cannabisnews.com: Coke, Crack, Pot, Speed





Coke, Crack, Pot, Speed
Posted by FoM on January 09, 2001 at 08:20:24 PT
By Rodger Doyle 
Source: Scientific American
In 1999 illegal drug use resulted in 555,000 emergency room visits, of which 30 percent were for cocaine, 16 percent for marijuana or hashish, 15 percent for heroin or morphine, and 2 percent for amphetamines. Alcohol in combination with other drugs accounted for 35 percent. This is not the first time that the U.S. has suffered a widespread health crisis brought on by drug abuse. 
In the 1880s legal drug companies began selling medications containing cocaine, which had only recently been synthesized from the leaves of the coca plant. Furthermore, pure cocaine could be bought legally at retail stores. Soon there were accounts of addiction and sudden death from cardiac arrest and stroke among users, as well as cocaine-related crime. Much of the blame for crime fell on blacks, although credible proof of the allegations never surfaced. Reports of health and crime problems associated with the drug contributed to rising public pressure for reform, which led in time to a ban on retail sales of cocaine under the Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914. This and later legislation contributed to the near elimination of the drug in the 1920s.Cocaine use revived in the 1970s, long after its deleterious effects had faded from memory. By the mid-1980s history repeated itself as the U.S. rediscovered the dangers of the drug, including its new form, crack. Crack was cheap and could be smoked, a method of delivery that intensified the pleasure and the risk. Media stories about its evils, sometimes exaggerated, were apparently the key element in turning public sentiment strongly in favor of harsh sentences, even for possession. The result was one of the most important federal laws of recent years, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. It was enacted hurriedly without benefit of committee hearings, so great was the pressure to do something about the problem. Because crack was seen as uniquely addictive and destructive, the law specified that the penalty for possession of five grams would be the same as that for possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine.African-Americans were much more likely than whites to use crack, and so, as in the first drug epidemic, they came under greater obloquy. Because of the powder cocaine/crack penalty differential and other inequities in the justice system, blacks were far more likely to go to prison for drug offenses than whites, even though use of illicit drugs overall was about the same among both races. Blacks account for 13 percent of those who use illegal drugs but 74 percent of those sentenced to prison for possession. In fact, the 1986 federal law and certain state laws led to a substantial rise in the number of people arrested for possession of illegal drugs, at a time when arrests for sale and manufacture had stabilized.The data in the chart catch the declining phase of the U.S. drug epidemic that started in the 1960s with the growing popularity of marijuana and, later, cocaine. Use of illegal drugs in the U.S. has fallen substantially below the extraordinarily high levels of the mid-1980s and now appears to have steadied, but hidden in the overall figures is a worrisome trend in the number of new users of illegal drugs in the past few years, such as an increase in new cocaine users from 500,000 in 1994 to 900,000 in 1998. In 1999 an estimated 14.8 million Americans were current users of illegal drugs, and of these 3.6 million were drug-dependent.The decline in overall use occurred for several reasons, including the skittishness of affluent cocaine users, who were made wary by negative media stories. The drop in the number of people in the 18-to-25 age group, in which drug use is greatest, was probably also a factor, and prevention initiatives by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, headed by Gen. Barry McCaffrey, may have had some beneficial effect. The decrease in illegal drug use in the 1980s and early 1990s was part of a broad trend among Americans to use less psychoactive substances of any kind, including alcohol and tobacco.Even with the decline, the U.S. way of dealing with illegal drugs is widely seen by experts outside the government as unjust, far too punitive and having the potential for involving the country in risky foreign interventions. The system has survived for so many years because the public supports it and has not focused on the defects. Surveys show that most Americans favor the system, despite calls by several national figures for drug legalization, and there is little evidence that support is softening.--Rodger Doyle Contact: rdoyle2 aol.comSource: Scientific AmericanAuthor: Rodger DoylePublished: January 2001Copyright: 2001 Scientific American, Inc.Website: http://www.sciam.com/Contact: editors sciam.com Letters: http://www.sciam.com/forms/editorletterform.htmlRelated Articles:US Report Details Losses in Drug Fight http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8196.shtmlUse of Drugs by Teens Spiked During Clinton Yearshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8194.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #25 posted by Dave in Florida on January 11, 2001 at 17:29:42 PT
Hey Kathleen !
Are you the same Kathleen from the talk.politics.drugs (TPD) usernet forum? As far as looks go, I am the tall skinny guy with long hair on the Suncoast in Florida. :)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by Dan Hillman on January 11, 2001 at 12:26:20 PT
feeling the warmth, dddd...
...may jah shine on you too!I live on the *other* coast, in the SF Bay Area actually, and have been fortunate to have a "front row seat" with regards to the whole med. marijuana thing as it has blossomed (heh) in California. Speaking of venues where reformers might meet, I'd like to extend an invitation to all reform-minded folks who live in the San Francisco bay area to attend a once-a-month meeting at the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Club, 1733 Broadway, Oakland CA. The organization is called CCAP (California Coalition Against Prohibition) and their meeting almost always takes place on the last Thursday of the month (meaning Jan. 25 this month) and includes a donation-suggested dinner. For more info, contact the OCBC:http://www.rxcbc.org/and don't forget to have a gander at their online store, of which proceeds are going to defend the OCBC in front of the Supreme Court this year:http://www.legalcannabis.com/Enjoy!-Ddddan
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by NiftySplifty on January 11, 2001 at 11:24:01 PT
A biker co-worker...
would always call me "yuppie motherfucker" in jest. But, I guess I just look like your average short-brownish haired, green eyed (occassionaly red) twenty-somethinger with your average style of clothing, disdain for sports, passion for music (hopeful masters degree). Also, I'd be the guy wandering around feeling like a tool because he didn't know anyone.Nifty...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by freedom fighter on January 11, 2001 at 10:51:20 PT
Kathleen, we invite you
to register your nick so you would look so good/sexy in Red.It would be an honor if you would take the time and register your nick so that noone can use your nick.http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/register.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by freedom fighter on January 11, 2001 at 10:45:22 PT
Armed and deadly
with a 9mm handgun. :) I have not fire my gun yet and hope that I will never have to.   least you got that right! I am very lucky when cops raided my house several months ago. They did not find the gun. Phew!If you should ever see a guy who is 6'6" weighting 190pds with a long brownish hair and a black beard wearing a glass and talks bit funny(texan accent), that's me! I can speak rather well for a hearing imparied(deaf) person. You people are great! Take care my friends.. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by Dan B on January 11, 2001 at 08:31:28 PT:
You're funny, dddd...
..actually, I'm married. Brown hair, brown eyes, relatively short hair, trimmed beard (most of the time). That should give you all a head start, should we ever get together sometime.btw...I really appreciated the comments by Observer in response to Niel in that extremely long list of comments awhile back. I haven't been very active here lately because I'm trying to finish my dissertation, and the semester just began again so I've been working on the class I am teaching/writing center work. But I've been enjoying reading, and I hope to be able to spend more time writing...let's see here...maybe in April. Until then, I'll keep popping in now and again, and I will definitely keep this page as part of my daily reading.Thanks, FoM, for creating an environment in the Internet that has made us so curious about each other, we're actually discussing meeting in person some day. You rock, and so does your site.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by dddd on January 11, 2001 at 00:25:01 PT
scared/enquiring minds want to know
It is somewhat frightening Nifty.....I mean what would someone called Nifty Splifty look like.Would Kaptinemo look sorta like Popeyes' cousin?Would CongressmanSuet wear a suit?Does Observer wear glasses,??What sort of shoes does Lehder wear?Does Ripper drive an SUV?...Does Dan B have a girlfriend?......Does Neil still live with his parents?..Does FreedomFighter own a gun?.....Do Rasjames,or i_rule wear dreadlocks?...Would military officer guy ever be able to reveal his true identity?....Does Dan Hillman live on the east coast? ..Does Ethan drive a foriegn car?....Does FoMs husband read all this stuff?......... ......I could go on.Somewhat Astounding!................indeed..........May JAH Shine on YOU.....................................................dddd.............................................
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by NiftySplifty on January 10, 2001 at 23:06:27 PT
I'm starting to get scared of you guys.
Of course I'm not really. I've been diggin' this place for as long as I've known about it. I think that were we all to meet in some particular venue, it would be a trip to figure out who each person is. Kind of like a game of Clue (R) without the murder. I think I'd pick out observer because there'd someone lying in a rumpled heap and the floor. The person next to the pile would be observer. Nifty...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by FoM on January 10, 2001 at 22:18:26 PT
Meeting
Let's see if I can describe myself dddd. I'm just gorgeous and everybody loves me! LOL! Believe that and I have a bridge to sell you! If I could figure out how to get pictures developed and on the Net I could upload and post a few but I don't have a scanner and my Digital Camera won't work with Windows 98 so it just sites around and we don't use it. We'd buy another Camera but we felt it wasn't worth it so we've decided to wait to get one again.PS: We met a couple from West Virginia a few years ago and they came to our house and visited with us and we went to their house too. We get together now every six months or so.We now have two wonderful new friends that we never would have met if it hadn't been for the Internet and I'm thankful.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by dddd on January 10, 2001 at 22:02:33 PT
meeting
I would love to meet all the people here.I've often tried to imagine what everyone looks like,by the flavor of their comments,but it's impossible.I am going to try to make the NORML conference in April.....dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by FoM on January 10, 2001 at 21:27:06 PT
Military Officer Guy
Hello military officer guy,I'm not sure which post you want deleted. I knew you were kidding so I hope you don't mean that one. Let me know and why if you don't mind me asking? When we type how we feel we sometimes gets misunderstood. Those that know how you feel from participating here know that you have a good heart and meant nothing bad from what you said. I'm sure that kathleen will read this and see that it was a misunderstanding.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by military officer guy on January 10, 2001 at 20:24:38 PT
thx kapt and dddd
that's awesome you guys, thx for the props...and to kath, didn't mean to get testy, but you're right, the military/gov't is one huge hipocracy (sp) and a huge joke in many many ways...to Ethan Russo, MD, i agree, there are many many people at this site that i truly hope i meet some day (soon)...my military time is getting shorter and shorter...and as the doc said, i plan on meeting people on this list some day...we can win this war....FoM if you get this, please delete my first post...thx...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by military officer guy on January 10, 2001 at 20:23:14 PT
thx kapt and dddd
that's awesome you guys, thx for the props...and to kath, didn't mean to get testy, but you're right, the military/gov't is one huge hipocracy and a huge joke in many many ways...to Ethan Russo, MD, i agree, there are many many people at this site that i truly hope i meet some day...my military time is getting shorter and shorter...and as the doc said, i plan on meeting people on this list some day...we can win this war....
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on January 10, 2001 at 18:35:41 PT:
Getting Together
Kap, I'm hoping to meet all of you in person at the next NORML meeting in April, with details at norml.org It should be a great show.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by kaptinemo on January 10, 2001 at 16:35:04 PT:
Uh, excuse me, Kathleen...
You're relatively new here. Anyone who has been 'here' any length of time would know that MOG is engaging in a little tongue-in-cheek humor. He certainly couldn't, under any circumstances, be branded an anti or one of their benighted cat's-paws. And I sincerely doubt he has any problems with alcohol. The great pity of this medium is that many of us will probably never, ever meet face-to-face. Yet I have friends here, people of like mind. As do you...if you have the vision to see it. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by dddd on January 10, 2001 at 16:24:28 PT
well spoken Kathleen
Your taking military officer guys sarcasm seriously is OK.A bit embarassing perhaps.I know the name "military officers guy" sounds scary,but he's a good military officer guy.Your response had many excellent points,so dont be discouraged about continuing to speak out...................................................dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by military officer guy on January 10, 2001 at 16:15:03 PT
kathleen, are you for real?
i was kidding...obviously i'm for the legalization of drugs...the gov't has no right to regulate my body...we can win this war...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by kathleen on January 10, 2001 at 14:07:03 PT:
This Military Officer Guy...
I bet you this "Military Officer Guy" is a social alcoholic. He states he has been taken to the hospital for what, one "water-pipe hit"-------ewwwww, he smoked pot, what and he works for the government,-----ewwwww and he used a water-pipe ewwwwww,,,,,bad boy mr. military officer guy,,,,,,,what made you try it, and why are you on this web-page,,,,,are you having second thoughts about marijuana,that's funny "you" tried marijuana. I would like to know why mr. military officer guy can't use his real name. He sounds like the government, it's illegal but "I" tried it....that is a joke if I ever heard one....If there has ever been a controvesy over anything,  marijuana gets the prize for the longest lasting controversy ever........
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by FoM on January 09, 2001 at 16:23:26 PT
My 2 cents
If a person would freak out after smoking, it would probably be because they now are afraid they'll get arrested. I think the best way to help a person that is losing it after smoking pot would be to tone everything down. Dim the lights, soften your voice and lower the music and that is all that would be needed besides a little something to eat. That will help bring a person down. A hospital would make the whole situation worse in my opinion.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by military officer guy on January 09, 2001 at 16:08:37 PT
no seriously, this is all true...
did you all know that everything in this article is true...they are just trying to protect the children...the people in the US want more people to go to jail for smoking a joint in their living rooms...where have you all been..? i've personally been to the ER 5 or 6 times just off one bong (sorry, water pipe) hit...what a fucking joke...the sad thing is that every single anti puke will read this and it will become the holy bible of the drug debate...we can win this war (although articles like this, really piss me off)...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Frank on January 09, 2001 at 16:05:25 PT
Propaganda is Poisonous Pot is Not
I have never seen nor heard of an emergency room visit based on marijuana alone. I’m not saying that someone could not have a panic attack as a result of marijuana. I know of only one case where a young Hispanic man 17 years old smoked some extremely strong pot and had a bad reaction – panic attack. His girlfriend gave him something sweet to eat and reassurance and he was fine. Like the Jamaican’s say some people just don’t have a head for ganja. Most people who have a bad reaction to marijuana have some sort of underlying psychological problem that needs review by a psychotherapist. Marijuana is not for everyone. However, reports that state people are flocking to emergency rooms as a result of marijuana intoxication are for lack of a better term complete bull S&%#.If you went to an emergency room and told the physician, “Doctor I’m stoned on pot. Help me.” The doctor’s response would be, “You are in no danger; I smoke it myself. Eat something sweet. In an hour you will be fine.”
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Dan Hillman on January 09, 2001 at 14:07:58 PT
What happened to Scientific American?
Just a couple of years ago SA staff were writing editorials criticizing the drug war...now this crap...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by dddd on January 09, 2001 at 13:59:10 PT
Check
The ondcp will be cutting a check for Scientific American now.I think they are owned by Time-Warner.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by NiftySplifty on January 09, 2001 at 12:42:25 PT
Oh, don't you know pot's deadly?
I always have to laugh whenever I see/hear that pot is somehow more dangerous than heroin or morphine. For what could someone possibly go to the E.R. that's pot-related? To have that ten-pack of Twix pumped from their stomach?Nifty...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by aocp on January 09, 2001 at 08:30:06 PT:
Whatever
>Alcohol in combination with other drugs accounted for 35 percent.Oh, i get it. So, all the *other* drugs accounted for all the other problems they caused *directly*, but booze is IN COMBINATION with some boogieman fright-drug, so it's seen in a less-dangerous light. What a pile of merde.>The decrease in illegal drug use in the 1980s and early 1990s was part of a broad trend among Americans to use less psychoactive substances of any kind, including alcohol and tobacco.Do you have a point or do you just like to cough up feel-good messages that mean nothing? I don't care how much you tell us that americans just KNOW how bad the licits are for them and therefore, you THINK they're smoking and drinking less ... the bottom line is that these people, of legal age, DO NOT FACE INCARCERATION FOR THEIR CHOICE TO USE OR NOT. Therein lies the indisputable and completely ridiculous difference. We pot smokers would love the same opportunity, but i hold no illusions as to how the antis view me. Thank goodness *i* don't see myself as subhuman.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: