🚀 go-pugleaf

Why we should legalize drugs

by Benson B. Roe, MD

Benson Roe is Professor Emeritus and former Chair of Cardiothoracic
Surgery at the University of California at San Francisco.





And "poison" is also a misleading shibboleth. The widespread propaganda
that illegal drugs are "deadly poisons" is a hoax. There is little or no
medical evidence of long term ill effects from sustained, moderate
consumption of uncontaminated marijuana, cocaine or heroin. If these
substances - most of them have been consumed in large quantities for
centuries - were responsible for any chronic, progressive or disabling
diseases, they certainly would have shown up in clinical practice and/or
on the autopsy table. But they simply have not!



More than 20 years ago when I was removing destroyed heart valves from
infected intravenous drug abusers I assumed that these seriously ill
patients represented just the tip of the iceberg of narcotic abuse. In an
effort to ascertain what proportion of serious or fatal drug-related
disease this group represented, I sought information from the San
Francisco Coroner. To my surprise he reported that infections from
contaminated intravenous injections were the only cause of drug-related
deaths he saw except for occasional deaths from overdoses. He confirmed
the inference that clean, reasonable dosages of heroin, cocaine and
marijuana are pathologically harmless. He asserted he had never seen a
heroin user over the age of 50. My obvious conclusion was that they had
died from their. habit but he was confident that they had simply tired of
the drug and just quit. When asked if the same were basically true of
marijuana and cocaine, he responded affirmatively. That caused me to
wonder why these substances had been made illegal.

It is frequently stated that illicit drugs are "bad, dangerous,
destructive" or "addictive," and that society has an obligation to keep
them from the public. But nowhere can be found reliable, objective
scientific evidence that they are any more harmful than other substances
and activities that are legal. In view of the enormous expense, the
carnage and the obvious futility of the "drug war," resulting in massive
criminalization of society, it is high time to examine the supposed
justification for keeping certain substances illegal. Those who initiated
those prohibitions and those who now so vigorously seek to enforce them
have not made their objectives clear. Are they to protect us from evil,
from addiction, or from poison?

The concept of evil is derived from subjective values and is difficult to
define. just why certain (illegal) substances are singularly more evil
than legal substances like alcohol has not been explained. This complex
subject of "right" and "wrong" has never been successfully addressed by
legislation and is best left to the pulpit.

Addiction is also a relative and ubiquitous phenomenon. It certainly
cannot be applied only to a short arbitrary list of addictive substances
while ignoring. a plethora of human cravings - from chocolate to coffee,
from gum to gambling, from tea, to tobacco, from snuggling to sex.
Compulsive urges to fulfill a perceived need are ubiquitous. Some people
are more susceptible to addiction than others and some "needs" are more
addictive than others. Probably the most addictive substance in our
civilization is tobacco - yet no one has suggested making it illegal.

As for prohibition, it has been clearly demonstrated that when an
addictive desire becomes inaccessible it provokes irresponsible behavior
to fulfill that desire. Education and support at least have a chance of
controlling addiction. Deprivation only sharpens the craving and never
works. Even in prison addicts are able to get their `fix.'

And "poison" is also a misleading shibboleth. The widespread propaganda
that illegal drugs are "deadly poisons" is a hoax. There is little or no
medical evidence of long term ill effects from sustained, moderate
consumption of uncontaminated marijuana, cocaine or heroin. If these
substances - most of them have been consumed in large quantities for
centuries - were responsible for any chronic, progressive or disabling
diseases, they certainly would have shown up in clinical practice and/or
on the autopsy table. But they simply have not!

Media focus on the "junkie" has generated a mistaken impression that all
uses of illegal drugs are devastated by their habit. Simple arithmetic
demonstrates that the small population of visible addicts must constitute
only a fraction of the $150 billion per year illegal drug market. This
industry is so huge that it necessarily encompasses a very large portion
of the ordinary population who are typically employed, productive,
responsible and not significantly impaired from leading conventional
lives. These drug users are not "addicts" just as the vast majority of
alcohol users are not "alcoholics."

Is it not a ridiculous paradox to have laws to protect us from relatively
harmless substances and not from the devastating effects of other
substances that happen to be legal? It is well known that tobacco causes
nearly a million deaths annually (in the US alone) from cancer,
cardiovascular disease and emphysema; more than 350,000 die from
alcohol-related cirrhosis and its complications and caffeine is the cause
of cardiac and nervous system disturbances. These facts suggest that the
rubric is being fraudulently misled into fearing the wrong substances and
into complacency about hazardous substances by allowing their sale and
even subsidization.

Our environment contains a plethora of hazards, of which recreational
substances are much less important than many others. Recognizing the
reality of consumer demand and the perspective of relative harm should
make a strong case for alternatives to prohibition. Should we not have
teamed from the failure of the Volstead Act of the 1920s and the current
ubiquitous availability of illegal drugs that prohibition is the height of
futility?

Is it not time to recognize that the " problem" is not the drugs but the
enormous amounts of untaxed money diverted from the economy to criminals?
The economic incentive for drug dealers to merchandise their product
aggressively is a multi-billion dollar return which has a far more
powerful effect to increase substance abuse than any enforcement program
can possibly do to, constrain that usage. The hopeless challenge of drug
crime is compounded by the parallel expansion of theft, crime, which is
the principal economic resource to finance the drug industry. How can this
be anything but a lose-lose situation for society?

We should look at the fact that a relatively low budget public education
campaign has resulted in a significant decline in US consumption of both
alcohol and tobacco during a period when a costly and intensive campaign
to curtail illegal drugs only resulted in their increased usage. Is there
a lesson to be heeded?

Of course there is. Scrap the nonsense of trying to obliterate drugs and
acknowledge their presence in our society as we have with alcohol and
tobacco. Legalization would result in:

1.purity assurance under Food and Drug Administration regulation;
2.labeled concentration of the product (to avoid overdose); 3.obliteration
of vigorous marketing ("pushers"); 4.obliteration of drug crime and
reduction of theft crime 5.savings in expensive enforcement and
6.significant tax revenues.

Effort and funds can then be directed to educating the public about the
hazards of all drugs.

Can such a change of attitude happen? Probably not, because the huge
illegal drug industry has mountains of money for a media blitz and for
buying politicians to sing the songs of "evil" and "danger" which is
certain to kill any legislative attempt at legalization. Perhaps it will
take some time before reality can prevail, but meanwhile we should at
least do more to expose deception and to disseminate the truth.

-- 
+++++++++++++++++++++++
TANSTAAFL
Columbus, OH
+++++++++++++++++++++++