Drug Testing Would Dry Up Demand, Colombia Says (Uribe Proposes Mass Drug Testing For Americans)

Associated Press ^ | Nov. 23, 2002

[Wolfie]

Drug Testing Would Dry Up Demand, Colombia Says

Colombia's president proposed a new front in the global war on drugs: mass drug testing for Americans and Europeans.

Reviving the traditional conflict between drug-producing and drug-consuming nations, President Álvaro Uribe said yesterday the tests would dry up demand for drugs that Colombian insurgents sell to finance their decades-old civil war.

"We need more serious commitments from the consumer countries," Uribe said at a conference of Spanish and Latin-American attorneys general.

He called on "the people in the United States and Europe to submit to a drug test to help us conquer drugs." Uribe singled out U.S. and European executives to start the process.

Colombia produces 90 percent of the world's cocaine. Drug trafficking supports both the leftist rebels waging a bloody 38-year war against the government and their rivals, the illegal right-wing militias. Some 3,500 people die in the fighting every year.

Many Colombians believe the government could win the war quickly if it weren't for the money the rebels and the right-wing militias make from the drug trade.

Even though possession of a personal supply of cocaine or marijuana is legal in Colombia, the levels of drug use are low compared to the United States and Europe.

[Cold Heat]

Yah! Sure!

[Glenn]

Geez. I take 9 different medications per day. What are the odds of one of them sending up a red flag?

[FastCoyote]

I think this is brilliant. Since drugs are already illegal, but 25 million of the population are regular users by many estimates, it's time we put all those outlaws in jail. We will just need to build ten times the number of prisons we already have. After all, if you aren't a criminal, you shouldn't have anything to fear.

[fporretto]

I just purely love it when the politicos of other countries advise us to make our State as fascistic as theirs are, don't you?

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

[steve50]

Ah let's see, 25 million people @ $30,000 a year for incarceration, plus new prison space needed, plus 200,000,000 drugs tests a month/year, and throw in the political hacks to run the show.

Be a lot cheaper just to clean the CIA up

[ctonious]

Uribe singled out U.S. and European executives to start the process.

They can recover a lot of their product by urine-testing Clinton, the next time the scumbag visits Cartagena.

[Gorzaloon]

Well, if people did not buy them, the prices would collapse, and in that he has a point. But as you say, you cannot put 10% of the population in prison..that would be absurd.

Consider this, for economic good or ill (I am not sure what it is..):

Pure cocaine may be bought by research labs with a DEA license for $5.00/gram. So let's call that a base price, even though in the tonnage quantities in the drug market, that price would plunge.

In reality, that gram, in my area, is diluted down to 15-20% by the time it hits the street consumer in a bad neighborhood..The yuppies get "better" stuff.

So that gram is actually retailed at up to $500! It is no surprise distributors do not hesitate to shoot each other.

Now, economically, is that 1,000% profit good, or bad? On one hand, it buys expensive clothing, cars, etc., and stimulates the economy.

It also raises Emergency Room costs and losses due to crime.

I suppose most of the profits just go back to buy more drugs, though.

[LadyDoc]

Drug testing in a low risk population would be nonsense, because statistically you would find more "false negatives" than true postitives.

Although it is often reported that 30, or 50 or whatever percentage of the population has taken drugs, the actually percentage in the past month is 10 percent, with 5 percent daily users.

So the test would be positive between five and ten percent of the time. (THC and benzodiazepams remain in the system for weeks or months, due to fat solubility, which is why "recreational" marijuana has long term effects not present in the rapidly metabolized alcohol or cocaine)

However, other drugs test positive. Motrin tests positive for THC. Sudafed tests positive for Cocaine. And then there are lab errors: one percent. (higher than 2 percent, your lab is bad, but lower than one percent, then someone is faking the data).

Since most druggies (i.e. the five percent heavy users) are known, that means you are testing the occassional users and the 90 percent who are non users. You might pick up 20 percent of the occassional users, or one percent. And one percent would be "false positives".

This was a problem with the Army: For example, when I did a drug screen, I had recent surgery. They looked at all the narcotics and said, forget it. I'd test positive for narcotics for months...since narcotics, also are fat soluble.

Finally, many THC users who are drug tested take "antidotes" i.e. herbs like golden seal that prevent the test from showing positive. This is well known in the druggie community, and is one reason that golden seal is one of the most common herbs sold...

[steve50]

Way I see it is they can't run these operations without the help of the big banks cleaning up the cash. Both parties oppose any law that wants to look at the money laundering aspects of the drug business. The only conclusion that leaves is they both have backers who profit from it.

Interesting report out on an interview with Atta's girlfriend and the activities at the flight school in Venice, starting to look like it was another Mena operation. Might explain why this independent investigation has gone nowhere.

[steve50]

Drug testing in a low risk population would be nonsense, because statistically you would find more "false negatives" than true postitives.

We've had judges admit to use. If we are going to test we can't have this "low risk" BS that lets certain groups avoid the law.

[coloradan]

indexing

[Wolfie]

At the very least, politicians (national, state, and local), as well as judges, LEOs and prosecutors should be drug tested randomly and frequently.

As far as the "low risk" nonsense, we all know it means white and/or wealthy. But of course, targeting anybody of means and influence would put a stop to drug testing of anybody at all rather quickly, which is why it will never happen.

[steve50]

Of course 20 carwash employees are more important than one sitting appeals judge, or narcotic task force agent.

I like his idea to start with the big shots, he seems to understand the problem

[APBaer]

"Colombia's president proposed a new front in the global war on drugs: mass drug testing"

I really got a double take on this one,
I thought it the President of Columbia University.
My head spun around like in the "Exorcist."

[Wolfie]

bump

[Wolfie]

ping

[jmc813]

WOD Ping

[AntiGuv]

Well, it would probably galvanize a new and wholly unexpected class of voters, if nothing else. ;)

[dcwusmc]

Bump