T Nation

More on the War on Drugs


#1

http://www.ashp.org/menu/News/PharmacyNews/NewsArticle.aspx?id=3862

I know this is a different angle . But making drugs more difficult to get has unintended consequences .

Make Pot harder to get people smoke a (claimed to be) harmful drug Spice. Make old fashioned (Black Beauties) (White Cross) Amphetamines more difficult to get and we get meth . Make Heroin hard to get and we get junk and Krokadil

Will rescheduling Hydrocodone create a new problem ?


#2

Ah, I dunno. The last I heard the cool new thing was Opana, so this action might be a little late. They're all controlled substances, so I don't think that making more paperwork through the distribution chain will make much difference.

That Krokodil seems like some really nasty stuff though. The pics associated with it are horrendous.


#3

Prohibition on alcohol did not work so why would prohibition on other drugs work?


#4

Is Krokodil actually in the US now? Last I heard it was just eating junkies in Siberia.

The extent to which one must be fucked up, and I mean catastrophically, fascinatingly, apocalyptically fucked up, in order to chase a high that literally eats your flesh and leaves you looking like something out of The Walking Dead...I didn't think we had that kind of fucked up here in America, at least not in sufficient numbers to support a market for krokodil.

All that aside, marijuana should be perfectly legal in every state in this country and it's fucking ridiculous that it isn't.


#5

They aren't called dope Fiends for nothing. There have been a growing number of cases popping up across the US.

What I know of it is that it is really just a recipe that junkies can cook up themselves from basic morphine, but given the complete lack of sanitary procedure they end up injecting every little creature under the sun, or toilet stall, or where ever they happen to be at the time.
Thats what gets them.


#6

Yeah, infections are basically inevitable. From what I've read, though, this shit actually has red phosphorus, paint thinner, and lighter fluid in it--as in, they are part of the recipe--and so even if you were to inject with 100 percent cleanliness (which, as you say, will not happen) the skin dies and rots anyway, because of the many poisons.

I mean, I've done drugs in my day, but damn. Damn. This stuff makes coke seem like herbal tea.


#7

It's silly. But most Dr's can write schedule 2 drugs. So most people will be able to get it when they need.
The problem is that PA's who are taking a large load due to dr's shortages will no longer be able to write it as they are limited to schedule 3 drugs.
What it may do is increase the writing of oxycodone which is more effective, but isn't as often written, but if the two are considered equal, then oxycodone scripts may increase.
The fact is the majority of people who get it need it. It's not going to stop abuse, it will just create a more vibrant black market.


#8

I have to wonder which would be better more access to the pharmaceutical or the street drug ?


#9

The war on drugs is the meeting in Hell of leftist-statists (who want a police state and sheeple unionized voters) and rightist-statists (aka paleo-Conservatives) (who want to impose sin-based moralities).

Very difficult to defeat this unholy union.


#10

Never heard it described like this, but quite accurate.


#11

That's because the two major political parties are controlled by statists.

The Republicans are breaking free of this with the small-government conservative movement, but this group is attacked by Republican Elite (out of self-preservation -- they the status quo -- it makes them rich) and demonized by the Democrats as being something they are not.


#12

Many of those new Tea Party flavored Republicans are still the social conservative types who are for the government imposing morality on the people. Maybe not all of them, but a good deal are still vehemently for keeping drugs illegal.

Some of the Tea Party people are Ron Paul esque Republicans, but some of them are Rick Santorum Republicans. For big government on stuff they like. If the right social conservatives take ahold of the new Republican movement it will be even more oppressive than the so called establishment.


#13

Just say Conservative. "Fiscal conservatives (economic and social liberals)" are simply libertarians.


#14

Thanks for providing the perfect example of a "low information voter" that the Democrats rely on in their Demonization attempts.

It's pretty clear you get your "information" from left-statist media.

Have you ever been to a TEA Party rally? Heard the leaders speak? Been on their listserv-type lists? I have.

Sure, there are certainly fringe people who get played up by the state media. Focusing on the outliers serves the state media's purpose of scaring small-government social liberals away from the movement.

I mean, do you even know what the name "TEA Party" means? "Taxed Enough Already Party"

95% of the movement is about gutting the power of the federal government and related regulations and expenses. Yes, there are right-statists who slip in, but that is because politicians are often scummy opportunists, and this is the Johnny-come-lately. They are hardly the voice of the organization.


#15

I see the war on drugs , as a little of what you say but mostly just people wanting to control other people .

I think the majority of the reason for the WOD is mis and dis information .

I think if you want to know who and why some one would promote a policy that costs America so much more than money , is to just follow the money . The police unions (1) would lose , I bet at least %50 of their membership. (2) Private prisons (new comer) (3) Prison Industries (also newcomers (4) drug Rehabs and Drug Testing facilities

It is hard to believe that Marijuana has caused less deaths than peanuts, aspirin and sex and still is illegal


#16

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Tea_Party_Principles_+_Values.htm#57

Claiming the tea party is Libertarian at this point only works if all the social conservative loonies drop out. Right now it's a movement that doesn't have a clear definition of what they are. Rick Santorum and Ron Paul are polar opposites in so many ways.

Fucking Michelle Bachmann had some Tea Party support. It's false to define the tea party as libertarian or as social conservative. It's an on going battle to determine exactly what it means. Call me when the Tea Party has kicked out the loons and stood up for civil rights. Cause right now some of them do and some of them don't.

Then again what do I know right? Why can't it be exactly as you say it is. And I was at a Tea Party rally before you were I bet. Back when it looked like a lib uprising. Now it's in limbo. Hopefully social conservatives lose. Just don't pretend it isn't a battle. Republican, Tea Party, these are both things currently working on clear definitions.


#17

It's funny that in a War on Drugs thread when talking about the Tea Party that I don't find ANY mention of it in the Tea Party 15 "Non-negotiable" core beliefs. Let's compare this to the Libertarian Party Platform:

They explicitly state it. Here's another "non negotiable" core belief. 15. Traditional family values are encouraged. Sounds like something a social conservative gets a hard on over. Jesus hates gays type shit.

Let's see what Libertarian Platform says:

One of these is not like the other. One is encouraging personal freedoms and explicitly stating what it believes. The other is using vague language because they don't know what exactly the fuck all of them believe. It sounds like a party filled with idiots who were mad at the Coke commercial for some god forsaken reason. Damn private company being allowed to make a commercial that isn't even in that thar Englash!

I'll hope the Tea Party ends up more like Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, and less like Michelle Bachman...but let's not act as if the fight is by any means over to determine what the Tea Party stands for. And this is from someone who at the beginning would have claimed himself a Tea Party guy. I don't anymore because I don't want to be associated with hard line morality enforcing social conservatives. The party can't have both types in it as it's main beliefs are so contradictory. Someone eventually is going to have to "win" or the Tea Party won't really exist. It is too easy to marginalize by the left and right because it's thoughts are disorganized.


#18

Oops. Them damn outliers be all over the place it seems.

That must be an example of the liberal statist media telling me what to think though.


#19

As a Conservative, I agree.

But, for whoever wins--and even if no permanent tea-party schism occurs--it'll just be the closest seat to the only real show in town, generations of left-progressive domination. They won.


#20

I don't agree, I think a center-right movement can happen, but not without moving towards something more like the Libertarian party.

Younger generations will not accept hard line social conservatism. It's not what they want. If fiscal conservatism comes in the basket with 1940's thinking it will be rejected. That position has no chance. Liberals win on social issues now. The battle is done there. Conservatives can accept that and push for a pro-freedom agenda and win on freedom and fiscal sanity. If they just propose fiscal sanity they will not win. Pro-freedom is the only chance.

The sooner the right realizes this the sooner they can get some real power. The future of the party cannot be based on exclusion. Younger generations are simply over talking about racism, sexism, homophobia. They don't understand why people talk about it at all and they have no desire to do that.

The only social conservatism line that the younger generation may accept has to do with abortion. They are open to being against that. Package it by being against contraceptives like kneedragger said and that is over as well.

I honestly think the future for Republicans is REALLY easy, but it will require them to do some shit that will piss off some angry old people. It may cause certain regional dominance to be a bit scary for a while. It is THE only way for the right to play in the coming years though. If they don't adapt they will be hammered nationally over and over again trying to support positions a majority of Americans oppose. And every year they lose ground.

They can fight tooth and nail against these changes with a small amount of people that is dying off daily. Or they can accept reality, tolerate certain things (not embrace, just get over) and have a chance. It's going to require pissing some people in the Republican party off. They may lose some voters. The payoff in the long run will be awesome for them. Democrats dominate the future if the debate stays on social issues that favor them now and will favor them more as the years go on. If Republicans get past some of that and hammer Democrats on fiscal sanity they can win.

The only thing left to see is how long it takes Republicans to realize this and how long they would like to fight battles that they are bound to lose.