fafalone

John Belushi Belushi was a heavy cocaine user through most of his adult life. Right at the end of his life, he began using heroin. His death is widely attributed to a speedball overdose but it was likely a cocaine overdose. David Bowie A heavy cocaine and occasional heroin user. William S. Burroughs Burroughs was the father of the "beat" movement with books like Junkie and The Naked Lunch. Kurt Cobain Kurt Cobain is a tragic figure in the heroin subculture. Most people think that drugs killed him, but in the end it seems more likely that he was killed by the intolerance of those around him who could not come to terms with his drug use. Miles Davis Miles Davis was one of the inventors of cool jazz. Thomas De Quincy The writer of Confessions of an English Opium Eater was an opium addict for almost fifty years--the William S. Burroughs of his day! Robert Downey, Jr. The most oppressed man in America? Ben Franklin This founding father was known to occasionally use opium recreationally. Jerry Garcia Although the Grateful Dead are strongly associated with psychedelics--especially LSD--Garcia used heroin on and off throughout most of his adult life. His death is often attributed to "heroin overdose" like the death the just about any famous heroin user. Garcia was a chain-smoker who was also quite over-weight and in poor overall health. This is undoubtably the primary reason for his death: general system failure. The official causes was heart failure which he experienced at a rehab clinic. Boy George He wasn't a junkie for long, but he has some good stories about being an addict. Herman Goering Goering became a morphine addict in WWI because of an injury. He stayed addicted to morphine for the rest of his life. In WWI, he was an ace pilot with 22 confirmed "kills". Under Hitler, he was the commander of the Nazi air force (Luftwaffe). He was so liked by Hitler, that Hitler named him his successor; various failures during WWII, however, caused him to fall out of favor with the Nazi leader who used him publicly as a scapegoat for war troubles. Goering is most remembered as the leader of the Luftwaffe, but he is an excellent example of how little a problem opioid addiction is, when the opioid is legal and readily available. Goering was found guilty of war crimes after WWII and sentenced to hang--he killed himself before the sentence could be carried out. Billie Holiday Billie Holiday was one of the greatest singers of this century. But like many great artists the US government treated her very poorly. Love Love was the psychedelic version of the Velvet Underground. In it's original incarnation, it did not last long but still managed to produce two of the greatest rock albums ever. Bela Lugosi "Dracula" spent a decade plus addicted to morphine and methadone. Charlie Parker Probably the greatest sax player of all time, Parker was also a life-long heroin addict. Edgar Allan Poe Since Poe died before heroin was invented, he clearly never used heroin. It is well-documented, however, that he used opium with some regularity. Elvis Presley You doubt us? You doubt that the king of rock-n-roll was a junkie? We'll provide you with the facts--you can decide for yourself. Also check out the strange story of Elvis and Nixon. Keith Richards We'll get around to dealing with him soon enough. Tom Sizemore You may remember him as the sick cop who kills a prostitute in Natural Born Killers. The word is that he is now off smack. The story goes that Robert De Niro showed up on Tom's doorstep one morning with Tom's mom to confront him about his heroin use (I'm so touched my eyes are getting all watery). One telling has De Niro threatening to turn Sizemore into the police for "heroin use" which may be true even though heroin use is not illegal--De Niro wouldn't necessarily know this fine point of law. I wrote a short rant about how I would like to see him playing fewer cops. James Taylor The prototypical "singer/songwriter" of the 1970s was an on again, off again heroin user. Yeah, they're all losers, especially Ben Franklin. Courtesy of http://www.heroinhelper.com/bored/celebrities/index.shtml

Before trying to prove me wrong, maybe you should know your shit? The highest income bracket pays around 38.6%, which is double the percentage the middle-income (~30k/year) pays. obviously my reply was not ment to be exact, because people making 10-100 per year don't even file taxes you troll.

Actually if you wrote out the full chemical name for a DNA molecule, it would be upwards of a trillion letters long. 3 billion units with lengthy names...

Just about everyone does drugs in one way or another. Caffeine, nicotine, cold medicines, aspirin.. Never make sweeping statements about all drugs unless you're very very careful.

There is NO correlation between socioeconomic status and drug use with any substance.

All the water is frozen, theres no evidence of liquid water yet.

Another issue to address.. Who uses drugs? Is it more common in poorer people? Before you look it up, answer what you think right now because that probably shapes your opinion a bit.

I'm for it, but do not think its fiscally possible at this stage. I believe the first step is taking the massive budget for the DEA, cutting it by at least 75%, decriminalizing drugs, and putting all the saved money towards treatment and education.

The problem with just decriminalization is that it doesn't eliminate the illicit market or increase the safety of drugs (through quality control and standardized dosage units). The majority of drug-related crimes are related to disputes between drug dealers and the general black market culture.

But despite the increasing risk of getting caught, drug use is not declining.

[temp note for mrl, i'm going to eat dinner now i'll continue this good debate in about 40 minutes]

Hence my support for a policy that focuses on using education and treatment to reduce the drug problem. Prohibition simply does not work.

Fear of being arrested will not stop people from using drugs, no matter how many people they arrest.

Our government neither adequately funds treatment programs (because all the money is spent on arresting people for drugs) nor has nationalized health care.

Treatment programs that are free are alot more effective....

I support legalization because it benefits SOCIETY AND PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO USE DRUGS NO MATTER HOW MUCH THE GOVERNMENT TRIES TO SCARE IT OUT OF THEM. SCARE TACTICS DO NOT WORK.

I don't know what to say when you're so blind you can't see that every one of those lines supports my position and refutes yours.

You provided evidence to support that it is dangerous, but no evidence that contradicts my statement that legalization, harm reducation, and education reduces that danger more than prohibition. A significant death rate for first time users? Last time I checked, a handfull of cases reported by the BBC is not even close to a 1% rate.

A study of heroin maintenance in Switzerland for the World Health Organization concluded: The health of participants improved. Illicit cocaine and heroin use declined greatly. Housing situation improved and stabilized- most importantly there were no longer any more homeless participants. Fitness for work improved considerably, those with permanent employment more than doubled from 14% to 32%. The number of unemployed fell by half (from 44% to 20%) A third of the patients that were on welfare, left the welfare rolls. But, others went on to welfare to compensate for their lost income from sales of drugs. Income from illegal and semi-legal activities decreased significantly, from 69% of participants to 10%. The number of offenders and offenses decreased by about 60% during the first 6 months of treatment. The retention rate was average for treatment programs. 89% over 6 months, and 69% over 18 months. More than half of the dropouts did so to switch to another form of treatment. 83 of the participants did so to switch to an abstinence-based treatment, and it is expected that this number will grow as the duration of individual treatment increases. There were no overdoses from drugs prescribed by the program. Source: Robert Ali, et al, Report of the External Panel on the Evaluation of the Swiss Scientific Studies of Medically Prescribed Narcotics to Drug Addicts (New York, NY: The World Health Organization, April 1999). This is what happened when heroin was made freely available to those who wanted it.

You have provided no scientific evidence at all.

Yet you still think prohibition is the best way to go? It costs more and is less effective and reducing use.

But theres no way to have addiction treatment programs without the cops finding out who's going to them and going after them.

You're telling me you need evidence less people would die if their friends could walk into the corner store and buy the antidote for opiates (that itself is not abused because it is not psychoactive)?

fafalone said in post # : FACT: To reduce cocaine use by 1%, it would take 4.3 times as much money by enforcement of drug laws over money spent for treatment programs. Source: Rydell, C.P. & Everingham, S.S., Controlling Cocaine, Prepared for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the United States Army (Santa Monica, CA: Drug Policy Research Center, RAND Corporation, 1994), p. 36. You completely missed the point of this one... read it more carefully. To reduce cocaine use by 1%, it takes 4.3 times the amount of money by using law enforcement INSTEAD OF treatment programs.

That's a logically *valid* argument. It is not a SOUND (and hence wrong) argument because thats simply not what the evidence suggests.