What's Right with Drugs

What's Right with Drugs

I've been studying drugs, drug laws, and drug use, mainly from a historical viewpoint, for many years now. As that time passed, a couple of things slowly dawned on me.
The first is that almost all of the people arguing for reform of the drug laws argue either that drugs aren't really as bad as they are portrayed or that they would have no worse effects if they were legal. Even the Libertarians tend to argue that if people want to destroy themselves, they should be allowed to do so. Almost no one argues that the use (other than medical use) of some drugs has some beneficial effect.
The use of psychoactive drugs seems to be coextensive with human society, and evidence from non-human populations like elephants and birds, which seek out and eat fermented fruits, suggests that the use extends throughout prehistory as well. I'm enough of a Darwinian to believe that any behavior that has been that universal must have some survival benefit, especially when we know that it comes with a relatively high price in terms of negative effects.
The second thing I noticed was that for 150 years, the length of time the drug as been available in the West, many creative people, especially poets and musicians, have strongly claimed that hashish or cannabis has enhanced their creativity. This claim is wide-spread, and often comes from those who have reached the top of their art; Louis Armstrong, Bing Crosby, and Willie Nelson are among the musicians so claiming. In some branches of music -- jazz and rock in particular, those using seem to be a majority of the active performers.
Interestingly enough, no one seems to have tried to rebut these claims. A few critics have scoffed, saying that the performers were stoned and only thought they were playing better; but no one has ever offered any evidence opposing the claim. On the other hand, many musicians have bemoaned their use of opioids or stimulants and have ruined their careers or fought long and hard to break dependencies on those drugs.
My next change in thinking came when I starting studying LSD. Even those of us who work extensively have trouble overcoming the stereotypes drummed into us through a lifetime of propaganda. But I soon realized that the proponents of LSD in the 1950s and 60s were not drug fiends or junkies. Aldous Huxley was the third generation of one of Britain's leading scientific families and an accomplished writer and thinker himself. Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert were respected members of the Harvard faculty. Ken Kesey was an outstanding novelist and a fellow of the Stanford Creative Writing Project. Strong evidence suggests that President Kennedy tried LSD. When men of that stature and with those backgrounds report that LSD expands and deepens thinking and experience and encourage others to follow them, their reports are hard to ignore.
Amphetamines were first developed in the 1930s, and by WWII, all of the armies of the world were using them to keep troops alert and awake under adverse circumstances. The armies, including the U.S., are still using them today, with over 60% of the air missions in the Gulf War being flown by aircrews using amphetamines. For 80 years now, long distance truckers have used them to be more productive; and many college students, including medical students find the invaluable for those necessary all-nighters.
Over 80% of Americans use caffeine daily and find it makes them more alert and productive. They do this in spite of "coffee nerves" and upset stomachs.
Will any of these claims survive the cold light of the laboratory? I don't know. I do know that they present testable hypotheses; and that if confirmed, could lead to large social benefits.
Should we change the law if the benefits are established? I think so, but a social calculus weighing those benefits against any social cost would have to be made. In the 1970s, prescription amphetamines clearly provided weight-loss and energy benefits to many, but the problems of managing the resultant abuse was felt to outweigh those benefits.
What I do know is that we should put those claims to the test and see if they hold up. I don't know about you, but my life would be better with some more Willie Nelsons, Louis Armstrongs, and Ken Keseys.

Bong Hits 4 Jesus

A fiend of mine complained that I hadn't said any thing about the Bong Hits for Jesus case. I guess there are two reasons. First, the mere mention of that sanctimonius Ken Starr makes me froth at the mouth and throw heavy things through windows. Second, I was so thoroughly wrapped in the free speech aspects, I overlooked that it was a drug case as well. It's time to correct my oversight.

A public highschool was dismissed so the students could attend the procession of an olympic torch through town. On student displayed a large banner at the parade: "Bong Hits 4 Jesus". He was expelled.

The Fourteenth amendment defines an American citizen as (among others) anyone born in the United States. It does not establish an age limit on citizenship or its rights. The Supreme Court (in Tucker) recognized that even school children have First Amendment rights and upheld the wearing of protest armbands in the classroom. Cases have been more restrictive about school control over out-of-school activities (like web pages). Students have the right of free speech, even in school, unless their behavior in so speaking is disruptive.

Outside the school, off the school grounds, our student has the right to wave any banner he wants, even one saying "Mission Accomplished" and even while wearing Mr. Cohen's "Fuck the Draft" jacket.

During argument, the CJ suggested that the School Board had a duty to impart a point of view and a duty to teach more than math. Kenny boy even claimed the banner wasn't speech, it was a drug act.

But education is not instilling propaganda; it is not forcing only one side of an issue into empty heads for memorized recitation. Education is the art of teaching students how to apply reasoned judgment to determined facts to reach sensible conclusions. I suspect that "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" (once the giggling stopped) would generate much more honest and productive discussion of drugs than does hundreds of hours of force-fed DARE propaganda.

In the early 1940s, the court upheld the forced recitation in school of the pledge of allegiance in an opinion by Frankfurter stating that the school's duty was to instill a sense of patriotism and community in the students.

Two years later -- in the middle of WWII when patriotism was at its highest -- the court reversed that decision; and in Barnette set aside the coerced saying of the pledge. Justice Jackson, writing for the Court, created the most perfect, most important statement of the major principle of American democracy:

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us."

In spite of what I said above, I suggest that the Chief Justice and Kenny boy memorize that passage (and you, too, boys and girls), recite it each day and ponder its meaning.

Cannabis as GRASE?

I'm thinking outside the box here [WARNING: I'm way ouside my expertise here, maybe even outside my area of competence; FDA law is not for the beginner]. This may be of more interest to those on the West Coast who are more actively engaged in med mj litigation.

I have long thought that the FDA (at least until its recent politicazation), with its scientific basis and lack of law enforcement bias, would be a good way around the DEA to firmly establish the medical basis of marijuana in an unassailable way. But the FDA itself has biases, including some against botanicals and other than single-molecular drugs, and a New Drug Application costs, literally, hundreds of millions and takes years. without a patentable compound or process to entice a big Pharma to undertake it, there was no way to overcome this hurdle.

But in 2004, the FDA changed its regulations concerning the GRASE (Generally Recognized As Safe and Effective) process so that botanicals could be included in the established monographs (including the analgesics) with an abbreviated process using sales and use outside the US to prove safety and effectiveness.

The GRASE list contains those drugs that may be included in OTC drug preparations without an NDA: things like aspirin. These are drug components that have been used for so long and so widely that their safety and effectiveness is readily accepted.

Until 2004, US prohibition prevented cannabis from being considered from GRASE, since it was not marketed within the time limits allowed.

However, now that foreign proof is allowed for botanicals, the door may be opened. After all, cannabis has been marketed as a drug for about 150 years now, and its effectiveness is widely documented.

While a GRASE petition is still expensive and time-consuming, it is orders of magnitude less than an NDA, and might be within the reach of a grant-based academic or a deep-pocketed reform group.

With a GRASE listing, the DEA would completely loose the medical use and safety prongs of Schedule 1, and with an FDA finding, might be forced to reschedule as a matter of law -- no factual findings for DEA to "interprete". Even if the FDA refused to amend the GRASE monograph, the findings of their scientific panel should still prove conclusive on the DEA.

I have done only the sketchiest research so far, but it would pay to have an FDA expert look at the issue. If cannabis could be established as GRASE, the highest possible schedule would be 4, and 5 would be more likely. In addition, it would solve the problem of how to market it without approved FDA labeling after an NDA.

Drug Tests for Cops?

Random drug-testing for police might be the start of a great idea.
While most drug testing is stupid and counter-productive, in some instances --like flight crews -- there is some justification.

In the case of police, we allow them to carry arms and not only drive, to to engage in hot pursuit while driving. It would seem that the public safety rationale is present.

In addition, as parties to drug arrests, police are exposed to very high levels of temptation, being around large quantities of unaccounted-for drugs and money. Unfortunately, the record shows that high numbers of them succumb to that temptation. So we also have a history of abuse, satisfying the Supreme Court.

We expect our police, as armed enforcers of the law with a very high level of discretion, to be paragons of legal behavior. It just ain't so. Major police corruption is always an result of prohibition laws.

Maybe instead of random testing, we should test all of them at least trwice each shift.and on days off as well.

The other major result of corruption is money. Is there a test for that as well? Any officer exceeding the lower test limit would be suspended and investigated.

Come to think about it, is there a test for testostrone...

Awired, crooked cop is a much greater danger to society than a high school quarterback who got stoned last week.

(I'm only about half sarcastic here)
----- Original Message -----
From: "MAPNews" <owner-mapnews@mapinc.org>
To: <mapnews@mapinc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 4:45 PM
Subject: MN: US PA: Random Drug Testing For Cops A Cloudy Issue
> Newshawk: Herb> Pubdate: Sun, 11 Mar 2007> Source: Times-Tribune, The (Scranton PA)> Copyright: 2007 Townnews.com> Contact: Letters@TimesShamrock.com> Website: http://www.thetimes-tribune.com> Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/4440> Author: Matthew Kemeny, Staff Writer> Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Test)> > RANDOM DRUG TESTING FOR COPS A CLOUDY ISSUE> > The recent arrest of a Scranton police officer for allegedly selling > drugs while on duty has sparked concerns about whether the city > should, or even can, randomly test its officers.> > Mark Conway, 36, of 1012 Maple St., was arrested March 1 after > Lackawanna County detectives allegedly found five OxyContin pills and > 33 methadone tablets in his patrol car. A confidential informant > tipped authorities that Officer Conway was allegedly addicted to > heroin for more than a year. The informant also said he had bought > heroin from Officer Conway about 10 times, according to an affidavit.> > Shortly after the officer's arrest, Scranton Public Safety Director > Ray Hayes was quoted as saying he'd like to see random drug testing > for police officers as part of the next labor contract. The current > police contract was signed in May 1999 and expired in 2002. The city > and police cannot negotiate a new contract until all outstanding > police arbitrations are settled.> > While the current contract states Scranton police officers can only > be tested for drugs based on "reasonable suspicion," some say the > contract language is ambiguous and already allows for random drug > testing. The contract does require mandatory drug testing on officers > in the drug enforcement unit.> > "I think it's pretty clear... the contract allows for random drug > testing," said Ann Marie Stulgis, police union president. She recalls > a committee being set up shortly after the contract was approved to > solicit bids from lab companies to perform the testing.> > "But it was never implemented," she said. "I don't know why."> > Former Police Officer John O'Shea was union president when the last > labor contract was approved. He retired in 2002.> > "It's in our contract," he said bluntly, after being asked if the > city has the ability to randomly drug test its officers. "It came > from the (officers). They wanted it."> > However he couldn't say why it was never implemented.> > "That's an administrative deal," he said. "It costs money."> > However, Mr. Hayes, Scranton Mayor Chris Doherty and Scranton Human > Resources Director Lisa Moran insist random drug testing is not > included in the current contract.> > "We recognize that we really need a comprehensive drug policy," Mr. > Hayes, who started as public safety director in 2002, said. "And > although this policy here that we have in place is a first step -- > they had nothing before that -- you really need a total comprehensive > drug policy that includes random testing as well as testing for cause."> > Officer Conway's arrest underscores the need for a random drug > testing policy, he added.> > Since May 1999, the department has sent just one officer for testing, > based on "reasonable suspicion," Mr. Hayes said. That suspicion > turned out to be false, he said. Despite the differences in semantics > of the contract, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Doherty, Mrs. Moran and Ms. Stulgis > support random drug testing for Scranton police.> > Mr. Hayes even went as far as to invite Ms. Stulgis to sit down with > him on Monday and hash out a plan.> > "The city would like to make that modification, if the union is in > agreement, so that we could initiate random drug testing immediately," he said.> > Throughout the state, policies vary on random drug testing on police officers.> > The Jessup Police Department, for instance, does not have random drug > testing and only does pre-employment drug testing for officers. > Police Chief Patrick Kane said the borough is considering random drug > testing, especially after one of its off-duty police officers was > arrested for allegedly stealing a rifle, marijuana and hypodermic > needles from their evidence room.> > Last February, Officer Robert Santarelli was charged with burglary, > theft, receiving stolen property and possession of marijuana and drug > paraphernalia. Officer Santarelli, who has been suspended from the > department since February 2006, was arrested again in January for > allegedly impersonating a state trooper to obtain a prescription drug > from Berwick Hospital.> > "Random drug testing should be in everyone's policy the way things > are going," Chief Kane said.> > Police departments in Roaring Brook and South Abington Township have > been doing random drug testing for at least 15 years.> > "It keeps the police officers honest," Roaring Brook Police Chief > Kipp Adcock said. "If they know they're subject to drug testing, then > hopefully that will be a deterrent."> > South Abington Township Police Chief Robert Gerrity echoed Chief > Adcock's opinion.> > "Anyone operating police equipment should be subject to random > testing," he said. "Just to show that there's nothing illegal going > on with that police department."> > Dickson City can require an officer to take a drug test if Police > Chief William Stadnitski suspects the officer is under the influence > of drugs or alcohol. However, in the six years that stipulation has > been in the borough's police contract, it has never been used.> > "If an officer comes in and looks half-bombed out of his skull, then > the borough can request that officer be drug tested," he said. "The > results are only to be used for administrative purposes and not > criminal purposes."> > The Allentown Police Department had performed random drug testing for > more than 10 years, Police Chief Roger MacLean said. Allentown also > tests its officers in the vice unit, all potential hires and even > officers who get promoted within the department.> > "We've run many random drug tests and only ever came up with two > officers testing positive," Chief MacLean said. "I thought in today's > day and age, everyone would have it. I think it's a good thing to have."> > Archbald, Covington Township and Taylor police departments do not > have random drug testing. Neither do Wilkes-Barre or Erie, cities > that are similar in size to Scranton.> > Taylor Police Chief Steve Derenick supports random drug testing for officers.> > "I think in law enforcement, it should be required," he said. > "They're the ones enforcing the penal code."> > Liz Portelli, director of development and communication for Drug Free > Pennsylvania, insisted random drug testing should be mandatory for > police officers -- no exceptions.> > "Police officers should be role models for kids. You don't want your > police officers to be on drugs when they're on the job."> > ------------------------------> > Scranton Police Department drug testing policy:>

The Story of a Stimulant: A Tale of Policy and Hypocracy

In the 1930s, a class of synthetic stimulants, the amphetamines, was developed. The three primary drugs in this class were Benzadrine, Dexadrine (dextroamphetamine), and methamphetamine.

Benzadrine quickly developed a wide-spread use as a nasal inhalant for nasal congestion, and many people found they could break open the plastic inhalers, squeeze out the drug, and inject it for a big high.

Dexadrine found other users. The military were among the first: soldiers could stay awake and alert longer and under more adverse conditions if they used Dexadrine (long distance truck drivers discovered the same thing). Military use has continued. Friends of mine who served in Viet Nam told of constant use of dexxies. One man told me that they were kept in a large bowl in the Company area of his unit and the men "ate them like M&Ms". According to the Air Force Surgeon-General, over 60% of the combat missions flown during the Gulf War were flown by air crews using amphetamines. Some pilots reported command influence on them to use the drugs. I have seen no evidence that military doctrine has changed since then.

After WWII, Dex became one of the most often prescribed drugs. It was an effective wieght-loss drug, and gave depressed, stressed, housewives a feeling of energy. However, by the late 60s, it was falling out of favor because of problems associated with its use: extreme weight loss, paranoia and psychotic behavior; dependencies -- they same ones we hear of today.

During the 1950s and 60s laws regulating drugs underwent drastic changes. Drugs were divided into prescription and OTC drugs; drugs were required to be proven safe and effective before they could be marketed, and the FDA spent about a decade developing a list of GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe), later GRASE (Generally Recognized as Safe and Effective) components that could be included in OTC drugs without additional testing. These developments focused on medicinal uses (the Supreme Court later said that Congress did not even intend to include tobacco or alcohol) and were kept separate from the regulation of the food supply.

In 1970 the Controlled Substances Act tried to reconcile illegal drug regulation with medical drug regulation by establishing scheduling based on 1) potential for abuse, 2) recognized medical use, and 3) safet when used under medical supervision.

Amphetamines fell into Schedule 2, the second most tightly controlled category, and medical use virtually stopped.

Also, during the 1950s, the market for vitamins and "dietary supplements" developed, evolving from the old snake oil salesmen and folk cures. For some reason, this market was viewed as part of the food chain and was not regulated as drugs were.

When Dexadrine became unavailable, two other stimulants popped up to take its place.

Methamphetamine is chemically similar to Dexadrine (virtually undistinguishable by the user), but it can be manufactured in small batches without elaborate equipment or extreme temperatures or pressures. As a Schedule 1 drug, it became an illegal replacement for Dex.

All of the amphetamines are derived from norepinephrine, one of the ephedrine compounds derived from the ephedra plant. Ephedra, as a herb, or the ephedrine purified from it, has roughly the same effect on the body as does amphetamine.

Those who could no longer get legal Dexadrine and who were unwilling to use illegal meth, soon started taking ephedra as a "dietary supplement". Supplements became a multi-billion dollar business.

As reports of deaths and serious side effects from ephedra started rolling in, the FDA began the process of regulating it. The shit hit the fan. One of the largest letter-writing campaigns in history flooded Congress, which passed two statutes virtually banning the FDA from regulating supplements. The agency may sue to remove one from the market after they can prove it to be dangerous, but the seller has to do no testing before marketing it and may make almost any marketing claims it wants to.

So Dexadrine is legal, manufactured under controlled conditions, but almost totally unavailable; methamphetamine is illegal, manufactured under dangerous conditions causing grave enviromental risk and impure products, but readily available; ephedra has been voluntarily withdrawn from the market after almost a decade of futile FDA litigation -- and they all do the same thing.

Ironically, if marijuana had not been outlawed by the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 and had continued as a rarely used medicine, it would probably have qualified for the FDA's GRASE list and would be available OTC today.

FBI: Business as usual

It's a pity Congress didn't talk to any drug reformers before they stampeded themselves into passing the (un)Patriot Destruction of Civil Liberties Act.

Then, perhaps, they wouldn't be so shocked and appalled by the Fibbie's arrant (and probably illegal) misuse of National Security Letters. They have snooped and gathered personal information about hundreds of thousands of citizens without reasonable suspicion or any oversight whatsoever.

I'm sorry, but there is nothing shocking about this affair. It is only another dark chapter in a long, dismal history. Remeber Cointel Pro of the 60s and 70s with dossiers of thousands of honest citizens? How about the "black bag jobs" of the 50s through 80s -- or the cooperation with HUAC, McCarfthy, and the red-hating blacklisters of the 1940s or 50s? And don't forget the sexual files on Martin L. King, Jr., members of Congress, and even presidents.

But as observers and warriors in the War on Drugs, we can tell them all about the police. Police, in general, have way too much descretion and too little oversight. With no civilian oversight and no supervision by any independent agency, police work always degenerates into forced confessions, planted evidence, professional informers, no-knock raids and illegal searches. Wearing suits does not make the FBI any different from other police organs. Remember Lord Acton's warning that all power corrupts.

There has been a lot of talk about trransparency in government lately, but no branch of government needs it more than the police. In this situation, the FBI didn't even need to get a judge's signature -- a very weak check on abusive searches.

No police action should be screened from the public. Everyone should be entitled to know what every police officer is doing every minute (I might concede a week's delay in releasing the information to protect tactical information). Some elected body, not connected to the police, the prosecutors, the courts, or the legislature, should have oversight of the police (including FBI, DEA, ICE, and the rest of the federal alphabet soup) with subpoena power and the power to prosecute.

Anything less just means more of the same.

The Sin of Incarceration: Texas Youth Council

About one and a half centuries ago, Lord Acton said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. In our society no power is more absolute than the power of the state over the incarcerated.

It should come as no surprise, then, when stories of corruption, like those now surfacing in the Texas Youth Council, abound in corrections systems.

The Texas Youth Council superivises the State "schools" in which youthful offenders (teenagers mainly) are locked up for education and rehabilitation -- the stated goals of the system.

However, I don't think the Lege intended that program to include the kinds of sex and drug education that those youthful offenders seem to be getting.

At one institution for boys, well-substantiated allegations claim that, over an extended period of time, staff members were having sexual relations with their charges. Although several staff members were fired or allowed to resign and at least one case was referred to the local District Attorney, no one has been charged or prosecuted.

At one of the State schools for girls, staff members were allegedly not only having sex with some of the girls, they were paying the girls with pills --"uppers and downers" according to the news reports. The irony of this report springs from the fact that a very large percentage of the crimes juveniles are charged with, and supposedly being rehabilitated from, are drug offenses.

The stench from these incidents has gotten so strong that it has reached the State capital, and all over Austin people are pointing fingers at each other, all claiming ignorance and all claiming that they did, too, tell the proper authorities about it. So far the governor has placed the TYC in receivership and several special investigations have started.

But let's remember Lord Acton. let us also remember the California situation in which guards were staging "gladiator" fights among inmates and organizing gambling pools on the outcome. Let us remember Abu Graib and Gitmo; And Sing Sing before its major riots; and the Texas prisons with their "trustees" wielding axe handles beforee the Federal courts took over. (And Colorado is thinking about reinstituting chain gangs, renting out convicts to do stoop labor on farms to replace migrant workers now barred by Homeland Insecurity.)

How does this corruption florish? Like many evil things, it grows in the dark. The best cure is light and air. These agencies must be made transparent. The media, and to the greatest erxtent possible, the public, should have complete and open access to the events in these places and to their records (yes, we can pixilate faces and black out names to protect the inmates). We all must know what happens behind those razor wire fences. Otherwise we are just like the "good Germans" who knew nothing about the death camps in their midst.

States and the Federal government also need public watchdogs over them. I would suggest an independently elected omsbudman agency with free access to all governmental actions with subpoena power and the ability to prosecute without reliance on local prosecutors.

It's our government, but how can we be responsible if we don't know what's going on?

Sending a Message

As the legislative battle over medical marijuana spreads across the country, the arguments are heating up. They are, however, different this year. Very few seem to be debating the acknowledged therapeutic utility of marijuana, but two arguments remain.

One is the argument of futility considering the overarching reach of Federal law. This one is hard to counter except by saying that reform has to begin somewhere, and a little is better than nothing at all.

The other argument against medical marijuana makes my blood boil: "We can't legalize medical use because it would send a wring message to the kids." An old sayings holds that patriotism is the last refuse of scondrels. After years of working with the First Amendment and sexually explicit materials and with drug laws, I would propose a variant of that saying: "Sending a message to the kids is the last refuse of the hypocrit."

What message would legalizing marijuana for medical use send to the kids anyway? "Come on, smoke grandma's cancer medicine; it will make you cool"? "We are going to deny people their medications, leaving them in pain or dying, just so we can maintain the propaganda that marijuana is bad"? "You're so dumb you can't see obvious truth if we just tell you a weak fairy tale"?

Kids are smarter than that. They use their eyes and ask questions, and see what is going on around them. They have pretty good bullshit detectors, triggered, perhaps, by Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

They know something is wrong when we tell them not to use stimulants, but we force millions of their comrads to take Ritalin or amphetamine for ADHD.

Kids can handle the truth; sometimes they need a little more explanation or a little guidance in applying it, but they can handle truth. Isn't that what we hope education helps them with in the first place.

Maybe we should worry about whether we have been sending the same kinds of propagandistic messages to ourselves. Having we been telling ourselves the truth about drugs, or has our government been 'sending us a message' because we are too immature to handle the truth?

Let's try telling the kids the truth this time. They can handle it. Or is it that we are afraid we can't handle the truth ourselves?

Drug Seizures and Body Counts

Three or four news stories this week have trumpeted large drug seizures by police across the country. Usually they will announce the capture by a police agency (or combination of several agencies from differenct jurisdictions) of marijuana -- usually over 1000 pounds, cocaine -- 50 Kilos or more, heroin -- a few ounces to a pound or so, and now a few pounds of methamphetamine as well. Usually they will also include $10,000 - 100,000 or more -- and often guns as well. The implication is that the police are winning the War on Drugs.

But to those of use old enough to remember the 1960s and 70s, they sound very much like the Pentagon's Viet Nam war body counts. Each week the Pentagon would release the number of Viet Cong or North Vietnamese soldiers killed, implying that the enemy was being steadily reduced to ineffectiveness. Then, in january, 1968, the North Vietnamese unleased their Tet Offensive, staging over 100 simultaneous attacks. These attacks led, ultimately, to the disillusionment of Walter Cronkite and the decision of Lyndon Johnson not to run for reelction.

For, you see, reporting the number killed said nothing about the number of new recruits or the remaining strength of the enemy. In fact, the reports possibly served as a recruiting tool for those eager to replace the losses. What they did accomplish was to establish a culture of dishonesty in the American Army as field commanders, eager to please their superiors and gain promotions, exaggerated or even fabricated their kills or planned operations, not for their strategic value, but to maximize body counts.

The Drug War works the same way. Police departments plan operations to grab headlines, not to lower the demand for drugs. Even worse, they plan them to maximize money seized because that money goes into their operational budgets without governmental oversite or budgetary discipline.

The worst part is that seizures don't work. From the time Nixon first originated the War on Drugs, the idea was to suppress sources and interdict shipments so that the street drugs would become so rare and so expensive that users couldn't buy them. It didn't work. The Customs Service (now ICE) has always admitted that, at best, they could intercept 5 - 10% of the incoming drugs. In effect, higher seizures are only a measure that shows a greater amount of imports, just like greater body counts were only a measure of the greater size of the Vietnamese forces (come to think about it, this sounds a lot like the reports of the number of insurgents killed or captured in Iraq today).

They certainly don't affect the amount or quality of drugs on the streets. The price and availability of drugs will be the same the day after the seizure as they were the day before. I still remember one time when Customs announced the seizure of ten tons of cocaine in the Port of Houston. The local head of the Customs Office, however, was quick to point out that no one should expect to see any results on the streets.

The seizures get people killed; they spend a lot of tax dollars in carrying them out; they just don't do anything about the availability of price of drugs on the street.

Follow the Money: Drugs and Dollars

There is no doubt that most of the social ills related to drugs are not caused by the drugs, their use, or their users; but are instead caused by the black markets created by the drug laws. These include official corruption, violence among and between drug dealers and police, environemental harm, harm from impure drugs, and collateral damage to non-users.

The Black markets, in turn, are created by the extremely high prices caused by attempts to suppress supply while not stemming demand. The prohibition laws create high entry barriers to the market because most normal people will not risk long prison terms, death, or killing as part of the cost of doing business. Only the promise of extraordinarily high rewards will lure the unscrupluous outlaw into the market. Walgreens is chased out and Pablo Escobar is drawn in.

How much money are we talking about? Some figures from my earlier researches might give some ideas.

Marijuana is a plant product roughly comparable to tea or tobacco in its cost of growing, harvesting, and preparation (it is probably the cheapest of the three). Tea may be purchased in the form of tea bags for about $1 per ounce. A package of twenty cigarettes, weighing almost an ounce, sells for $4 - 5 (which is more than half taxes). Current street prices for marijuana range upward from $80 an ounce. The multiplier of the prohibition is between 50 and 100 times.

When Bayer was selling heroin legally (about 1900 - 1914 in the US, 1900 - 35 in the rest of the world), it sold heroin and aspirin at the same price. Today, aspirin retails for about $30 per kilogram (one hundred 300-mg tablets for $0.99), while heroin in the US wholesales for over $100,000 per kilogram.

MDMA (Ecstacy) can be manufactured in small batches for less than 10 cents a tablet, while it retails for $15 -25 a tablet. We don't know what it could be manufactured for in bulk because no pharm has ever had a chance to try.

Amphetaimes, as legal prescription drugs are manufactured for less than $10 per 1000 tablets; illegal methamphetamine is now selling for up to $100 an ounce.

Let's trace a kilogram of cocaine and watch the money.

Coca leaves contain about 1% cocaine, so a little over 200 kilograms of leaves are necessary for one kilogram of cocaine HCL. The farmer will receive about $1 per kilogram or less. The processor will add a few cents worth of gasoline and acid and a few dollars worth of labor for a kilogram of cocaine that he can sell at the production plant for about $2000. He's increased his investment by a factor of 10.

A distributor in Colombia will sell that Kilo to a transporter for about $5000 for transportation to the US. Originally Mexican cartels moved the coke for a percentage of the value, but about 30 years ago, they started buying it and moving it as their own venture.

The transporter, who risks shrinkage from customs siezures, etc (usually less than 10%), payoffs to Mexican and US police and customs, and defense against other smugglers, is able to sell the Kilo in Houston, for example, for about $10,000. The total flow of heroin from the Andes to the US adds over $30 Billion to the Mexican economy each year.

A Houston wholesaler will buy the Kilo for about $10,000 and divide it into about 35 ounce packages, which he sells for around $500 each, or around $17,000 per Kilo; and he can easily move 10 Kilos or more a week.

The ounceman, the lowest level in the scheme who is really a professional drug dealer, will divide his ounce into 8 "eightballs" of a little over 3 grams each. If the coke is cut, or diluted at this point, the ounce may yield 10 -12 eightballs, which will sell for about $150 each, or $1,200 or more per ounce. An ounce dealer can easily move five to ten or more ounces a week; and he will have assistants to do the actual delivery collection, and protection activities. They may actually be paid with product instead of cash.

The purchaser of the eightball is usually a user. He divides the 3-plus grams into 1/4 gram packages -- 12 to 15 of them, depending on how generous he is -- and sells about 10 of them for $20 each. He then has about 2 packages for his own use and about $50 to cover living expenses. These guys are not permanent, but drift in and out of the game. However, there are always new volunteers to take their place.

Multiply these numbers by several 100 tonnes (1000 Kilos) per year, and you can see how much money is involved. The analysis for heroin is about the same.

Ask yourself what would happen to this market if the heroin addict could get his supply from CVS for less than $5 a day or if marijuana cost the same as tobacco.

The bad guys would lose interest immediately.