America's Most Dangerous Drug

[Bobby_A.Greene]

pnewton:

Some good observations you have here. But could not the say arguement be used to legalize prostitution, racketeering, murder for hire, etc.

But these crimes are not billion dollar a year activities which contribute to the deaths of policemen, lawyers, judges, coastguardmen, DEA agents, plus the stupid individuals who are purposely addicting themselves to some very nasty narcotics.

For a neighborhood coke dealer $2,100 dollars a week cash is minimum wage, and that is tax free. A 22 year old high school drop-out coke dealer in my neighborhood owns a condo, two Iroc sports cars, and takes a vacation twice a year to Jamaica (but doesn’t have a job). And there are dozens just like him in my neighborhood, let alone across the major city I live, let alone across the nation. And that is just cocaine, let alone Crack, meth, grass, heroin, and everything else.

I know first hand that drug dealers fear the legalization of drugs which is why I know that if you legalize drugs, you will really hurt the drug dealers. Prostitution, extortion, rackateering, and other criminal pursuits just doesn’t produce the money and violence as does the traffic in illegal narcotics. So, unfortunately, if you can’t beat them, legalize them.

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

Also, since this thread started specifically to address meth, I would like to point out that meth, because of it ease of production, needs no organized crime network like cocaine. While this has made it hard to combat on one level, it seems most of our meth manufacturers I have met are independant, or at least small scale operators.

Regarding meth, the same situation had applied to heroin in the '50s. It was made in home laboratories and was also considered America’s most dangerous drug. Not all meth or cocaine or heroin is controlled or produced by organized crime, though organized crime does eventually get involved because narcotics are so lucrative.

The individual entrepreneur will always be there to cook up narcotics in a home lab, and legalizing drugs will just reduce his status and the demand for his mysterious product. You don’t see too many clandestine cigerette dealers making millions of dollars for addictive death sticks simply because cigerettes are legal, therefore plain and boring. I believe the same would hold true for all illicit narcotics, home brewed meth included.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Bobby A. Greene:

Yes, that is true, And anybody who has taken Psychopharmacology in college is aware that there are three types of addiction: physical addiction, psychological addiction, and social addiction.

Alcohol is somewhat addictive while heroin is so very addictive that not only is it illegal, but it is also illegal to use for scientific research. Yet in Germany, heroin is commonly used as an analgesic. German ‘headache’ pills are laced with heroin and are much sought after by American women.

Yet despite the various levels of addiction of legal and illegal drugs, it is the illegal drugs which are driving a very violent crime rate in the United States which the rule of law has failed to control.

It is only cold logic which dictates that drugs be legalized and taxed to wreak havoc on organized crime and to alleviate the pressure on the honest middle class tax payer.

Legalization will remove the mystique of drug use and lessen its demand, as the end of prohibition did for alcohol. And just as alcohol abuse has its adherents, so inevitably will legal ‘drug’ abuse have its adherents, just as in alcohol.

Yes, there are alcoholic wife beaters, kid abusers, self-abusers, bums & winos, and alcoholic reprobates of all kinds, and so too will there be of legal drug abusers. But its a small price to pay to stop a billion + dollar/year criminal economy which unnecessarily destroys the lives of thousands of innocent Americans annually.

Again, it is not a moral condonation of legalizing drugs, just an ugly & stark necessity.

But we cannot repeal the laws of economics. Supply, demand, and price are interrelated. If we lower the price and make it legal to make or import currently-illegal drugs (thus increasing the supply) the demand will skyrocket. That’s what has happened in nations that have tried it.

The impact of increased numbers of addicts, along with all the associated ills show that legalizing drugs won’t solve problems, but only accerbate them.

And finally, while we can SAY that legalizing drugs isn’t condoning them, all surveys in countries that have tried it refute that proposition.

 

[thestickman]

vern humphrey:

But we cannot repeal the laws of economics. Supply, demand, and price are interrelated. If we lower the price and make it legal to make or import currently-illegal drugs (thus increasing the supply) the demand will skyrocket.

For the short-term, you are correct. However, regarding the long-term it didn’t happen when Prohibition ended. Use leveled back off to levels consistent to those before Prohibition when into effect.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

thestickman:

For the short-term, you are correct. However, regarding the long-term it didn’t happen when Prohibition ended. Use leveled back off to levels consistent to those before Prohibition when into effect.

Its unwise to draw parallels between alcohol and other drugs. Alcohol has been around since Fruit trees were around. Mankind has grown up “enculturating” alcohol. Even as ritualistic as we have made alcohol it still causes massive problems for those susceptible and untld damage to those around the abusive drinker.

Hardcore drugs otoh are much more addictive and have no social history of use and abuse. This is not something to experiment with on our youth.

 

[vern_humphrey]

thestickman:

For the short-term, you are correct. However, regarding the long-term it didn’t happen when Prohibition ended. Use leveled back off to levels consistent to those before Prohibition when into effect.

And as I pointed out, crystal meth, PCP and similar drugs are not alcohol.

You can have a cold beer after mowing the grass, or a glass of wine in front of the fireplace and not become addicted. You cannot use meth, PCP, heroin and many other drugs that way.

The effects seen in other countries bear this out – the number of addicts increases dramatically.

And since addicts NEED their drugs, and since many of them become unemployable because of their addiction, they turn to crime to get the money.

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

vern humphrey:

And as I pointed out, crystal meth, PCP and similar drugs are not alcohol.

That is a truism.

You can have a cold beer after mowing the grass, or a glass of wine in front of the fireplace and not become addicted.

But yes alcohol is addictive. Drunk is a temporary addiction to alcohol and the hangover is the temporary withdrawal symptom of alcohol addiction.

Do not confuse alcohol abuse with alcohol addiction. Most people abuse alcohol and suffer temporary addictive (drunk) and withdrawal (hangover) symptoms. It just takes longer to become addicted to alcohol than to heroin, meth, cocaine, etc. But the addiction to alcohol exists nevertheless.

Alcoholism is the addiction to alcohol. Just like heroin addicts are addicted to heroin (or meth addicts are addicted to meth), the alcoholic is addicted to alcohol and needs periodic booster shots (nip bottles for example) to maintain the alcohol levels in his body so he can avoid withdrawals, which can result in death for the addict.

And since addicts NEED their drugs, and since many of them become unemployable because of their addiction, they turn to crime to get the money.

But not if the drug is legalized and affordable they don’t turn to crime any more than the alcoholic turns to crime.

All addicts, including the alcoholic, need their drugs, that is what ‘addicted’ means. If drugs were made legal, they would be easier access to them, and it would be unnecessary for the addict to turn to crime.

Could you share with us those studies in other countries you keep mentioning? Thanks.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Bobby A. Greene:

Yet despite the various levels of addiction of legal and illegal drugs, it is the illegal drugs which are driving a very violent crime rate in the United States which the rule of law has failed to control.

While I will concede that the drug trade may , to some extent, drive crime, I believe that crime, to a very large extent, drives the drug trade. It is profitable for professional criminals to have large populations of drug thralls. The dabbling of drug addicts in crime does not compare to the wholesale wallowing of criminals in the drug trade.

Drug addiction is the pretext for the thrill of committing crimes. Aunt Betty’s neighbours get to say: "Oh look at poor old Betty’s son, Billy-Bob. He has to steal from his mother to support his habit. Crock! Billy-Bob was stealing as soon as he was able to toddle to the corner store. He steals as a competitive sport. Now the drug is a diversionary tactic to distract people from his preference for and dependence on crime.
Bobby A. Greene:

It is only cold logic which dictates that drugs be legalized and taxed to wreak havoc on organized crime and to alleviate the pressure on the honest middle class tax payer.

It is no-logic. Why not legalize murder while you’re at it? Shoplifting? Blackmail? Fraud?
Bobby A. Greene:

Legalization will remove the mystique of drug use and lessen its demand, as the end of prohibition did for alcohol.

However much legalization might demystify drug abuse, unconscionable marketing will mystify it again. Alcohol is not meth. The ability of meth to addict is dramatically stronger than the ability of alcohol to addict. Addiction to meth is almost instaneous, rehabilitation is rare, recidivisim is so common as to be predictable. In no way are meth and alcohol comparable.
Bobby A. Greene:

Again, it is not a moral condonation of legalizing drugs, just an ugly & stark necessity.

It is a throwing of the sheep to the wolves.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Bobby A. Greene:

But yes alcohol is addictive. Drunk is a temporary addiction to alcohol and the hangover is the temporary withdrawal symptom of alcohol addiction.

Do not confuse alcohol abuse with alcohol addiction. Most people abuse alcohol and suffer temporary addictive (drunk) and withdrawal (hangover) symptoms. It just takes longer to become addicted to alcohol than to heroin, meth, cocaine, etc. But the addiction to alcohol exists nevertheless.

And the words I have bolded are the key. They explain why, when a country legalizes drugs they not only see a rise in addiciton, but they don’t see addiction later falling back to more tolerable levels.
Bobby A. Greene:

Alcoholism is the addiction to alcohol. Just like heroin addicts are addicted to heroin (or meth addicts are addicted to meth), the alcoholic is addicted to alcohol and needs periodic booster shots (nip bottles for example) to maintain the alcohol levels in his body so he can avoid withdrawals, which can result in death for the addict.

Again, the difference is the RATE of addiction.
Bobby A. Greene:

But not if the drug is legalized and affordable they don’t turn to crime any more than the alcoholic turns to crime.

But the difference is the RATE of users of drugs who become addicted and turn to crime, versus the rate of users of alcohol.
Bobby A. Greene:

All addicts, including the alcoholic, need their drugs, that is what ‘addicted’ means. If drugs were made legal, they would be easier access to them, and it would be unnecessary for the addict to turn to crime.

Could you share with us those studies in other countries you keep mentioning? Thanks.

Take a look at the Netherlands for a starter. Look at the Swiss “dabbling” with things like “Needle Park.”

You might also look for statistics on victimization – the number of people who are victims of crime has been steadily climbing in Europe, to the point where you are more likely to be mugged in the major cities of Europe than in cities in the US.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Here’s a partial list of studies available to me. I believe some are on the internet.

A Restrictive Drug Policy: The Swedish Experience, Swedish National Institute of Public Health, Stockholm, 1993.

“Arguments Against Legalizing Drugs and A Proposed Solution,” Drug Abuse Update, National Drug Information Center of Families in Action and the Scott Newman Center, No. 26, Atlanta, GA, Sept. 1988.

“Arguments Against the Legalization of Drugs,” Campuses Without Drugs International, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA

Brown, Dr. Lee, Dir. of Office of National Drug Control Policy, “Eight Myths About Drugs,” Presented at the Conference on Crime, Drugs, Health and Prohibition, Harvard Law School May 21, 1994.

Caltrider, William R., Jr., “The Snare and Delusion of Legalization,” Presented to the Demand Reduction Symposium, Department of Justice, DEA, Arlington, VA. January 27, 1994.

“Drug Legalization: Myths & Misconceptions,” DEA, Demand Reduction Office, Seattle, WA.

Dupont, Robert L. MD and Ronald L. Goldfarb, Esq., “The Case Against Legalizing Drugs: The Delusion of Just Saying Yes,” Committees of Correspondence Newsletter, 57 Conant St., Danvers, MA.

“Forces at Work to Legalize Drugs in Europe,” Hassela Nordic Network Newspaper, Hassela, Sweden , Volume 1, Issue 1 October 1993.

Gaetano, Ron, R.Ph, “Making it Legal Won’t Make it Less Lethal,” Health for ALL, Americans Against Legalization, Genesis Center, Union, N.J. 1990.

“Issues and Comments to Respond to Legalization of Illegal Drugs,” DEA May, 1988.

“Legalize Drugs? No!,” Drug Abuse Update, National Drug Information Center of Families in Action and the Scott Newman Center, Number 27, Atlanta, GA. December 1988.

“Legalizing Drugs is Not the Answer,” Citizens for A Drug-Free Oregon, Portland, Oregon. 1988.

“Legalization: Panacea or Pandora’s Box,” White Paper #1, Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University, NY, September 1995.

Mann, Peggy, “Reasons to Oppose Legalizing Illegal Drugs,” Committees of Correspondence Newsletter, 57 Conant St. Danvers, MA. 01923. September 1988.

“More Arguments Against Legalization,” Drug Abuse Update, National Families in Action and the Scott Newman Center, No. 33, Atlanta, GA. June 1990.

Nahas, Gabriel G. MD, PhD, “The Decline of Drugged Nations,” Wall St. Journal, July 11, 1988.

Peterson, Robert, Esq., “Legalization: The Myth Exposed,” Searching for Alternatives: Drug Control Policy in the United States, Hoover Institution Press, Stanford, CA., 1991.

Position Paper in Opposition to the Legalization of Drugs. Published originally by the Regional Drug Initiative, Portland, OR, September 1990.

Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, Alexandria , VA; revised September 1993.
Position Statement Against the Legalization of Drugs, PRIDE, Atlanta, GA, 1990.

“Reasons Not To Legalize Drugs: A Compilation of Articles,” Committees of Correspondence Newsletter, 57 Conant St., Danvers, MA. 01923.

Recommendations Regarding Legalization of Drugs, White House Conference for A Drug-Free America Final Report, June 1988.

Resolution Against the Legalization of Drugs, The National Federation of Parents for Drug Free Youth, 1159-B Southtown Square, St. Louis, MO. 63123.

Roques, Wayne, “Ten Compelling Reasons Not To Legalize Drugs,” DEA, Demand Reduction Office, Miami Division, 1993.

Schwartz, Richard, MD, “Prohibition, 1920 to 1933: An Overview of Its Effects on Public Health and the Economy,” Southern Medical Journal, Vol. 85, No. 4 April 1992.

“Seven Arguments Against Drug Legalization,” EURAD News, Lomma Sweden, Spring 1993.

Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization, U.S. Department of Justice, DEA, 1994.

“Tacking Drugs Together:” A consultation document on a strategy for England 1995-98. Presented to Parliament, October 1994. Introduction by Prime Minister John Major.

“The Myths of Drug Legalization,” California Narcotic Officer’s Association, Santa Clarita, CA.

Walton, Judge Reggie B., Associate Director Bureau of State and Local Affairs, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Speech to the American Bar Association, August 7, 1989.

Wilson, James Q. “Against the Legalization of Drugs,” Commentary, Volume 89, No. 2, February 1990

 

[Ani_Ibi]

vern humphrey:

Here’s a partial list of studies available to me. I believe some are on the internet.

Sheesh, Vern. I’m beginning to wonder about you. Do you have a team of researchers scurrying around an underground library providing you with grist for the mill?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ani Ibi:

Sheesh, Vern. I’m beginning to wonder about you. Do you have a team of researchers scurrying around an underground library providing you with grist for the mill?

After I retired from the Army, I spent quite a few years doing “training and training-related” projects, often for governmental entities. I’ve done everything from training commandos in Singapore to working as a terrorist at the Joint Readiness Traning Center making home-made nerve gas to attack US units.

I have accumulated an interesting amount of research documents in the process.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

vern humphrey:

I have accumulated an interesting amount of research documents in the process.

By the way do you have a link where I can read up on the evolution of nuclear warfare. I am aware that changes in ordinance and in thinking have occured since H&N. And I am very curious as to what is happening with this so-called planned strike of American cities by Al Qu’eda.

 

[pnewton]

Bobby A. Greene:

But these crimes are not billion dollar a year activities which contribute to the deaths of policemen, lawyers, judges, coastguardmen, DEA agents, plus the stupid individuals who are purposely addicting themselves to some very nasty narcotics.

So we should only legalize really big, pervasive crimes? Is the difference you see only a matter of how big the industry is?

I understand the arguements for legalized drugs, but it is largely a moot point. We will not see legalized meth and heroin in our time. I would much rather see us fight the problem of the major drug cartels by fighting the battle on their terms.

 

[BlackKnight]

I’ve got something for all of you to consider:

Ecclesiasticus 8:6 Despise not a man that turneth away from sin, nor reproach him therewith: remember that we are all worthy of reproof.

Luke 11:4 And forgive us our sins, for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.

Luke 15:7 I say to you, that even so there shall be joy in heaven upon one sinner that doth penance, more than upon ninety-nine just who need not penance.

If you wanna be vindictive in anything in life. You better talk it over with Our Lord first.

To Snicker: God bless you. Hang in there!

 

[vern_humphrey]

By the way do you have a link where I can read up on the evolution of nuclear warfare. I am aware that changes in ordinance and in thinking have occured since H&N. And I am very curious as to what is happening with this so-called planned strike of American cities by Al Qu’eda.

Do you LIKE making me work?

Alperovitz, Gar. Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima & Potsdam. The Use of the Atomic Bomb and the American Confrontation with Soviet Power. New York: Penguin Books, 1985.

Alperovitz, Gar and Sanho Tree. The Decision to Drop the Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1995.

Arnett, Eric H., ed. New Technologies For Security and Arms Control: Threats and Promise. Washinton, D.C.: American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science, 1989.

Burrows, William E. and Robert Windrem. Critical Mass: The Dangerous Race for Superweapons in a Fragmenting World. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994.

Canavan, Gregory and Edward Teller. “Strategic Defense for the 1990s,”* Nature*, 344 (April 19, 1990), pp. 699-704.

Carter, Ashton B. and David N. Schwartz. Ballistic Missile Defense. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1984.

Duncan, Francis. Rickover and the Nuclear Navy: The Discipline of Technology. Annapolis: U.S. Naval Institute Press, 1990.

Dyson, Freeman. Weapons & Hope. New York: Harper & Row, 1984.

Evangelista, Matthew. Innovation and the Arms Race: How the United States and the Soviet Union Develop New Military Technologies. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988.

Feaver, Peter D. Guarding the Guardians: Civilian Control of Nuclear Weapons in the United States. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992.

Fogelman, Edwin. Hiroshima: The Decisions to Use the A-Bomb. New York: Scribner, 1964.

Freedman, Laurence. The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy. New York: St. Martin’s, 1989.

Goldfischer, David. The Best Defense. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994.

Hafner, Donald L. and John Roper, eds. ATBMs and Western Security: Missile Defenses for Europe. Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1988.

Husken, Ronald. The Origins of the Strategic Cruise Missile. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1981.

Jones, Vincent C. United States Army in World War II. Special Studies. Manhattan: The Army and the Atomic Bomb. Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History, U.S. Army, 1985.

Kaplan, Fred. The Wizards of Armageddon: Strategists in the Nuclear Age. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983.

Lakoff, Sanford and Herbert York. A Shield in Space: Technology, Politics and the Strategic Defense Initiative. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989.

Mandelbaum, Michael. The Nuclear Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

----------. “The Lessons of the Next Nuclear War,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 74, No. 2 (March/April 1995), pp. 22-37.

MacKenzie, Donald. Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990.

Mason, R.A. Air Power in the Nuclear Age. Champagne: University of Illinois Press, 1983.

Mayers, Teena Karsa. Understanding Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control: A Guide to the Issues. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: Pergamon-Brassey’s, 1986.

Millot, Marc Dean, Roger Molander and Peter A. Wilson. “The Day After…” Study: Nuclear Proliferation in the Post-Cold War World. 3 vols. Santa Monica: Rand Corp., 1993.

Molander, Roger and Peter A. Wilson. “On Dealing with the Prospect of Nuclear Chaos,”* The Washington Quarterly*, Vol. 17, No. 3, (Summer 1993)

Mueller, John. Retreat From Doomsday. New York: Basic Books, 1990.

Paret, Peter. Evolution of Nuclear Strategy. London, 1981.

Rosenberg, David Alan. “The Origins of Overkill: Nuclear Weapons and American Strategy, 1945-1960,” International Security, Vol. 7, No. 4 (Spring 1983).

Sagan, Scott D. Moving Targets: Nuclear Strategy and National Security. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989.

---------- and Kenneth Waltz. The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate. New York: W.W. Norton, 1995.

Saplosky, Harvey M. The Polaris System Development: Bureaucratic and Programmatic Success in Government. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972.

Snow, Donald. Nuclear Strategy in a Dynamic World. University: University of Alabama Press, 1981.

Thee, Marek. Military Technology, Military Strategy and the Arms Race. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1986.

Van Creveld, Martin L. Nuclear Proliferation and the Future of Conflict. New York: Free Press, 1993.

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by Ani Ibi
Drug addiction is the pretext for the thrill of committing crimes. Aunt Betty’s neighbours get to say: "Oh look at poor old Betty’s son, Billy-Bob. He has to steal from his mother to support his habit. Crock! Billy-Bob was stealing as soon as he was able to toddle to the corner store. He steals as a competitive sport. Now the drug is a diversionary tactic to distract people from his preference for and dependence on crime.

This blanket statement is not true across the board. Some folks, perhaps.
The “Billy Bobs” of my family who are recovering addicts were sweet, well behaved children who did well in school. They played varsity basketball and Little League baseball. They did not steal “as a competitive sport”. The addiction drove them to crime - NOT vice versa! Furthermore, as clean and sober people, they are tax paying contributers to society.
And, NOBODY felt sorry for the “Billy Bobs”. But “Aunt Betty’s neighbors” did feel HER pain.
As I said in my original post, one who has not lived with a meth addict cannot possibly know what it’s really about. All the studies and doctors and experts, who haven’t experienced this horror from the inside of the fence, can only give their best advice, observations and judgement. Which, in the long run, I suppose, is better than nothing.

 

[KathleenElsie]

AmyS:

Snickers… I would be curious when you where sentenced to prison and where. Here in California a lovely proposition was passed that made it mandatory for drug users to go to drug court. They get put into rehab, have to check in on a regular bases with the court to report their progress, they have to take regular drug test. Sounds great huh… The reality is it isn’t. I sit out in the court hall ways with victims of crimes so I get to hear and observe. The deffence attorneys are constantly telling the drug pushers to tell the judge that they are users in order to keep them from going to prison. The coversations the defendants have are depressing, it is all a big joke to them. You can’t force rehab on most addicts, it is something they have to be ready to do.

I have seen pictures of children with their hair falling out, and there teeth rotting away because mom and dad think it is okay for them to make meth in their children’s room. I saw one house where the parents put the chemicals on a shelf above the child’s bed to keep it out of reach. The thing is the chemicals are heavier than air so guess what is falling on them.

I personally see drugs as the route of many of the crimes I work on. They are often the given excuse for the crime commited. I work with the victims though, and that doesn’t do much to heal their pain.

As a former Social Worker that places drug babies with foster and adoptive families I have seen the pain and hurt done thse children. GOD forgive me but I could very easily put anyone that made, sold or provided this garbage to the parents on an island and never look back. I can pray for their souls and forgive but never forget the children and people they harmed.
There are those out there that are more forgiving then I am.
But, never in my wildest dreams would I ever allow someone that sold drugs to become a teacher and receive a teaching certificate so they can teach our young. If this person wants to make up for the past let him or her work where there are no children maybe with the elderly etc.

 

[vern_humphrey]

KathleenElsie:

As a former Social Worker that places drug babies with foster and adoptive families I have seen the pain and hurt done thse children. GOD forgive me but I could very easily put anyone that made, sold or provided this garbage to the parents on an island and never look back. I can pray for their souls and forgive but never forget the children and people they harmed.
There are those out there that are more forgiving then I am.
But, never in my wildest dreams would I ever allow someone that sold drugs to become a teacher and receive a teaching certificate so they can teach our young. If this person wants to make up for the past let him or her work where there are no children maybe with the elderly etc.

Anyone who thinks taking drugs is a “victimless crime” must be on drugs himself. And that’s a key issue on “legalization.” Even if we accepted that the “spike” in usage after legalization would be temporary, look at the human suffering it would cause.

 

[Adonis33]

Bobby A. Greene:

But yes alcohol is addictive. Drunk is a temporary addiction to alcohol and the hangover is the temporary withdrawal symptom of alcohol addiction.

Do not confuse alcohol abuse with alcohol addiction. Most people abuse alcohol and suffer temporary addictive (drunk) and withdrawal (hangover) symptoms. It just takes longer to become addicted to alcohol than to heroin, meth, cocaine, etc. But the addiction to alcohol exists nevertheless.

Alcoholism is the addiction to alcohol. Just like heroin addicts are addicted to heroin (or meth addicts are addicted to meth), the alcoholic is addicted to alcohol and needs periodic booster shots (nip bottles for example) to maintain the alcohol levels in his body so he can avoid withdrawals, which can result in death for the addict.

But not if the drug is legalized and affordable they don’t turn to crime any more than the alcoholic turns to crime.

All addicts, including the alcoholic, need their drugs, that is what ‘addicted’ means. If drugs were made legal, they would be easier access to them, and it would be unnecessary for the addict to turn to crime.

Could you share with us those studies in other countries you keep mentioning? Thanks.

Alcohol is a diaretic. When you drink alcohol you loose water. You body needs this water, and the first place it gets water is your brain. A hangover is not a “temporary withdrawl”, but your body telling you that you need to drink water. (I used to teach Health in HS).

One of the first signs of heat exhuastion is a headache - same thing.