Skip to comments.
DEA "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization" - a rebuttal
(self)
| March 13, 2012
| (self)
Posted on 03/13/2012 9:55:41 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies
The DEA Web pages on "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization" are linked with some regularity on FR. They're full of errors in fact and logic; since I couldn't find a comprehensive rebuttal online, I've started creating one. Here's my rebuttal to their "Fact 1;" more to come as time permits.
Claim 1: "We have made significant progress in fighting drug use and drug trafficking in America. Now is not the time to abandon our efforts."
-
Claim: On the demand side, the U.S. has reduced casual use, chronic use and addiction, and prevented others from even starting using drugs. Overall drug use in the United States is down by more than a third since the late 1970s. That’s 9.5 million people fewer using illegal drugs. We’ve reduced cocaine use by an astounding 70% during the last 15 years. That’s 4.1 million fewer people using cocaine. Fact: And from 1980 to 1995, alcohol consumption dropped by 23% (http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-1/30-38.htm), while from 1973 to 2006 cigarette smoking dropped by 59% (http://www.lung.org/finding-cures/our-research/trend-reports/Tobacco-Trend-Report.pdf) - all while alcohol and cigarettes remained legal. Correlation is not causation. Here the DEA commits the ancient logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this therefore because of this") - like the rooster who claimed his crowing caused the sun to rise. -
Claim: Almost two-thirds of teens say their schools are drugfree, according to a new survey of teen drug use conducted by The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. This is the first time in the seven-year history of the study that a majority of public school students report drug-free schools. Fact: That's what teens think other teens are doing. Here's what teens say about what they themselves are doing: The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse reported in 2002 that teens said for the first time that they could get marijuana more easily than cigarettes or beer (http://www.casacolumbia.org/download.aspx?path=/UploadedFiles/b0ooqrvk.pdf). This is the DEA's idea of "progress"? What this shows is that the best way to restict teens' access to drugs is to make them legal for adults only (thus giving those who sell to adults a disincentive to sell to kids - namely, the loss of their legal adult market). -
Claim: The good news continues. According to the 2001-2002 PRIDE survey, student drug use has reached the lowest level in nine years.
Fact: And 8 years later, the percentage of daily marijuana use was essentially unchanged (http://www.pridesurveys.com/Reports/index.html), despite ever-rising spending on drug enforcement. Trends in youth drug use simply don't correlate with drug criminalization efforts. Claim: According to the author of the study, “following 9/11, Americans seemed to refocus on family, community, spirituality, and nation.” These statistics show that U.S. efforts to educate kids about the dangers of drugs is making an impact. Like smoking cigarettes, drug use is gaining a stigma which is the best cure for this problem, as it was in the 1980s, when government, business, the media and other national institutions came together to do something about the growing problem of drugs and drug-related violence. This is a trend we should encourage — not send the opposite message of greater acceptance of drug use. Fact: Legalization does not "send the opposite message of greater acceptance of drug use." We manage to educate kids about the dangers of alcohol and tobacco despite their legality. If we're going to criminalize everything we don't want kids doing, we've got a long list to work on. -
Claim: The crack cocaine epidemic of the 1980s and early 1990s has diminished greatly in scope. And we’ve reduced the number of chronic heroin users over the last decade. In addition, the number of new marijuana users and cocaine users continues to steadily decrease. Fact: See the first fact, above. -
Claim: The number of new heroin users dropped from 156,000 in 1976 to 104,000 in 1999, a reduction of 33 percent. Fact: See the first fact, above. -
Claim: Of course, drug policy also has an impact on general crime. In a 2001 study, the British Home Office found violent crime and property crime increased in the late 1990s in every wealthy country except the United States. Our murder rate is too high, and we have much to learn from those with greater success—but this reduction is due in part to a reduction in drug use. Fact: Apparently the DEA hopes we won't notice that:
- All those countries also have anti-drug laws.
- There is no evidence that those countries had rising levels of drug use.
- As mentioned previously, correlation is not causation.
-
Claim: To put things in perspective, less than 5 percent of the population uses illegal drugs of any kind. Fact: According to the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, in 2008 8% of Americans had used an illicit drug in the past month and 14.2% in the past year (http://www.samhsa.gov/data/nsduh/2k8nsduh/tabs/Sect1peTabs1to46.htm#Tab1.19B).
Supply Reduction
-
Claim: There have been many successes on the supply side of the drug fight, as well. For example, Customs officials have made major seizures along the U.S.-Mexico border during a six-month period after September 11th, seizing almost twice as much as the same period in 2001. At one port in Texas, seizures of methamphetamine are up 425% and heroin by 172%. Enforcement makes a difference—traffickers’ costs go up with these kinds of seizures. Fact: Based on available federal government data (http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs44/44849/44849p.pdf, http://www.abtassociates.com/reports/american_users_spend_2002.pdf), no more than 21% of the cocaine that enters this country is seized, and no more than 19% of the heroin. The DEA is grading itself on a very generous curve if it calls a score of 21% anything better than failing. -
Claim: Purity levels of Colombian cocaine are declining too, according to an analysis of samples seized from traffickers and bought from street dealers in the United States. The purity has declined by nine percent, from 86 percent in 1998, to 78 percent in 2001. There are a number of possible reasons for this decline in purity, including DEA supply reduction efforts in South America. Fact: Cocaine purity rises and falls with no correlation to drug enforcement activity; after that cherry-picked dip in 2001, purity rose again (https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/price_purity.pdf). -
Claim: One DEA program, Operation Purple, involves 28 countries and targets the illegal diversion of chemicals used in processing cocaine and other illicit drugs. DEA’s labs have discovered that the oxidation levels for cocaine have been greatly reduced, suggesting that Operation Purple is having a detrimental impact on the production of cocaine. Fact: Oxidation is used to remove impurities; whatever the significance of these reduced oxidation levels, it hasn't meant a reduction in cocaine purity, as shown above. -
Claim: Whatever the final reasons for the decline in drug purity, it is good news for the American public. It means less potent and deadly drugs are hitting the streets, and dealers are making less profits — that is, unless they raise their own prices, which helps price more and more Americans out of the market. Fact: Speaking of prices: powder cocaine prices have declined by roughly 80 percent since 1981, with the average price of one expected pure gram of cocaine purchased at Q1 (i.e., 0.1 to 2.0 bulk grams) costing approximately $107 in 2003. (https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/price_purity.pdf)
-
Claim: Purity levels have also been reduced on methamphetamine by controls on chemicals necessary for its manufacture. The average purity of seized methamphetamine samples dropped from 72 percent in 1994 to 40 percent in 2001. Fact: Methamphetamine purity did decline during that period - but then it rose again. (https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/price_purity.pdf) As with cocaine, purity rises and falls with no correlation to drug enforcement activity. -
Claim:The trafficking organizations that sell drugs are finding that their profession has become a lot more costly. In the mid-1990s, the DEA helped dismantle Burma’s Shan United Army, at the time the world’s largest heroin trafficking organization, which in two years helped reduce the amount of Southeast Asian heroin in the United States from 63 percent of the market to 17 percent of the market. In the mid-1990s, the DEA helped disrupt the Cali cartel, which had been responsible for much of the world’s cocaine. Fact: When Southeast Asian heroin declined, South American heroin picked up the slack. When the Cali cartel was disrupted, other cartels stepped in. These high-profile busts serve only to create opportunities for other traffickers. -
Claim: Progress does not come overnight. America has had a long, dark struggle with drugs. It’s not a war we’ve been fighting for 20 years. We’ve been fighting it for 120 years. In 1880, many drugs, including opium and cocaine, were legal. We didn’t know their harms, but we soon learned. We saw the highest level of drug use ever in our nation, per capita. There were over 400,000 opium addicts in our nation. That’s twice as many per capita as there are today. And like today, we saw rising crime with that drug abuse. But we fought those problems by passing and enforcing tough laws and by educating the public about the dangers of these drugs. And this vigilance worked—by World War II, drug use was reduced to the very margins of society. Fact: The only anti-drug laws passed in the 1880s were against smokable opium, and were targeted at the recently immigrated Chinese laborers. Even when the Harrison Narcotic Act was passed in 1914, "The supporters of the Harrison bill said little in the Congressional debates (which lasted several days) about the evils of narcotics addiction in the United States. They talked more about the need to implement The Hague Convention of 1912," which was "aimed primarily at solving the opium problems of the Far East, especially China." "Even Senator Mann of Mann Act fame, spokesman for the bill in the Senate, talked about international obligations rather than domestic morality. On its face, moreover, the Harrison bill did not appear to be a prohibition law at all." (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm) And if the use of opiates and cocaine declined in the early part of the twentieth century (although the use of barbiturates and amphetamines was widespread), they rose again later despite not a single anti-drug law being repealed. Again we see that trends in drug use do not correlate with anti-drug laws and enforcement.
|
TOPICS: Government; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: anslingersghost; dea; drugs; drugwar; jackbootedthugs; warondrugs; wod; wodlist; wosd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101 next last
To: philman_36
From your post #61
Q - Just how many semester hours of Saul Alinsky training do you have?
A - Long enough to recognize when somebody is using such tactics
hmmm...reads just like an admission, not a denial...
81
posted on
03/14/2012 11:14:07 AM PDT
by
G Larry
(We are NOT obliged to carry the snake in our pocket and then dismiss the bites as natural behavior.)
To: DiogenesLamp
I know people who have died from drug abuse.And you don't think that their death clouds your judgement?
Do you know somebody who has died from a gunshot?
Do you know somebody who has died from an auto accident?
Do you know somebody who has died from a construction accident?
You probably know somebody who has died in a variety of ways and yet only "drug abuse" draw such a vendetta from you.
No, you're shilling and you're doing it through emotional manipulation, IMO.
82
posted on
03/14/2012 11:19:45 AM PDT
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: G Larry
hmmm...reads just like an admission, not a denial...Read it however you choose.

How many semesters did you sit in the corner?
83
posted on
03/14/2012 11:25:25 AM PDT
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: G Larry
We are NOT obliged to carry the snake in our pocket and then dismiss the bites as natural behavior.
If you're stupid enough to carry a snake in your pocket you deserve to get bit.
84
posted on
03/14/2012 11:27:34 AM PDT
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: philman_36
If you’re stupid enough to carry a snake in your pocket you deserve to get bit.
Hey!
You ARE capable of getting the point!
We are NOT obligated, specifically BECAUSE of that risk.
It is in response to the politically correct insistance that we tolerate Islamic extremists in our midst.
85
posted on
03/14/2012 12:10:37 PM PDT
by
G Larry
(We are NOT obliged to carry the snake in our pocket and then dismiss the bites as natural behavior.)
To: DiogenesLamp
You may feel differently, but in my opinion the only similarities which matters are physiology and availability. You light a fire to paper, it burns. It doesn't matter what kind of stacks it is organized in. Drugs bind to receptors in the human body. It's that simple.
No, it's not:
"In 2001, the American Academy of Pain Medicine, the American Pain Society, and the American Society of Addiction Medicine jointly issued "Definitions Related to the Use of Opioids for the Treatment of Pain", which defined the following terms:
"'Addiction is a primary, chronic, neurobiologic disease, with genetic, psychosocial, and environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations. It is characterized by behaviors that include one or more of the following: impaired control over drug use, compulsive use, continued use despite harm, and craving.'" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence
86
posted on
03/14/2012 1:18:15 PM PDT
by
JustSayNoToNannies
(A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
To: G Larry
We are NOT obliged to carry the snake in our pocket and then dismiss the bites as natural behavior.
You're not making a point.
You're making a generality.
87
posted on
03/14/2012 1:28:00 PM PDT
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: philman_36
“We are NOT obliged to carry the snake in our pocket and then dismiss the bites as natural behavior.
If you’re stupid enough to carry a snake in your pocket you deserve to get bit.”
Of course the snake could also refer to legalized drugs.
In which case I quite agree with your conclusion...
“If you’re stupid enough to carry a snake in your pocket you deserve to get bit.”
88
posted on
03/14/2012 1:33:10 PM PDT
by
G Larry
(We are NOT obliged to carry the snake in our pocket and then dismiss the bites as natural behavior.)
To: DiogenesLamp
My recollection is that legal alcohol kills ~ 50,000 people per year. Isn't that a small sacrifice to pay for it? Only 50,000 dead people? (per year) Yes, we certainly need another bunch of substances to add to the death rate. You didn't answer my question: Do you support narrowing the array of poisons by returning to alcohol Prohibition?
I answered it, but not in a way you wished it to be answered.
What I wish is a straight answer with no tapdancing. Your strongly implied response was, "Yes, I support narrowing the array of poisons by returning to alcohol Prohibition, because legal alcohol kills ~ 50,000 people per year." Was that the response you intended to imply?
Regarding Alcohol Prohibition, I would suggest the best way to handle the abuse of it is through regulation, as is done now.
So why don't we handle the abuse of other potentially lethal drugs in the same way? Why ban them?
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse reported in 2002 that teens said for the first time that they could get marijuana more easily than cigarettes or beer (http://www.casacolumbia.org/download.aspx?path=/UploadedFiles/b0ooqrvk.pdf). What this shows is that the best way to restict teens' access to drugs is to make them legal for adults only (thus giving those who sell to adults a disincentive to sell to kids - namely, the loss of their legal adult market).
What this shows is that those who support legalization can write stuff.
So you assume CASA supports legalization? Wipe the egg off your face; a search on the CASA site for the string "legaliz" turns up these CASA publications:
DEVIOUS EFFORTS TO LEGALIZE DRUGS
Medical Marijuana in the NY State Legislature: Sheep's Clothing for the Wolf of Legalization
CASA* RELEASES REPORT: NON-MEDICAL MARIJUANA - RITE OF PASSAGE OR RUSSIAN ROULETTE?
Do We Really Want a 'Needle Park' on American Soil?
DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION: OUR CHILDREN ARE AT STAKE
But that benefit will be more than overwhelmed by the incidence of Addiction spreading throughout the land.
Nonsense. Is illegality YOUR only reason - or even your primary reason - for not using addictive drugs?
Not at all.
Then why should we think there are many people who aren't using those drugs now but will once they're legal?
I know the Swiss weren't very happy with their experiment.
Legalization in a single small area is probably the worst possible way to do legalization. Let's not do it that way.
And as China's experience shows, blanket legalization in multiple large areas is also the worst way to do legalization.
Already rebutted; educate yourself about our modern knowledge of addiction.
89
posted on
03/14/2012 1:34:03 PM PDT
by
JustSayNoToNannies
(A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
To: DiogenesLamp
How do you know "only so much government as is necessary, and not more" is more than "almost NO governmental control"? Someone MUST enforce the laws to protect our Liberties.
There are many laws whose enforcement erodes rather than protects our liberties - or are you under the impression that we have already reached the goal of "only so much government as is necessary, and not more"?
Someone MUST defend the nation to protect our Liberties.
Where is the evidence that libertarians oppose defending the nation?
That's a circular statement - if there were no laws against drugs, drugs would no longer be an issue of law enforcement.
If there were no laws against murder, murder would not be an issue of law enforcement. I can see how YOUR statement is circular.
Not my statement - I never made a statement of the form, "I see X as an issue of law enforcement."
I regard drugs as CAUSING an injury to innocent people, and is therefore wrong even in accordance with Libertarian philosophy. Libertarians simply refuse to see any "injury" and so contend that no one is being harmed by someone else.
Who is injured, and how?
People kill themselves with alcohol. Should we return to Prohibition?
All or nothing eh? I think there is an appropriate middle between the two extremes.
But only for the drug alcohol, and not for other drugs?
False analogy - a communicable disease infects a person with no element of choice on their part, whereas drugs don't leap down people's throats.
Drugs soak in through atmosphere and osmosis. Friends talk friends into trying it, with absolutely no understanding that it might burn them for the rest of their life. Same thing with cigarettes; An addiction that kills millions of people every year, yet which is spread through social contact.
Euphemistic rhetoric about "social contact" or "talking into" doesn't remove the element of choice; your analogy remains false.
You might recover from a communicable disease more easily than a substance addiction.
Irrelevant to the difference that renders your analogy false.
90
posted on
03/14/2012 1:44:47 PM PDT
by
JustSayNoToNannies
(A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
To: G Larry
And your reply proves you're making a generality.
91
posted on
03/14/2012 1:57:22 PM PDT
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: JustSayNoToNannies
Sorry, i’m done with this issue. At least here on Free Republic. I don’t mind overlooking quirks among my allies.
92
posted on
03/14/2012 1:57:52 PM PDT
by
DiogenesLamp
(Partus Sequitur Patrem)
To: philman_36
Once the government legislates what you can't put into your body they will then start to legislate what you must put into your body. I'm an adult, not a child! I neither need, nor want, the government telling me what to do in every aspect of my life.
That's why there is a Ninth Amendment to the Constitution.
I look forward to any replies.
Here's my reply:
93
posted on
03/14/2012 2:17:13 PM PDT
by
Talisker
(He who commands, must obey.)
To: DiogenesLamp
But not done educating yourself, I hope:
“Genetic factors account for about half of the likelihood that an individual will develop addiction. Environmental factors interact with the persons biology and affect the extent to which genetic factors exert their influence. Resiliencies the individual acquires (through parenting or later life experiences) can affect the extent to which genetic predispositions lead to the behavioral and other manifestations of addiction. Culture also plays a role in how addiction becomes actualized in persons with biological vulnerabilities to the development of addiction.”
- http://www.asam.org/research-treatment/definition-of-addiction
94
posted on
03/14/2012 2:18:16 PM PDT
by
JustSayNoToNannies
(A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
To: DiogenesLamp
I dont mind overlooking quirks among my allies.
They aren't "quirks", they're principles!
Your principles appear to be on a sliding scale.
95
posted on
03/14/2012 2:36:28 PM PDT
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: Talisker
Thank you. I can only try, I have no guarantee of success.
96
posted on
03/14/2012 2:41:07 PM PDT
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: DiogenesLamp
Here is a rebuttal to you. This is the NORMAL progression of drugs when they are not interdicted.The DEA itself gives figures that show a substantial decline in addiction rates in the US between 1880 and 1900, when these drugs were completely legal. See post #6
How do you explain that?
97
posted on
03/14/2012 11:34:34 PM PDT
by
Ken H
(Austerity is the irresistible force. Entitlements are the immovable object.)
To: JustSayNoToNannies
You give politicians, bureaucrats and institutions power and a money channel, they will lie to expand their power and increase the flow of money.
Don't believe a word they say.
Reefer Madness wasn't an aberration, it was a model.
98
posted on
03/20/2012 5:37:54 PM PDT
by
Jabba the Nutt
(.Are they stupid, malicious or evil?)
To: DiogenesLamp
I’m not a libertarian, and I’m against the War on Drugs. Maybe you’ll say that makes me a libertarian, but that would just be a “No True Scotsman” argument.
To: Boogieman
Im not a libertarian, and Im against the War on Drugs. Maybe youll say that makes me a libertarian, but that would just be a No True Scotsman argument. I'm not discussing this issue on Free Republic. There are people whom I consider to be allies whom I don't wish to offend. I thought I had made my point (That drug addiction will go out of control without the war on drugs) quite clear before I quit discussing this issue. If my point cannot be understood with what I have already presented, I don't think it will be worthwhile to present anything more.
100
posted on
03/21/2012 7:51:23 AM PDT
by
DiogenesLamp
(Partus Sequitur Patrem)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson