New type of trailhead theft

[rbw1966]

In two years of emergency response, I never went to any emergency caused by meth, heroin, marijuana, LSD, or any other illegal drug...but each and every shift had anywhere from a few to continuous hours of alcohol-related calls. And every one of the most gruesome was alcohol-related.

 

Where did you work? That might have some impact on your personal experience. A large proportion of emergency calls in PDX involve heroin and meth overdoses, not to mention injuries inflicted while under the influence of one or more of the substances you listed above.

 

Even with the "tougher" DUI enforcement of late, I think we are too soft. There are far too many people driving around on the road with multiple DUI offenses.

[Hugh Conway]

In two years of emergency response, I never went to any emergency caused by meth, heroin, marijuana, LSD, or any other illegal drug...but each and every shift had anywhere from a few to continuous hours of alcohol-related calls. And every one of the most gruesome was alcohol-related.

 

Where did you work? That might have some impact on your personal experience. A large proportion of emergency calls in PDX involve heroin and meth overdoses, not to mention injuries inflicted while under the influence of one or more of the substances you listed above.

 

Even with the "tougher" DUI enforcement of late, I think we are too soft. There are far too many people driving around on the road with multiple DUI offenses.

 

On my short stint in the ER Meth was 50% of the ER visits. Alcohol 15%.

[builder206]

Where did you work?

 

One of Dallas' ghettos, long ago. I guess maybe now other drugs are in play too, therefore alcohol isn't so bad after all.

[mattp]

I think you are on safe ground suggesting that alcohol does more damage to society than meth, Builder. It may not be clear what that says about the drug war or drunk driving enforcement, but I bet there are a lot more alcoholics (x 100? 10,000?) than meth addicts in this country and the real costs are almost certainly vastly greater. (I use the "hedge" words "I think" and "almost certainly" to acknowledge I don't have a factual basis, but I'm pretty sure this is correct.)

[mkporwit]

I bet there are a lot more alcoholics (x 100? 10,000?) than meth addicts in this country and the real costs are almost certainly vastly greater. (I use the "hedge" words "I think" and "almost certainly" to acknowledge I don't have a factual basis, but I'm pretty sure this is correct.)

 

Mmmm, I hear the faint popping sound of facts being pulled out of the ass...

[mkporwit]

In two years of emergency response, I never went to any emergency caused by meth, heroin, marijuana, LSD, or any other illegal drug...but each and every shift had anywhere from a few to continuous hours of alcohol-related calls. And every one of the most gruesome was alcohol-related.

 

Mike, meth or heroin were probably not nearly as prevalent when you were an EMT. My time as an EMT had me attend to quite a few drug cases, mainly heroin overdoses. Probably on the same order of magnitude as alcohol... (about 4x less -- this is in Palo Alto in 2002/2003). Most of those heroin cases were not yuppie recreational users, but rather hard-core addicts.

 

Also, you miss the real cost of alcoholism, one greatly exceeding the 3am on a Saturday night perspective that an EMT would be most familiar with. There's a lot of reasonably well functioning alcoholics that never get caught in the DUI checkpoints that simply make life a living hell for their families, bringing up another generation of dysfunctional members of society...

[Fairweather]

 

Mmmm, I hear the faint popping sound of facts being pulled out of the ass...

 

He's been known to do that; but you must know that the very act of confessed ignorance cleanses the liberal soul and turns mere speculation into fact.

[RuMR]

so sayeth a bushie-tool...your commander in chief is the primo expert on pulling shit out of his bung... *cough*I R A Q*cough*

[builder206]

the real cost of alcoholism...reasonably well functioning alcoholics that never get caught in the DUI checkpoints that simply make life a living hell for their families, bringing up another generation of dysfunctional members of society

 

Actually I have this in mind equally with my memories of drunk drivers, drunks falling down stairs, the drunk who went through a plate glass window, the drunks who go to sleep with a lit cigarette, etc. The two hells together is what I had in mind when I said that without alcohol we'd need half as many cops, lawyers, and surgeons as we do now.

 

You're right about the era. Cocaine was exclusively a drug of Hollywood glitterati and I'm not sure if I had even heard of meth. Heroin was not in Dallas when I was an EMT.

[STP]

No doubt, there definitely is a human cost associated with drug use whether legal or illegal. So why legalize at all? Well, for one it seems the punishment for marihuana use seems disproportionate to its actual threat.

 

A blanket approach to legalization is destined to failure so to frame your argument in those terms is ridiculous. A sensible approach would selectively target marihuana for legalization, first by reclassifying it from its Schedule 1 status. An argument could be made for this change by examining its use for medicinal purposes, a use that has been sanctioned by a number of states in defiance of the federal drug laws.

 

I suppose you might not want to see this though:

XcCrTahsLg0

 

[mattp]

DO you guys jumping on me for "making up" a statistic where I clearly acknowledged it was just a guess have any different numbers? Do you believe the number of drug addicts is comparable to that of alcoholics, or that the social costs compare?

 

Do you, Fairweather, have any factual basis for your assertion that as a nation we have employed a liberal approach in the drug war or that liberal ideas have driven the drug war or substantially prevented it from working somehow -- proving that liberal ideas are yet again a failure?

[Fairweather]

 

Do you, Fairweather, have any factual basis for your assertion that as a nation we have employed a liberal approach in the drug war or that liberal ideas have driven the drug war or substantially prevented it from working somehow -- proving that liberal ideas are yet again a failure?

 

Reading comprehension, Matt. The "drug war" that began in the late 80's/early nineties is not a liberal approach; it is conservative--albeit misguided in many ways. (ie: drug seizure laws are total bullshit.) What I said was that the liberal 'treatment only' models used up until that time were utter failures and it would be dumb to go back to them.

[mattp]

History, Fairweather.

 

In 1965 (under President Johnson) the Drug Abuse Control Amendments were passed, creating the Bureau of Drug Abuse Control. (it's interesting to note that from 1965 forward, the national homicide rate began a sharp increase, as did drug use among 12-17 year olds).

 

In 1969, shortly after his inauguration, President Nixon declared a war on drugs and crime.

 

In 1970 the modern "War On Drugs" is born as the "Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act". Title II (the "Controlled Substances Act" or "CSA") established 5 "schedules" of substances, with schedule "one" prohibiting substances even from medical use (Marijuana was placed in schedule one, despite the recommendations of the task force that marijuana not be criminalized). The CSA affects an absolute prohibition on many substances, and provides for federal law enforcement to act even on an intrastate level.

 

In 1973 Nixon reorganizes the various federal drug law enforcement agencies into the Drug Enforcement Agency, or DEA.

 

In 1986 Nancy Reagan begins the "Just Say No" campaign. While there is an initial drop in drug use, drug use again rises rapidly within a few years.

 

In 1988 the Office Of National Drug Control Policy (office of the "Drug Czar) is formed. The first Drug Czar is William Bennett (who ironically is a smoker, drinker, and compulsive gambler).

 

And you accuse me of making stuff up? Tell us where you got this information about some lack of law enforcement efforts or a "treatment only" approach in the 60's, 70's and 80's.

 

For more, go to drug war history

[JayB]

History, Fairweather.

 

In 1965 (under President Johnson) the Drug Abuse Control Amendments were passed, creating the Bureau of Drug Abuse Control. (it's interesting to note that from 1965 forward, the national homicide rate began a sharp increase, as did drug use among 12-17 year olds).

 

In 1969, shortly after his inauguration, President Nixon declared a war on drugs and crime.

 

In 1970 the modern "War On Drugs" is born as the "Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act". Title II (the "Controlled Substances Act" or "CSA") established 5 "schedules" of substances, with schedule "one" prohibiting substances even from medical use (Marijuana was placed in schedule one, despite the recommendations of the task force that marijuana not be criminalized). The CSA affects an absolute prohibition on many substances, and provides for federal law enforcement to act even on an intrastate level.

 

In 1973 Nixon reorganizes the various federal drug law enforcement agencies into the Drug Enforcement Agency, or DEA.

 

In 1986 Nancy Reagan begins the "Just Say No" campaign. While there is an initial drop in drug use, drug use again rises rapidly within a few years.

 

In 1988 the Office Of National Drug Control Policy (office of the "Drug Czar) is formed. The first Drug Czar is William Bennett (who ironically is a smoker, drinker, and compulsive gambler).

 

And you accuse me of making stuff up? Tell us where you got this information about some lack of law enforcement efforts or a "treatment only" approach in the 60's, 70's and 80's.

 

For more, go to drug war history

 

Seems like a happy marriage between the two philosophies would be an approach that combines legalization and treatment (and perhaps education/prevention) on one side, with while keeping the enforcement measures that are already in place for folks that directly endanger or harm others while using them.

 

Also - I wasn't there to observe, but I can't help but wonder if some of the excesses of the times (at least as perceived by those who weren't joining in) provoked a counter-reaction that helped drive the prohibition/law-and-order model forward.

[mkporwit]

DO you guys jumping on me for "making up" a statistic where I clearly acknowledged it was just a guess have any different numbers? Do you believe the number of drug addicts is comparable to that of alcoholics, or that the social costs compare?

 

Hey, I didn't argue that the cost of drug addicts is comparable to the cost of alcoholics. It is clearly greater. I'm just bashing the intelectual laziness that comes from pulling numbers out of thin air and then couching them in bullshit acknowledgements when 30 seconds with a search engine would produce whole pages of numbers such as these here from France, 1997:

 

Findings: The use of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs cost more than 200 billion francs (FF) in France in 1997, representing 3,714 FF per capita or 2.7% of the gross domestic product (GDP). Alcohol is the drug that gives rise to the greatest cost in France, i.e. 115,420.91 million FF (1.42% of GDP) or an expenditure per capita of 1,966 FF in 1997. Alcohol takes more than half of the social cost of drugs to society. The greatest share of the social cost of alcohol comes from the loss of productivity (57,555.66 million FF), due to premature death (53,168.60 million FF), morbidity (3,884.0 million FF) and imprisonment (503.06 million FF). Tobacco leads to a social cost of 89,256.90 million FF, that is an expenditure per capita of 1,520.56 FF or 1.1% of GDP. Productivity losses amount to 50,446.70 million FF, with losses of 42,765.80 million FF as a result of premature death and 7,680.90 million FF linked to morbidity. Health care costs for tobacco occupy second place at 26,973.70 million FF. Illicit drugs generate a social cost of 13,350.28 million FF, that is an expenditure per capita of 227.43 FF or 0.16% of GDP. Productivity losses reach 6,099.19 million FF, with 5,246.92 million FF linked to imprisonment and 852.27 million FF to premature death. The cost of enforcing the law for illicit drugs occupies second place at 3,911.46 million FF, followed by health care costs of 1,524.51 million FF.

 

 

[builder206]

I can't help but wonder if some of the excesses of the times (at least as perceived by those who weren't joining in) provoked a counter-reaction that helped drive the prohibition/law-and-order model forward.

 

You can damn bet marijuana was put on Schedule 1 in 1970 because it was the DOC of all those damn dirty hippies promoting peace and love. Nixon knew they would be the downfall of America. They were the ones who attacked the Guard at Kent State, they were the ones who protested the war and the illegal secret invasion of Cambodia, they were the ones who wanted free love. Ho Chi Minh was going to take over! All because of the demon weed!

Edited May 20, 2008 by builder206

[mattp]

MK, are you for real?

[Hugh Conway]

You're right about the era. Cocaine was exclusively a drug of Hollywood glitterati and I'm not sure if I had even heard of meth. Heroin was not in Dallas when I was an EMT.

 

cough < bullshit > cough

 

Big MAC attack? Marijuana + Alcohol + Cocaine

[builder206]

You're right about the era. Cocaine was exclusively a drug of Hollywood glitterati and I'm not sure if I had even heard of meth. Heroin was not in Dallas when I was an EMT.

 

cough < bullshit > cough

 

Big MAC attack? Marijuana + Alcohol + Cocaine

 

bullshit? wut?

[mkporwit]

MK, are you for real?

 

Yep.

[AlpineK]

I can't help but wonder if some of the excesses of the times (at least as perceived by those who weren't joining in) provoked a counter-reaction that helped drive the prohibition/law-and-order model forward.

 

You can damn bet marijuana was put on Schedule 1 in 1970 because it was the DOC of all those damn dirty hippies promoting peace and love. Nixon knew they would be the downfall of America. They were the ones who attacked the Guard at Kent State, they were the ones who protested the war and the illegal secret invasion of Cambodia, they were the ones who wanted free love. Ho Chi Minh was going to take over! All because of the demon weed!

 

I think one could throw in a bit of racism too. I mean pot was brought here by Mexicans and black folks liked it, therefore it must be the devil weed. What's the harm in making something illegal that was brought to us by a bunch of spics and niggers.

 

If only they had passed a law forcing hippies to get a haircut. Now there's a law I could get behind.

[mattp]

MK, are you for real?

 

Yep.

Wow.

 

You appear to more or less agree with my statement (maybe you think the "correct" ratio is only 1:3 or something), yet you call me intellectually lazy for saying I hadn't bothered to look it up. You don't see how reporting an article about France when we are not talking about French drug enforcement policies or French rates of drug use is an act of "intellectual laziness?"

[mkporwit]

MK, are you for real?

 

Yep.

Wow.

 

You don't see how reporting an article about France is an act of "intellectual laziness?"

 

Nope. Both France and the US are first-world, developed, stable nations, so comparisons across those two societies are valid. There's nothing intellectually lazy about this.

 

And in any case, this was just an example. Want numbers for California in the late 1990's instead? They're not that far off. Higher percentage of marijuana use and a lot more crack than the French numbers, but the cost per person per year in 2001 dollars was ~ $1000

 

The French abstract was text, which made for easy copy/paste into the forum. The california numbers were in a PDF which did not allow for copying. So there was laziness on my part, but it wasn't intellectual...

[archenemy]

 

I wonder what the total cost of meth is on the pnw community.

My guess is less than obesity does. Even though we have fewer obese people here than in many other parts of the country, I assume they have more problems that they go to the hospital for over a longer period of time.

 

Everyone seems to blame everything on meth now. How many people even knows a bunch of people who are addicted to meth (meaning they use in a few times a week and have done so for a while)? I know one addict, and she doesn't steal anything from anyone. I am not saying the problem is not there, but it seems like everything gets blamed on meth. As a result, other problems are ignored (like people who turn to stealing b/c they are homeless due to the economy, etc)

[archenemy]

If it is the not paying tax thing is a problem I agree. We would have to legalize it though. Then we would get government regulation.

No true. There is a line in tax forms that ask you to claim "other income". This includes illegal income. By not filling in this line, you are liable to get caught for tax evasion. This is how the gov't often catches people (like folks in the mob pre-RICO days) for being bad citizens when they can't press other criminal charges on them.