746 America's War on Drugs

I particularly appreciated "Cindy Kune (sp)," the neuro pharmacologist.
Furthering her comments, I would be interested in learning more about those "chronic impairments" - information that we can begin to use with our young people, as well as adults. Thank you.

The program America's War on Drugs was excellent and could not have been more relevant.

I'm of the school of thought we are losing the War on Drugs. The most progressive and simple solutions, including drug decriminalization, legalization, taxation and treatment, are often muted by detractors. The principal detractors are political lobbies who have a vested interest in maintaining this "War on Drugs". Include the prison industry in this group. Drug prisoners amount to millions of dollars of prison industry revenue.

The war on drugs was lost the day drug criminalization was passed by US and state legislatures almost 100 years ago. Presently, nearly 750,000 US Citizens are jailed and imprisoned for drug crimes which accounts for 1/3 of the jail/prison population. Imagine the phenomenal plummeting of crime statistics when drugs are decriminalized. And imagine how our national debt would be paid in full from the tax revenue billions collected from drugs.

Hi, great discussion about drug use and trafficing presented in a manner to enhance learning. Discussions on drug trafficing and drug use are often presented dogmatically with little opening for other views. Thanks for treating these subjects from a rational perspective. If this approach was taken by public media and our government bodies, we would resolve many of the issues that drag on for years such as the "War on Drugs."

I was very happy with the first half of the show because the economist provided facts and opinion. But i was VERY unhappy about the last half of the show. Dr. Kuhn did not share any facts. All I learned was that animals and humans eat hallucinogens because it makes them feel good. I was looking for what each drug does to your brain - which is her specialty. I am a weekly listener and was disappointed because Joe asked for her opinion - I am not interested in that until she tells me the facts of her research. Please have her on again to share the facts. Thank you.

Thanks for running such a level-headed discussion about this politically-charged topic.

Your guests today were excellent and we can only hope that somehow this controvercial but extremely important problem can be addressed before much more time goes by.
Thanks so much to the Graedons for presenting it.

I am so glad to hear the information presented during this show. It seems to me the war on drugs is not winnable. I have thought for a long time that if the $$ spent for the "war" (imprisonment also) would be used for a medical model for some control and education there would be no need for the drug arrests for trafficking, delivery and use. Also our Afghanistan war may be a winnable one if the profit was taken out of the opium crop, and profit would be taken out if it was controlled and legalized, (though I heard that the Afghan opium in the US comes from south of the US and that Afghan product is used mostly in Europe so this concept may not be true)

I tried to listen to your show on "The war on drugs", but I became so frustrated with Joe Graedon's long winded questions I turn it off. Does he ever listen to himself? He interrupts the guests and misses good points; today Dr. Kuhn was going to make a point about the affects of pot on memory when Joe went off on a two minute rant that made no sense and was unrelated to his ultimate question. He needs a drug to make get to the point, shut-up and listen.

This was a great show. The war on drugs is pure nonsense.

We found out from 1920-1933 that prohibition does not work. It did not work for alcohol and it will not work for drugs. I have read that marijuana enforcement alone costs 13 billion dollars per year. Then there is the court and imprisonment costs as well. That would go a long way in health care. Treat drug abusers like alcohol abusers and be more realistic about control - tax drugs and turn them into a revenue stream.

PBS TV just showed "The Botany of Desire" the part on marijuana was quite interesting. In the Netherlands they have shops that sell marijuana, if we allowed that here we would have another revenue stream just like alcohol tax is a revenue stream today.

Our prohibition pruritan heritage may well be our ruin... if global warming does not get us first.

Chuckle. Randy's comment on Joe was hillarious. But all us long time listeners know Joe just gets so excited sometimes. Maybe if he had taken a toke or two on a joint he would have mellowed out some. LOL. Again a great show.

Randy, I feel your frustration - it reminds me of radio Disc Jockeys who can't resist interrupting a great song without tossing in some personal commentary. (laughing) But it's taking in the good with the bad, like most things in life.

This was a very timely an important issue, and the presentations were excellent considering the time restraints.
I was disappointed however that there was no mention of the fact that tobacco is far and away the most addicting of all the common "recreational drugs," as shown by the 1999 study by the Institute of Medicine, and reported in the AMA journal (JAMA. 2003;290:1299-1303).
Another point which could have used more emphasis is that in consideration of the well-known adverse effects of secondary smoke, America has been very slow to develop effective policies to protect people from secondary smoke - particulalry in contrast to the extreme and costly efforts to limit the use of other recreational drugs.
Finally, there are effective methods of treating addiciton. I graduated from medical school in 1963, a time when there was little "hard" evidence of many of the adverse effects of tobacco and its use was widespread and with general societal acceptance. Yet while nearly 3/4 of our class admitted use of tobacco when we entered medical school, a survey which was published in our graduation yearbook noted that by the time of graduation only 11% still utilized tobacco. Observing the ill effects first hand was a potent stimulator to cure addiction!

TO DWD:

I agree "War On Drugs" is a great program and excellent commentary on your part. I also watched the program "The Botany of Desire" early morning before I tuned into People's Pharmacy program on War On Drugs. Though I'm never going to partake in the "puffing the the weed", I will support laws that allow treatmentment and texation for marijuana. The "prohibition puritan heritage" quip was on time (laughing)

If the country can't move away from its moralistic stance on illegal drugs, one could require drug treatment upon arrest. We could figure out how many times a drug addict attends rehab before s/he is able to "control", reduce, or eliminate their addiction. If it is ten times, then a drug addict would get ten chances at rehab. If the person is arrested the 11th time, then they may face jail time or community service or some so-called punishment.

What does your panelist think of that? [Was really surprised a university professor was admittedly so ignorant of the war on drugs.]

The "War on Drugs" episode of your show today was excellent--I mean the first part was excellent, with the economist.

Unless I'm mistaken, the neuroscientist who followed him wants to continue the war against hard drug distribution--with all the enormous police, court, and prison costs that go with that, and with all the burglary, mugging, and murder that inevitably accompany drug-enforcement. (She didn't say whether she also wants to continue the millions of child AIDS cases resulting from illegal addicts sharing needles.) She apparently wants to wage war against a victimless voluntary transaction, despite the heavy costs to everyone. And apparently she missed the first 2/3 of the show, in which we heard about the studies showing that prohibition enforcement has no effect on the rate of drug usage, and that the only results of prohibition-repeal are favorable results, including a desire by addicts to reduce their usage-rates.

To clarify, I don't use drugs, and I don't approve of or recommend drug-use. I believe that the govt (and all of us) should _verbally_ try to discourage drug-use. Advise against it. And, as the economist described, make treatment available. When users can set their own usage-rate, they soon want to decrease it.

Personally, I would suggest that govt-operated "harmful-substance-outlets", require drug-recipients to accept literature about the harm of using drugs--and maybe even require recipients to pass a test to show that they fully understand the harm of the drugs that they're getting. The test should be available in whatever languages are spoken by the recipients.

Can I express a peeve, from my own perspective on this?: We, as a society, are so gung-ho on futily trying to prevent _voluntary_ self--pollution, but it's regrettable that we don't care as much about protecting people from _involuntary_, forced substance pollution, resulting from environmental pollution. In particular, from automotive air-pollution. Our lax laws about toxic substances that can be imposed on unwilling victims amount to a crime that is not a victimless crime.

From what I read in the '90s, the number of annual U.S. deaths from automotive air-pollution is about equal to the number of deaths from automotive collisions. About one automotive-air-pollution-imposed death every 13 minutes in the U.S. These people are dying from substances that they did _not_ choose to take. Forget voluntary drug use and distribution, and do something about death and harm from involuntarily-imposed substances.

A British study revealed that lung-cancer rates among urban nonsmokers were on the order of 12 times the lung-cancer rates of rural nonsmokers.

In California, by the statistics that I checked, the deaths from automotive air-pollution slightly exceeded those from automotive collisions.

Thank you for listening to me.

Marinol (synthetic thc pills) 5 milligram costs Insurance/Govt $12.80 each x 30 = $384.00 per month.
2 plants per person + filtered water + sun = $5.00?
Regulate/Tax it like alcohol/nicotine.

Terrorist mastermind can get 7yrs. Street drug dealers same. Come on USA wake up. Sheesh.

I am so very much in agreement with your message about the War on Drugs in America... Failed and it keeps on failing...
As a retired teacher, and mother of 3 boys, I can count ( it would take more than both hands!!) the number of teenagers and their families destroyed by drugs.... killed, brain dead, talents wasted, etc.

I used to have the attitude of which you spoke, that the addict is somehow "less" and is to blame... but my experience tells me no... drug and alcoholic addiction knows no boundaries... those afflicted do not deserve punishment, but help. Our private schools (rich kids) and our churches/ members are equally devasted by drugs, but they deny it....

I have long been concerned about what to do about the problem... I was told by the drug and alcohol abuse commission that I should be quiet, if I want to keep walking around lest the wrong person hear of my views and efforts. Something must be done.... thank you for this show, and the book / author. Maybe when it is realized that it affects the "economics" of this country, then people will listen.

Thank you for discussing this important, complex subject! I offer the following comments:

1) There is value in distinguishing between drug use and drug abuse - just as we do when discussing alcohol. As Dr. Kuhn points out, 90% of the alcohol and marijuana users do not have a problem with their substance of choice.

2) The artificially inflated cost of illegal drugs, and the legal costs and damage to the individual caught using drugs, are often a far greater contributor to the "lost everything" stories than the physical and mental cost to the individual from the actual use and even abuse of drugs. This is particularly true for marijuana. Many past presidents have been rumored to have used drugs in their youth, and President Obama admitted to having used both cocaine and marijuana. None of them would have even gotten to the point of consideration for national office had they been arrested. How many potentially great men and women have had their potential snuffed by prohibition?

3) Dr. Kuhn feels it is still worthwhile to prohibit certain drugs due to their physical and mental cost to the individual. I do not debate that all drugs have some risks associated with their use. Society must balance the freedom of the individual to make their own choices with the risk to society from the activity in question. Fatty foods cause much damage to society, but so far we have not banned them with the threat of either prison sentences or mandatory treatment for closet potato chip eaters. Snowboarding is dangerous, sometimes leading to broken legs and quadriplegia, yet we tolerate its risks.

4) Dr. Benevie astutely points out that making dangerous drugs, such as heroin, legally available to addicts through clinics brings them into "the system" where they are more likely to find treatment.

5) Dr. Kuhn doesn't want to legalize marijuana in a fashion similar to alcohol because of her concerns about possible developmental difficulties associated with it, and is "waiting for the data to come in on that." This sounds like she is looking for science to justify a position rather than using science to arrive at a position.

Again, thank you for hosting this discussion on your well respected program! You are helping to bring this topic out to the mainstream for well reasoned, thoughtful deliberation of what most people view as our country's failed war on drugs.

Hi Joe,
Honestly, I did not enjoy the show because it upsets me to see with all that we have today that we are so lacking in the ability to control something like the Drug issue.

Congratulations, it must have been a tough show to put together. As far as legalizing Drugs- I disagree. Locks keep people honest and most people fear retribtution more than the prize. Only a crook is good at bypassing locks and there mentality is that they will never get caught (or if they are they will not be prosecuted). If we lifted the speed limits on all highways people will speed. If we legalize drugs- People Will Speed. (I know Joe will appreciate the entendre)

Ken

I did not hear the program but I would offer this......the war on drugs is unwinnable. Until you can figure out a way to keep the revenue streams going into the pockets of those who have a vested interest in keeping drugs illegal.... it will never be won.

The lawyers who benefit from the DEFENSE of those who are caught and the prosecutors whose names appear in the media as 'champions of the people' for their prosecutorial records on drug offenses. Then, they decide to run for public office and using their record of being 'tough on drugs' as their mantra the whole fiasco starts over again when they are elected to state legislatures and the federal government.

This group is making their living off the very people who would benefit from some type of treatment and education programs.

It is wiser and more cost effective to have centers to inform, educate and treat drug abusers than what it is now costing this country to prosecute and incarcerate these 'victimless crimes'.

The obvious upside, as pointed out by some of the posters here, is the reduction of the number of people in prison who do not belong there and, if it can be controlled and taxed...as cigarettes and alcohol are now, would create another stream of revenue that could be used in part to fund the treatment centers...that is, if we can keep the lawmakers from finding other 'pet' projects to squander the money on.

I have been a fan of your production for many years and I listen to it on The Ideas Network, Wisconsin Public Radio. However, never before has one of your many programs grabbed me so viscerally. Everything that was being said about the "War on Drugs." I agree with one of the previous writers. I never have had an inclination to smoke the reefer. But, there are so many people that I have met or become friends with who have been one of the thousands (millions?) of victims of this horrible war on our own people.

Because of people like Woody Harrelson I have become an advocate of industrial hemp. I definitely have absolutely no problem with use of the female plant for medicinal purposes, especially in terminal cases.

The war on drugs is winnable if it is done correctly. Problem is that our society makes light of drug use and many in Tinsel Town (Hollywood) use drugs often so it is often portrayed as an acceptable way of life. What we need is a strong message to those who use or is considering use of drugs... you get caught with drugs you automatically go to jail for a long period of time... no questions asked, no whining parents trying to get little Johnny acquitted, no attorneys playing games with the system... you go to jail. Give our society six months to get straight then enforce the law and I mean really enforce the law.

Anyone who has known someone with an addiction problem knows how devastating it is to the person addicted, their families, their friends, and our society. There is never a reason to make drugs acceptable because of what it can lead to and most often does. Study the impacts of alcohol on our society and you will gain an insight as to how this supposedly simple drug has cost our society so many lives, medical problems, and expense to control it. Contrary to the guest speaker's opinion about rehabilitation these programs are not all that successful in that the addicted goes through the motions during these programs and once out they are back to their old habits.

Bottom line is that a person doesn't need any of these drugs or alcohol to lead a successful and happy life. If you want to get rid of the drug problem attack it properly like you we do for things like the possession of explosives, automatic weapons, terrorists, and the like. Even if we have to increase our prison size by five fold the cost to society will be far less than what we pay for this problem today. But like so many other problems in the United States today we all whine about the problem but do little about it.

Local news tonight had another terrible Oxy story. Man's son hasn't smiled since he started using Oxy 2 yrs ago and now he's in jail. Opiates have such physical addiction, Marijuana very very slight. Help stop the violence America's leaders..please?

Ken and BK think the war on drugs should go on and be improved. I would play devil's advocate and ask that one "improvement" would be to add tobacco and alcohol back to the war and pass laws prohibiting the use of both.

Or perhaps we should put other drugs on the same tax path as alcohol and tobacco? Marijuana yes, heroin and crystal meth and other such hard stuff I am not so sure about. My understanding is that people high on meth are worse than drunks.

Any thing taken (or avoided) to excess is not good for the human body. Take food for instance excess food causes obesity and avoidance of food causes anorexia.

I listened to your show for the first time because of the subject matter. I was both intrigued and convinced by Dr. Benavie’s research and consequent conclusions. It makes so much sense to look at this from an economic perspective. When the economics are combined with the statistics about what happens on a human level if drugs are legalized, the case for legalization is compelling. As far as I was concerned, Dr. Kuhn did not provide the science to substantiate her position. Dr. Benavie, on the other hand, had the facts and the reasoned delivery of the information to convince me that this truly is a “holy war” with no hope of victory as long as drugs are illegal.

As a hospital and clinical pharmacist for 42 years, I DISAGREE with Cynthia M. Kuhn, PhD, when she states that Alcohol Prohibition (AP) was successful in decreasing cirrhosis of the liver. For the first few years of AP, that appears to be true, but when you look at the results over the ENTIRE 14-year period that AP was in effect, the rate of cirrhosis returned to a line that was consistent with NO CHANGE in alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver!

I also STRONGLY DISAGREE with her on making tobacco illegal! SHE JUST DOESN'T GET IT, INTELLECTUALLY! Making any "drug" illegal is just setting up the same situation that the Prohibition of Alcohol created, and now, the Prohibition on Drugs ("Drug War") has created!

Making any drug/substance illegal is just creating the circumstances so more "cartels" are going to sprout up to make money importing (smuggling) the tobacco to potential users! The economic model that Dr. Arthur Benavie spoke about has not changed in hundreds of years!

When President Nixon stepped up the Prohibition of Drugs in 1971 with the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), it has resulted in our prison population EXPLODING, with a huge increase in cost - paid for by Mr. and Mrs. Deep Pockets - you and I, the taxpayers!

The CSA has created a "prison-industrial complex" that is very self-serving - they are NOT interested in rehabilitating anyone confined to their institutions. In fact, more persons learn how to be "better criminals" within these walls than ever even approach "rehabilitation". When you mix persons who have committed VICTIMLESS crimes with hardened criminals (murderers, rapists, child molesters, and the likes), what do you think happens? Who influences who? To what level do they descend? By the way, the USA has more people incarcerated than ANY other nation on Earth - even China and Russia! Most of the increase is due to "drug offenses"!

Oh yes, and another "benefit" of the Prohibition of Drugs: Drugs are cheaper and more plentiful now than they were BEFORE the CSA was passed!

How can you argue with the fact that Drug Prohibition HAS FAILED? Drug Prohibition, like Alcohol Prohibition creates more harm than good! If you want to continue with more of the same, then continue throwing drug users in prison with hardened nasties. It will result in the same results it has given for the past 85 years! Nothing changes if nothing changes.

One definition of insanity is to "continue doing the same thing, and expecting different results". I suggest you both do some objective, in-depth reading on this matter. Repeating what the Federal government has been yelling in our ears is not "the answer". There has to be a better (different) answer!

Recently I wrote to Gov. Schwarzenegger pointing out the fact (verified by the State Board of Equalization) that legalizing marijuana in California would produce one billion dollars a year in tax revenue. The response:

"While the Governor does not support legalizing marijuana to generate revenue, he does think there should be an open dialogue on the issue of legalization. He believes we should look at other governments and analyze their experiences with legalizing marijuana, weigh the benefits and problems they've encountered and determine if and how those experiences would apply to California."

Many such studies have already been done. It seems the Governor knows what to do but is afraid to do it. Hmmm. Faced with a group of advocates, FDR once said, "I agree with what you're saying. Now make me do it." Maybe we should make the Governor "do it."

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over."

This couldn't be more true than in the "War on Drugs". All throughout human history we have seen that attempts to pass laws against vices don't do anything to suppress those vices - they only serve to make criminals rich.

I believe that the issue in this country is not mainly the control of vices anyway - it's about control over the American people. It's about power. Author Studs Terkel once said that there were two very powerful, very wealthy organizations that had a vested interest in not winning the War on Drugs: Organized Crime and the DEA!

Science Fiction Author Robert Heinlein probably defined the real basic problem: "Political labels are largely irrelevant. Government divides into two groups; those who think that other people should be told how to lead their lives - and those who don't."