Like most people I know, I think US drug policy is stupid. Prevention and treatment services are routinely cut (or never funded in the first place) in order to fund law enforcement's clever idea to stop drug abuse: putting people in prison. Right. Because as Goodfellas and Oz have taught us, there are no drugs whatsoever available to inmates in prison.
Admittedly I have my own prejudices about drugs and people who use them. I can't stand drunk people, and have much difficulty not judging adult alcoholics. I could go one all day about how pot is less harmful to one's body (and society at large) than alcohol or cigarettes. Also more cost effective in many cases. In the grand scheme of things, pot is not so bad. But cocaine? Dangerous. Addictive. Ruins your body after routine use. I can recite various kinds of propaganda I've seen as a kid in school: septums that totally disintegrated, for example. Gross. Obviously, cocaine is terrible while pot is mostly okay. Sounds reasonable, right? Wrong.
Turns out, WHO (the world health organization, in case you live under a rock) totally buried a report that illustrates the following:
1. Moderate cocaine use is not particularly hard on the body. Like pot, it's risks are less serious than those associated with booze and cigs.
2. Cocaine is not always physically addictive.
3. Jailing users and sellers has little, if any, effect on use overall.
4. The real answer to problem drug users is intervention and treatment, not incarceration.
The findings here are surprising, to me at least. Much more surprising and upsetting is the fact that WHO would bury a valid report because of politics. Their job is to get factual information that will then allow policy makers to make good decisions on how to improve our handling of such things. Hiding that information cheats everyone in the whole world out of the intelligent discourse that should be taking place.
But that's not all. Why bury the report? Why pretend to care about stemming drug use while not doing all you can to stop it. When was the last time an anti-pot-smoking ad actually made sense to you? All this crap about frying pans and anti-drugs and the whole just-say-no nonsense that had actually increased use among teens. I've seen enough funny, intelligent, effective commercials for products that I know they could do better if they tried. So why aren't they trying for real?
Seriously, I'm asking. Somebody, somewhere must want people to use drugs. Like TIVO, it's one of the luxuries that kept the masses from rising up against the government. If you have a better reason, I shall be only to glad to hear it.
I was going to post about my own experiences with anti-drug propaganda, how nobody ever told me the REAL consequences of rampant pot smoking, and how the DEA says they only target big dealers when 95% of all arrests are for possession of less than an ounce. I can't though, as I must leave for work. I'm tired and I have a long day (and long week actually) ahead. Toodles!
Admittedly I have my own prejudices about drugs and people who use them. I can't stand drunk people, and have much difficulty not judging adult alcoholics. I could go one all day about how pot is less harmful to one's body (and society at large) than alcohol or cigarettes. Also more cost effective in many cases. In the grand scheme of things, pot is not so bad. But cocaine? Dangerous. Addictive. Ruins your body after routine use. I can recite various kinds of propaganda I've seen as a kid in school: septums that totally disintegrated, for example. Gross. Obviously, cocaine is terrible while pot is mostly okay. Sounds reasonable, right? Wrong.
Turns out, WHO (the world health organization, in case you live under a rock) totally buried a report that illustrates the following:
1. Moderate cocaine use is not particularly hard on the body. Like pot, it's risks are less serious than those associated with booze and cigs.
2. Cocaine is not always physically addictive.
3. Jailing users and sellers has little, if any, effect on use overall.
4. The real answer to problem drug users is intervention and treatment, not incarceration.
The findings here are surprising, to me at least. Much more surprising and upsetting is the fact that WHO would bury a valid report because of politics. Their job is to get factual information that will then allow policy makers to make good decisions on how to improve our handling of such things. Hiding that information cheats everyone in the whole world out of the intelligent discourse that should be taking place.
But that's not all. Why bury the report? Why pretend to care about stemming drug use while not doing all you can to stop it. When was the last time an anti-pot-smoking ad actually made sense to you? All this crap about frying pans and anti-drugs and the whole just-say-no nonsense that had actually increased use among teens. I've seen enough funny, intelligent, effective commercials for products that I know they could do better if they tried. So why aren't they trying for real?
Seriously, I'm asking. Somebody, somewhere must want people to use drugs. Like TIVO, it's one of the luxuries that kept the masses from rising up against the government. If you have a better reason, I shall be only to glad to hear it.
I was going to post about my own experiences with anti-drug propaganda, how nobody ever told me the REAL consequences of rampant pot smoking, and how the DEA says they only target big dealers when 95% of all arrests are for possession of less than an ounce. I can't though, as I must leave for work. I'm tired and I have a long day (and long week actually) ahead. Toodles!
Color Me: 
drained
drainedBackground Noise: Weird Al: Polka Party
10 telling remarks | Impress me with your wit
indescribable
cynical![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
contemplative
restless
thinky
amused
shocked
nerdy
excited
productive
relaxed
enthralled
creative
impressed
working
curious
pissed off
bummed
distressed
giggly
argumentative
Ahhhh!
bitchy
bummed
determined
grumpy
groggy
tired
blah
annoyed
ecstatic
super, super stoked
depressed
bummed
angry