon" to end the war on drugs, develop useful regulations on recreational drugs, and restore our democracy.

IgorPartola 14y ago
> What social ill-effects can you cite in the case of cocaine-infused soda? What social ill effects can you cite for not distributing bath salts with every hot meal lunch to grade schoolers? I don't believe that specific combination has been done recently (or ever) so we have no evidence it's bad. Let's do it! </sarcasm> Constructively speaking, perhaps we should do the research first, and put cocaine in soda after.