CNN…Reporting from the Front lines of the Apocalypse: This just in HEROIN is CHEAPER than BEER!

Ahh CNN.  Sometimes they aren’t THE most depressing thing I see all day…but today they are REALLY trying.  One of their lead stories is that heroin is supposedly cheaper than beer.  And apparently this means that teenagers are flocking to it like mad and dying.  As far back as I can remember, suburban kids have been using heroin.  This is NOT new news.  I don’t think it’s even new news that they are killing themselves on it.  I’m sure this sounds totally unsympathetic and I am sorry that kids are still ODing on heroin…but this isn’t NEW.  As a matter of fact, what’s truly tragic about this story is that it could have JUST as easily happened 20 years ago…and THAT is sad…that we’re still at the same place we were 20 years ago with the drug war and teaching kids how to resist the pull of drugs-illegal and otherwise.  That’s the news…and the other news is that the crystal meth still hasn’t hit these areas yet…THAT is news…it’s that these areas are so susceptible to drug use that they better batten down the hatches before meth gets in because that has been sweeping across the nation and is a different animal entirely.  The general consensus is that it’s way worse than anything we’ve seen thus far.

Heroin cheaper than six-pack of beer – amFIX – CNN.com Blogs.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “CNN…Reporting from the Front lines of the Apocalypse: This just in HEROIN is CHEAPER than BEER!”

  1. “The general consensus is that it’s (meth) way worse than anything we’ve seen thus far.”

    Oh, give me a break. Obviously you never read the history of the subject. Just FYI, speed was entirely legal in this country not too long ago — and it wasn’t a major problem. You can read the history at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm

    This is the best overall review of the subject ever written. If you haven’t read it, then you simply don’t know the subject. Read it and try this column again.

  2. Ahhh….Pookie…I’m sorry-Cliff-give ME a break. You’re saying that your site is the best piece of research ever written on the subject? Something tells me your opinion MIGHT be a little biased. Also, it can’t possibly be the best because the paper I wrote two years ago was.
    All kidding aside, I am pretty familiar with the subject having studied it both in undergrad (at a better school than Union, might I add-not that Schenectady isn’t LOVELY this time of year) and in law school. I also have seen both heroin and meth addiction in person. Have you? While both are horrible and I wouldn’t wish them on my worst enemies, I’d have to vote Meth worse. It’s fast, it’s furious, and it doesn’t leave many survivors…and the survivors it does leave have very little life to return to.
    History will only get you so far my friend. But keep up the good fight-too many people don’t know the truth about drug history and how we got to this dead end with the ‘drug wars’. But dear Cliff, don’t assume you’re the only expert on the subject.

  3. >Ahhh….Pookie…I’m sorry-Cliff-give ME a break.
    >You’re saying that your site is the best piece of
    >research ever written on the subject?

    Not exactly. My site contains the full text of all the most comprehensive government commissions on the subject from around the world over the last 100 years. As such, it IS the most authoritative site in the world on the topic, and has been the “gold standard” of information on the subject for the last 15 years. There isn’t much question about that.

    It was also the basis for the four-hour History Channel special, “Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How They Got That Way”, it has been referenced by various government commissions on the subject around the world, it will trigger another one with Senator Webb’s new bill for a commission on criminal justice, etc., etc., etc., — as just the beginning of my credentials.

    >Something tells me your opinion MIGHT be a little biased.

    It is the same opinion shared by profs at hundreds of colleges and universities around the world where it is used as THE basic resource for teaching the subject. If you argue the subject anywhere to any significant extent you will either wind up arguing with me directly, or someone I have personally trained. Not much question about that. Ask anyone in the reform movement who I am.

    >Also, it can’t possibly be the best because the paper I
    > wrote two years ago was.

    You apparently didn’t take Drug Policy 101 at any college because the prof certainly would have directed you to my web site to do your homework before your first midterm exam.

    >All kidding aside, I am pretty familiar with the subject
    >having studied it both in undergrad (at a better school than
    > Union, might I add-not that Schenectady isn’t LOVELY this
    >time of year) and in law school.

    Well, if you would have taken those classes in a California high school you would have been directed to my site for your homework already. As for law school, what class did you take that addressed what the laws should be — taking into account the history of the subject? I know they have classes in what the drug laws ARE. Where do they teach what the drug laws SHOULD BE? Show me any college that teaches what the drug laws SHOULD BE that doesn’t reference my library.

    >I also have seen both heroin and meth addiction in person.
    >Have you? While both are horrible and I wouldn’t wish
    >them on my worst enemies, I’d have to vote Meth worse.

    Yeah, I have seen both myself close up. Just FYI, knowing a bunch of alcoholics won’t teach you anything constructive about the failures of alcohol prohibition. Likewise with knowing any other drug addict. If all we had to go on was your personal experience, then we would all believe that the world was flat. Obviously, there is another story there to read about, and NASA would be in big trouble if they acted solely on your personal experience.

    >It’s fast, it’s furious, and it doesn’t leave many survivors…
    >and the survivors it does leave have very little life to return
    >to.

    Not many survivors? Uuuh, well, that rather ignores the statistics on drug deaths, doesn’t it? Like for instance, the fact that alcohol and tobacco kill 50 times as many people as all the illegal drugs combined. That is not to mention cheesburgers, which kill more people every year than meth ever does. That is not to mention the US Air Force pilots who use the stuff routinely on long missions. So you have a bit of hyperbole there, don’t you?

    (And while we are at it, let me help you out with your next argument. Your next argument is that alcohol and tobacco kill more people because they are legal and the others are not. Sorry, but that response will fail you on the history test. The numbers have always been that way, regardless of the laws on any of these drugs.)

    I am not here to argue that meth is good for you. Obviously, it has bad health effects and the vast majority of people would be better off if they never touched it. But that really isn’t the point.

    Comparatively speaking, alcohol causes far more damage to both individuals and society than all the illegal drugs combined (meth included). It always has, no matter what the laws were on any of the drugs, and it always will — and the comparison isn’t even close.

    If the dangers of the drug were a good reason to ban it, then alcohol would be first on the list with no clear competitor in sight (except for tobacco and cheeseburgers).

    But we tried banning alcohol to address those problems and it only made things worse. The reason is simple enough. Prohibition is not control. Prohibition is the complete lack of control. See http://druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults.htm for some highlights of how it went wrong.

    >History will only get you so far my friend.

    How would you know how far it will get you if you haven’t read it?

    >But keep up the good fight-too many people don’t
    > know the truth about drug history and how we got
    >to this dead end with the ‘drug wars’.

    Yeah, that’s why I started putting the major research on the net more than 15 years ago.

    >But dear Cliff, don’t assume you’re the only expert on the
    >subject.

    I am not. But, if you want to talk to any of the other real “experts” on the subject — including anyone who teaches it in college — you will find that they all know me, have read my stuff, and recognize that my online library was a critical turning point in the fight for reform (not to mention many of the other things I have done along the way). In fact, even the US Drug Czar has recognized that, when he sent me (unsolicited) a big stack of their documents to include on my web site. The reason they did that is because my web site has more credibility than their does.

    Now, I grant you that there are a lot of people out there who claim to be experts on the subject. I have run into thousands of them over the years. If you can find someone who claims to be an expert on the subject and doesn’t know who I am and hasn’t read my web site, bring them to me and I will prove they don’t know what they are talking about in five minutes or less. I have already done it thousands of times.

    That is one reason why the DEA held a special conference in 1994 to try to come up with some response to what I was doing. It didn’t work, which is why they still get their heads handed to them evey time they try to debate the subject. No prohibitionist has won the debate on the internet for more than 15 years. And that is directly because of me and things I did 15 years ago — like defining the Internet strategy for the movement and publishing the world’s most comprehensive studies ever done on the subject.

    So you clearly don’t know who you are talking to. Now I think it is time to do your homework. You clearly didn’t come prepared to argue this case in court, counselor.

  4. So, if there’s any room left in this comment section now that your ego has exploded all over it, where’s the part that you tell me how heroin is better than meth? Which, correct me if I’m wrong, is the argument you took offense to in the first place.

    You’ve made a LOT of assumptions about me without knowing the first thing about my politics regarding drug policy or anything else…I’m actually very pro-reform.

  5. Uh, well, sorry if I offended you, but everyone needs to read the research and get it right. It has been on the net for a long time so it isn’t like it hasn’t been available for anyone who wishes to write about it — and I simply wish they would before they write. After all, it is some fascinating stuff. For most people, most of what they think they know about the subject is probably wrong.

    As for meth versus heroin — for the best summary of how I feel about them, with a good understanding of the background of why I feel that way — I would refer you to the sections on Opiates and the section on Speed in the Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm

    As I always say, that is the best overall review of the drug problem ever written. You will note that it was written by the editors of Consumer Reports Magazine, not me. I just brought it to the net because I recognized that it needed to be more available.

    It isn’t an exact mirror of everything I think on the subject, but it will give you a good summary of what you would learn if you read all the other thousands of documents in the online library.

    The bottom line that might most interest you is that prohibition doesn’t make any real difference in rates of use — except to increase them. It pretty much doesn’t matter which drug, they all operate the same.

    Only a tiny percentage of people are really susceptible to drug addiction. In 1900, when there were no laws at all and even the Pope was in advertisements telling people how wonderful cocaine wine was, the addiction rate was 1.3 percent. Today, the addiction rate is 1.3 percent.

    However, at the time, addicts were not criminals and typically didn’t live the miserable lives they do today. They weren’t labeled as criminals solely because of their drug use so they continued doing whatever they regularly did in society.

    Furthermore, neither meth nor heroin were considered to be serious problems in society before they were outlawed. The serious problems arose only after the laws were passed. That is true of speed, too — problems with which first arose in the 1960s after it was outlawed.

    And do you know what triggered the speed epidemic of the 1960s? You know, the part where we have really been here before.

    My real objection was to your comment that meth is more dangerous than anything we have seen before. Horse puckey. It has been around a long time and we have seen it a long time. This “new” epidemic of meth isn’t anything new. We have seen meth epidemics before. We know what causes them. You will find out what causes them if you read Licit and Illicit Drugs. See the chapter titled “How Speed Was Popularized”.

  6. See that’s the problem-you don’t talk about Meth…you’re talking about speed and the meth that’s on the streets is different than speed and hasn’t been around “a long time”. And the article you pointed to…it’s from 1972…some stuff has changed…not a lot…but some stuff. Do you have an article about the crystal meth problem now? In 2009?
    Again, they are both shit drugs and, when you’re dealing with street drugs, you never know what you’re going to get. And I’m well aware that prohibition doesn’t work. I was NEVER arguing that it does. But, frankly, this isn’t the forum the proper forum for you to argue with yourself and keep posting your “internet credentials”. You are kind of preaching to the choir but if you keep repeating yourself and using forums that aren’t about the subject which interests people you’re going to alienate people.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s