The question of what to do about drugs is not a new one. Over the last 100 years there have been numerous major government commissions around the world that have studied the drug laws and made recommendations for changes. You can find the full text of all of them at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer under Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy.
They all reached remarkably similar conclusions, no matter who did them, or where, or when, or why. They all agreed that the current laws were based on ignorance and nonsense, and that the current policy does more harm than good, no matter what you assume about the dangers of drugs. You don't have to take my word for that. Read them yourself.
If you are new to the collection, start with Licit and Illicit Drugs at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/st… That is the best overall review of the drug problem ever written. If you only read one book on the subject, make it that one. It will give you a good summary of what you would learn if you read all the other major reports.
In 1973, President Nixon's US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse completed the largest study of the drug laws ever done. At the end of their study, they said the real drug problem was not marijuana, or heroin, or cocaine. The real drug problem, they said, was the ignorance of our public officials who keep spouting off with solutions but have never read the most basic research on the subject.
Marijuana was outlawed for two major reasons. The first was because "All Mexicans are crazy and marijuana is what makes them crazy." The second was the fear that heroin addiction would lead to the use of marijuana - exactly the opposite of the modern "gateway" nonsense.
Only one MD testified at the hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. The representative of the American Medical Association said there was no evidence that marijuana was a dangerous drug and no reason for the law. He pointed out that it was used in hundreds of common medicines at the time, with no significant problems. In response, the committee told him that, if he wasn't going to cooperate, he should shut up and leave.
The only other "expert" to testify was James C. Munch, a pharmacologist. His sole claim to fame was that he had injected marijuana directly into the brains of 300 dogs and two of them died. When they asked him what he concluded from this, he said he didn't know what to conclude because he wasn't a dog psychologist. Mr. Munch also testified in court, under oath, that marijuana could make your fangs grow six inches long and drip with blood. He also said that, when he tried it, it turned him into a bat. He then described how he flew around the room for two hours.
Mr. Munch was the only "expert" in the US who thought marijuana should be illegal, so they appointed him US Official Expert on marijuana, where he served and guided policy for 25 years.
If you read the transcripts of the hearings, one question is asked more than any other: "What is this stuff?" It is quite apparent that Congress didn't even know what they were voting on. The law was shoved through by a small group of lunatics with no real awareness by anyone else of what was happening.
Contact each of the people in this list. Ask them four simple questions:
1) When were the currently illegal drugs originally outlawed?
2) Why were they outlawed?
3) How many people are killed by drugs in the US in a typical year?
4) In the past 100 years, there have been numerous major government commissions around the world that have studied the drug laws and made recommendations for changes. Name any three and summarize what they said.
My bet is that not one of these people on this list will be able to pass a quiz on the subject that is even this simple and basic. The best answer you will get from any of them will be a blank stare.
Furthermore, when you tell these people that this information is available and tell them where they can find it, they will flatly refuse to read any of it.
The real drug problem is deliberate ignorance. Anyone can prove it just by questioning any of the people on the list.
It should be obvious to anyone that marijuana is big business. By some estimates, it is about the same size as the beer business, about $100 billion per year. It should also be obvious that it won't be going away any time soon.
Therefore, there are only three choices as to who will control the market, make all the rules for production and sales, enforce all the age limits and labeling rules, and spend all the tens of billions that come from the trade. The choices are:
1) Government, with proper regulations and taxes to address problems.
2) Private business, with proper regulations and taxes to address problems.
3) Organized crime, with no regulations or taxes to address problems.
We have chosen organized crime to have a complete monopoly on the trade. Anyone in favor of the current laws need to explain why they think this gives us the most cost-effective control over any related problems.
The question of what to do about drugs is not a new one. Over the last 100 years there have been numerous major government commissions around the world that have studied the drug laws and made recommendations for changes. You can find the full text of all of them at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer under Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy.
They all reached remarkably similar conclusions, no matter who did them, or where, or when, or why. They all agreed that the current laws were based on ignorance and nonsense, and that the current policy does more harm than good, no matter what you assume about the dangers of drugs. You don't have to take my word for that. Read them yourself.
If you are new to the collection, start with Licit and Illicit Drugs at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm That is the best overall review of the drug problem ever written. If you only read one book on the subject, make it that one. It will give you a good summary of what you would learn if you read all the other major reports.
In 1973, President Nixon's US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse completed the largest study of the drug laws ever done. At the end of their study, they said the real drug problem was not marijuana, or heroin, or cocaine. The real drug problem, they said, was the ignorance of our public officials who keep spouting off with solutions but have never read the most basic research on the subject.
In a perfect illustration of their point, Nixon refused to read his own commission's report. The full text can be found at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncmenu.htm
Marijuana was outlawed for two major reasons. The first was because "All Mexicans are crazy and marijuana is what makes them crazy. The second was the fear that heroin addiction would lead to the use of marijuana - exactly the opposite of the modern "gateway" nonsense.
Only one MD testified at the hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. The representative of the American Medical Association said there was no evidence that marijuana was a dangerous drug and no reason for the law. He pointed out that it was used in hundreds of common medicines at the time, with no significant problems. In response, the committee told him that, if he wasn't going to cooperate, he should shut up and leave.
The only other "expert" to testify was James C. Munch, a psychologist. His sole claim to fame was that he had injected marijuana directly into the brains of 300 dogs and two of them died. When they asked him what he concluded from this, he said he didn't know what to conclude because he wasn't a dog psychologist. Mr. Munch also testified in court, under oath, that marijuana could make your fangs grow six inches long and drip with blood. He also said that, when he tried it, it turned him into a bat. He then described how he flew around the room for two hours.
Mr. Munch was the only "expert" in the US who thought marijuana should be illegal, so they appointed him US Official Expert on marijuana, where he served and guided policy for 25 years.
If you read the transcripts of the hearings, one question is asked more than any other: "What is this stuff?" It is quite apparent that Congress didn't even know what they were voting on. The law was shoved through by a small group of lunatics with no real awareness by anyone else of what was happening.
See http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm for an entertaining short history of the marijuana laws.
See http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/taxact.htm for the complete transcripts of the hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.
Recent Comments
They all reached remarkably similar conclusions, no matter who did them, or where, or when, or why. They all agreed that the current laws were based on ignorance and nonsense, and that the current policy does more harm than good, no matter what you assume about the dangers of drugs. You don't have to take my word for that. Read them yourself.
If you are new to the collection, start with Licit and Illicit Drugs at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/st… That is the best overall review of the drug problem ever written. If you only read one book on the subject, make it that one. It will give you a good summary of what you would learn if you read all the other major reports.
In 1973, President Nixon's US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse completed the largest study of the drug laws ever done. At the end of their study, they said the real drug problem was not marijuana, or heroin, or cocaine. The real drug problem, they said, was the ignorance of our public officials who keep spouting off with solutions but have never read the most basic research on the subject.
In a perfect illustration of their point, Nixon refused to read his own commission's report. The full text can be found at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/st…
Only one MD testified at the hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. The representative of the American Medical Association said there was no evidence that marijuana was a dangerous drug and no reason for the law. He pointed out that it was used in hundreds of common medicines at the time, with no significant problems. In response, the committee told him that, if he wasn't going to cooperate, he should shut up and leave.
The only other "expert" to testify was James C. Munch, a pharmacologist. His sole claim to fame was that he had injected marijuana directly into the brains of 300 dogs and two of them died. When they asked him what he concluded from this, he said he didn't know what to conclude because he wasn't a dog psychologist. Mr. Munch also testified in court, under oath, that marijuana could make your fangs grow six inches long and drip with blood. He also said that, when he tried it, it turned him into a bat. He then described how he flew around the room for two hours.
Mr. Munch was the only "expert" in the US who thought marijuana should be illegal, so they appointed him US Official Expert on marijuana, where he served and guided policy for 25 years.
If you read the transcripts of the hearings, one question is asked more than any other: "What is this stuff?" It is quite apparent that Congress didn't even know what they were voting on. The law was shoved through by a small group of lunatics with no real awareness by anyone else of what was happening.
See http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/wh… for an entertaining short history of the marijuana laws.
See http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxac… for the complete transcripts of the hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.
Contact each of the people in this list. Ask them four simple questions:
1) When were the currently illegal drugs originally outlawed?
2) Why were they outlawed?
3) How many people are killed by drugs in the US in a typical year?
4) In the past 100 years, there have been numerous major government commissions around the world that have studied the drug laws and made recommendations for changes. Name any three and summarize what they said.
My bet is that not one of these people on this list will be able to pass a quiz on the subject that is even this simple and basic. The best answer you will get from any of them will be a blank stare.
Furthermore, when you tell these people that this information is available and tell them where they can find it, they will flatly refuse to read any of it.
The real drug problem is deliberate ignorance. Anyone can prove it just by questioning any of the people on the list.
Therefore, there are only three choices as to who will control the market, make all the rules for production and sales, enforce all the age limits and labeling rules, and spend all the tens of billions that come from the trade. The choices are:
1) Government, with proper regulations and taxes to address problems.
2) Private business, with proper regulations and taxes to address problems.
3) Organized crime, with no regulations or taxes to address problems.
We have chosen organized crime to have a complete monopoly on the trade. Anyone in favor of the current laws need to explain why they think this gives us the most cost-effective control over any related problems.
They all reached remarkably similar conclusions, no matter who did them, or where, or when, or why. They all agreed that the current laws were based on ignorance and nonsense, and that the current policy does more harm than good, no matter what you assume about the dangers of drugs. You don't have to take my word for that. Read them yourself.
If you are new to the collection, start with Licit and Illicit Drugs at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm That is the best overall review of the drug problem ever written. If you only read one book on the subject, make it that one. It will give you a good summary of what you would learn if you read all the other major reports.
In 1973, President Nixon's US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse completed the largest study of the drug laws ever done. At the end of their study, they said the real drug problem was not marijuana, or heroin, or cocaine. The real drug problem, they said, was the ignorance of our public officials who keep spouting off with solutions but have never read the most basic research on the subject.
In a perfect illustration of their point, Nixon refused to read his own commission's report. The full text can be found at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncmenu.htm
Only one MD testified at the hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. The representative of the American Medical Association said there was no evidence that marijuana was a dangerous drug and no reason for the law. He pointed out that it was used in hundreds of common medicines at the time, with no significant problems. In response, the committee told him that, if he wasn't going to cooperate, he should shut up and leave.
The only other "expert" to testify was James C. Munch, a psychologist. His sole claim to fame was that he had injected marijuana directly into the brains of 300 dogs and two of them died. When they asked him what he concluded from this, he said he didn't know what to conclude because he wasn't a dog psychologist. Mr. Munch also testified in court, under oath, that marijuana could make your fangs grow six inches long and drip with blood. He also said that, when he tried it, it turned him into a bat. He then described how he flew around the room for two hours.
Mr. Munch was the only "expert" in the US who thought marijuana should be illegal, so they appointed him US Official Expert on marijuana, where he served and guided policy for 25 years.
If you read the transcripts of the hearings, one question is asked more than any other: "What is this stuff?" It is quite apparent that Congress didn't even know what they were voting on. The law was shoved through by a small group of lunatics with no real awareness by anyone else of what was happening.
See http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm for an entertaining short history of the marijuana laws.
See http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/taxact.htm for the complete transcripts of the hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.