New Study documents the brain damage caused by marijuana

[marplots]

Big deal! Jeez, can you not do math? So the spending at 2010 is for a million more addicts than for 1980. That still means that to keep everything proportional you'd be spending 3 billion dollars in 2010 rather than 2 in 1980. That still leaves you a surplus of 17 billion dollars so on a per capita basis we are still spending almost 7 times more in 2010.

What are we getting for our money?

Help me out. How's that work with inflation?

 

[Lowpro]

I'll assume you really want to know how the trick works.

If we compare raw numbers ($$ spent) to raw numbers ( # of people addicted) instead of addiction rate (a percentage), the the lower line trends upward as population increases.

For example, a 1% addiction rate in 1980 (pop 226M) gets you about 2 million addicts. In 2010 (pop 309M) it gets you about 3 million (an increase of 50%). Yet magically, the rate remains about the same.

More importantly, in what sense is the spending on drug enforcement related to addiction rates? Surely the graph implies there is some reason to compare the two figures? What's the reason?

What would a graph that compared addiction rates to amounts spent on treatment programs show? Well, we know addiction rates remain stable. My guess is that treatment spending has also ballooned, although I don't have a figure to toss out.

Your instinct to ask about a source or underlying data is spot on. How is money labeled as "for drug enforcement"? What constitutes addiction?

How can we be sure the money spent is exactly the reason the drug addiction rate stayed relatively the same?

 

[marplots]

Again, disingenuous as we don't spend money on paved roads to reduce or increase drug smuggling.

My understanding is that addiction is a disease.

Let me ask you this and cut to the chase. Do you think that drug enforcement should lower addiction rates?

If so, I'd like to know why.
If not, then what does the graph mean?

I don't think it means this (at least on its own):

So, the chart stands as a startling indictment against the war on drugs.

 

[elipse]

What, are you so cavalier to not check up on a diabetic making sure they're taking their insulin. If they aren't it's not your business right, even if they're out driving or somewhere where they may not be able to take it. I mean, what fiends we are to not care about it because live free!

...

Your posts have literally made my eyes bug out of my head. I'm only on the second page; I have no idea if you're even still posting, but I just had to chime in on this one:

I work with high school students. There are two of them who are diabetic. I have NEVER EVER EVEN ONCE checked up on them to make sure they are taking their insulin. NEVER. That would be totally out of my job description, unprofessional, and patronizing. I can't imagine a situation (except of course, if they asked for my help) where that would be appropriate. And these aren't even adults. They are teenagers, who are fully capable of taking their own damn insulin, and who have parents who would legitimately wonder what the hell I was doing if I was always butting into their daughters' business.

Do you SERIOUSLY ask random acquaintances whom you know to be diabetic "have you taken your insulin recently?" I cannot imagine how that would work.

As for the rest of it, I'm seriously disturbed by it. Your views, to me, seem dangerous and crazy. I get that you care for your fellow man, as do we all, but the way you're going about showing it seems a little "Misery" to me.

 

[RandFan]

My understanding is that addiction is a disease.

Yes. One that can to a significant degree be effectively treated without warehousing people and increasing crime rates (see the Portugal and Netherlands link).

Let me ask you this and cut to the chase. Do you think that drug enforcement should lower addiction rates?

I'm sorry but it's really frustrating when you ask me questions I've answered over and over and over and over.

1. To the extent that we can effectively address the problems inherent to drug use we should.
2. Portugal has chosen to decriminalize drugs and focus on treatment and not drug enforcement and their addiction rates are falling.
3. The Netherlands chooses to focus on treatment as opposed to drug enforcement and they are closing prisons.
4. Drug enforcement leads to higher crime rates
5. Drug enforcement is incapable of significantly addressing this problem.

If so, I'd like to know why.

If drug enforcement cannot affect change then why on god's green earth are we wasting our resources and warehousing people?

I don't think it means this (at least on its own):

Then what is your evidence that spending all that money results in A.) a net good? B.) any good? I've cited the Netherlands and Portugal. In the past I've pointed to prohibition. The evidence is clear

Drug enforcement/interdiction:

• Provides incentives for criminalization and the underground market of drugs.
• Causes us to warehouse humans at the cost of $30,000 per inmate per year.
• Results in no decrease in drug addiction.

Now my questions for you: What good is drug enforcement (and please to provide evidence)? I honestly don't know why we have drug enforcement at all. Do you?

 

[marplots]

I'm sorry but it's really frustrating when you ask me questions I've answered over and over and over and over.

I'll try to make this the last time.

Portugal has chosen to decriminalize drugs and focus on treatment and not drug enforcement and their addiction rates are falling.

OK. Let's look at this. There are two things going on. One is decriminalization and the other is increased treatment. Why are you insisting that the first affects addiction rates, when the second is designed to lower addiction rates?

For the life of me, I don't understand why these two things are linked. You can maintain enforcement and also increase treatment -- can't you?

If drug enforcement cannot affect change then why on god's green earth are we wasting our resources and warehousing people?

Drug enforcement is not the same as dealing with the problem of addiction. Drug enforcement is about crimes and prosecuting crimes.

Then what is your evidence that spending all that money results in A.) a net good? B.) any good? I've cited the Netherlands and Portugal. In the past I've pointed to prohibition. The evidence is clear

Drug enforcement/interdiction:

• Provides incentives for criminalization and the underground market of drugs.
• Causes us to warehouse humans at the cost of $30,000 per inmate per year.
• Results in no decrease in drug addiction.

Now my questions for you: What good is drug enforcement (and please to provide evidence)? I honestly don't know why we have drug enforcement at all. Do you?

I thought it would be easier to find stats, but I stopped with a UN report: http://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr/WDR_2010/World_Drug_Report_2010_lo-res.pdf

I also picked out the easiest item for my side of the argument. Pg 141:

Taking into account these considerations [they talk about methods used in the estimate], UNODC estimates an interception rate range of 37%-50%9 for cocaine in 2008. This is significantly higher than the corresponding rates for opiates, possibly due to the fact that a significant proportion of seizures is made in or close to the source countries. The range drops to 27%-33% if seizures in the three producing countries, Colombia, the Plurinational State of Bolivia and Peru are excluded.

So that's about half of the cocaine production removed from the supply chain. Along with it, you get a shot at all the folks willing to deal in illegal drugs.

That might not be what you want to see happen, but it is the result of spending money on drug enforcement.

On pg 175, they cite a drop in use as tied to decreased production and increased difficulties associated with smuggling cocaine into the United States from Mexico. The drop in use was from 2.3% of the population to 2.1%. It might not be what you want to see happen, but it is the result of spending money on drug enforcement.

I'm all for Portugal style decriminalization. The penalty for drug trafficking in Portugal is (from http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index146646EN.html) :

Basic:
4-12 years (lists I to III);
1-5 years (list IV).

Minimum and maximum penalties for trafficking are increased by one-quarter in various aggravating circumstances.

10-25 years for anyone with criminal associations;
12-25 years for anyone who heads or leads a group or criminal organisation.

For minor trafficking offences:
1-5 years (lists I to III, V, VI);
2 years' detention or up to 240 day-fines (list IV).

They also have a category of "user-dealer" with much lower penalties:

Under Art.26, trafficker-users are punished by imprisonment according to the circumstances and the different lists:
lists I, II, III, up to three years;
list IV, up to one year or 120 day-fines.
The offender is considered a trafficker-user when the quantity exceeds ten normal daily doses.

I think that's the right way to go. Heavy penalties for suppliers and treatment for users. I don't see how we are at odds in this respect. Is it the $20 billion a year number? Do you figure we aren't getting enough for the money or, maybe getting too much?

 

[marplots]

For those unfamiliar with the often cited example of Portugal, here's a good article on it from the Economist: http://www.economist.com/node/14309861

There are widespread misconceptions about the Portuguese approach. “It is important not to confuse decriminalisation with depenalisation or legalisation,” comments Brendan Hughes of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, which is, coincidentally, based in Lisbon. “Drug use remains illegal in Portugal, and anyone in possession will be stopped by the police, have the drugs confiscated and be sent before a commission.”

What's different is that users (not traffickers) are sent into a system of supervised treatment rather than jail.

As far as law enforcement goes, Portugal has a higher number of police officers per capita than every other country in the EU except Spain and Cyprus (2008 data from: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/st...php?title=File:Police_officers,_1998-2008.png)

At 485 per 100,000 citizens (2008 figure), they had more than double the number on a per capita basis as the United States (235 per 100,000). In fact, I'd say that Portugal is an excellent example of keeping enforcement in place, reducing penalties and increasing treatment. We should emulate them.

 

[varwoche]

A lot of great music has been made/written while people were high on cannabis, and most of it's been shared and all of it's made the world a better place.

Some years back, at a time I hadn't smoked in a long while, I smoked some crazy strong weed and I got higher than I've ever been before or since. I conceived a software invention that night, which eventually became the crowning achievement of my career.

 

[RandFan]

Simple math:

OK. Let's look at this. There are two things going on. One is decriminalization and the other is increased treatment. Why are you insisting that the first affects addiction rates, when the second is designed to lower addiction rates?

I insist the following:

• Drug enforcement does far more harm than good.

Are we clear? Stop the damn war on drugs and divert the funds into treatment like Portugal.

So that's about half of the cocaine production removed from the supply chain.

Okay Einstein, work with me here, if drug addiction does not fall when you remove 50% of the cocaine from the supply chain then what good is it to remove the cocaine from the supply chain? What good is it to warehouse so many people? You are presuming that interdicting drugs has some inherent good. Okay, what good is it besides increasing the price of cocaine?

My answer: As law enforcement removes more cocaine from the supply chain the dealers increase supply. If demand is Y and law enforcement has the capacity to take 50% of supply then the drug cartels need to produce 2 x Y. It's very simple math. It's also simple supply and demand. It's also evolution. As the antelope gets faster then the cheetah gets faster which causes the antelope to get faster which causes... It's a viscous cycle. As law enforcement takes more drugs from the cartels then the cartels produce more drugs to keep up with demand.

 

[cosmicaug]

Help me out. How's that work with inflation?

Assuming it's not already inflation adjusted (which is reasonable --because if it was it would probably have been mentioned) I entered 3 into http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ and entered the date range 1980-2010. It gave me 7.83. Still well short of 20.

Assuming the intervention were effective we'd expect to see the greatest effect when you go from nothing to something. Of course, there could also be some threshold effect. I see nothing. I see a (slightly noisy) flat line on the drug addiction rate.

 

[marplots]

Assuming it's not already inflation adjusted (which is reasonable --because if it was it would probably have been mentioned) I entered 3 into http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ and entered the date range 1980-2010. It gave me 7.83. Still well short of 20.

Assuming the intervention were effective we'd expect to see the greatest effect when you go from nothing to something. Of course, there could also be some threshold effect. I see nothing. I see a (slightly noisy) flat line on the drug addiction rate.

You did some nice work. I have to agree that increasing money spent on enforcement doesn't appear to lower addiction rates.

 

[cosmicaug]

On pg 175, they cite a drop in use as tied to decreased production and increased difficulties associated with smuggling cocaine into the United States from Mexico. The drop in use was from 2.3% of the population to 2.1%. It might not be what you want to see happen, but it is the result of spending money on drug enforcement.

This appears to be a reference to figure 149 from 2007 to 2008 for powder cocaine. If this was representative, it would be very good. 10 years of this would basically eliminate cocaine use.

The question is, is this part of a long term trend or is it some short term variation? There certainly has been enough money spent for a long enough time for a long term trend to show itself if the effort were at all effective. I do not think we see that. I think what we see looks more like 151 on that same page. It goes up and down regardless of money spent but in the long term, the trend is flat. Granted, that drop from 2007 to 2008 (actually, it's from 2006) could be the beginning of a wonderful new trend (just like nuclear fusion seems to perpetually be just around the corner, I suppose).

 

[marplots]

I insist the following:

• Drug enforcement does far more harm than good.

Good enough. That's the proper basis for a debate.

Are we clear? Stop the damn war on drugs and divert the funds into treatment like Portugal.

Here's where simplicity and assumptions come in. Why would you think that stopping the war on drugs would free up money for treatment? There's lots to spend extra money on, isn't there? How about we keep drugs illegal and free up money from the defense budget ($20 billion should be a breeze) to fund treatment? I mean, since we are moving money around on a whim and all.

Okay Einstein, work with me here, if drug addiction does not fall when you remove 50% of the cocaine from the supply chain then what good is it to remove the cocaine from the supply chain?

I'm pretty sharp, but not Einstein level. But thanks anyhow. Suppose those extra drugs did make it in. Prices drop, use goes up. Heck, even I could afford coke if it were cheap enough. We'd also become a cocaine exporting nation, a safe haven to establish your own little export cartel.

What good is it to warehouse so many people? You are presuming that interdicting drugs has some inherent good. Okay, what good is it besides increasing the price of cocaine?

First of all, your characterization of "warehousing all those people" is the same one for any crime at all. Why is drug dealing in some special class? Are those people somehow less worthy of incarceration than anyone else? I am not about to segue into defending the entire criminal justice system.

Any "good" is the same as locking up people for any crime at all.

My answer: As law enforcement removes more cocaine from the supply chain the dealers increase supply. If demand is Y and law enforcement has the capacity to take 50% of supply then the drug cartels need to produce 2 x Y. It's very simple math. It's also simple supply and demand. It's also evolution. As the antelope gets faster then the cheetah gets faster which causes the antelope to get faster which causes... It's a viscous cycle. As law enforcement takes more drugs from the cartels then the cartels produce more drugs to keep up with demand.

Exactly right. But a lot of problems are just like this. You do what you can to keep things in check. Counterfeiters get better (thank you HP InkJet) and we have to redesign the money. Loop holes in security give viruses an opening and we have to redesign that. Heck, I update my virus software at least monthly.

So lets just stop trying to catch the antelope. She's too fast. It costs too much.

But you still don't win. Drug use has a cost as well. Is it your contention that legalization will not lead to higher usage rates and the social consequences, or perhaps that these will even out, level off and we will end up better off?

I should point out that current treatments for addiction do not yield much in the way of exciting results. The gold standard (several months of inpatient treatment followed by continuing therapy and monitoring) gets you as high as 70% without relapse at 5 years. But that's not cheap either. Other attempts fall well below 50% abstinent at six months out.

For me, the human misery that comes with drugs is worth chasing the antelope. I've spent time in a crack house. No one was arrested, no one was jailed -- except it was an horrendous slavery and a factory that converted human beings into dreck. Prison is better than that.

Decouple incarceration and address that if you like. Lower penalties and focus on treatment -- that's fine too. But for goodness sake, don't abandon these people to a fate worse than death by saying, "No harm, no foul." Catch the antelopes you can and quit trying to make some fantasy idea of "how it might be" the enemy of "we are doing what we can."

Say the addiction rate is set at 1%. Pretend usage and addiction won't increase if drugs are legal. You are still willing to sacrifice that 1% (some 3 million people) in the service of saving a few dollars?

We should emulate Portugal, where drugs are illegal and low level possession gets forced treatment and dealers get jail. Users are, in a sense, victims. Dealers exploit these victims for profit. I can't see needing another reason to keep drugs illegal than that.

 

[marplots]

This appears to be a reference to figure 149 from 2007 to 2008 for powder cocaine. If this was representative, it would be very good. 10 years of this would basically eliminate cocaine use.

The question is, is this part of a long term trend or is it some short term variation? There certainly has been enough money spent for a long enough time for a long term trend to show itself if the effort were at all effective. I do not think we see that. I think what we see looks more like 151 on that same page. It goes up and down regardless of money spent but in the long term, the trend is flat. Granted, that drop from 2007 to 2008 (actually, it's from 2006) could be the beginning of a wonderful new trend (just like nuclear fusion seems to perpetually be just around the corner, I suppose).

I cherry picked that in an attempt to respond to requests about "what does enforcement accomplish." The best explanation for drops in use I've read come from drug switching as prices, purity and availability fluctuate. So, for example, if I prefer stimulants (party all night dude!) switching from expensive cocaine to cheap meth is an option.

There's also a regional element with cocaine preferred in one part of the country and meth in another (other drugs too).

Considering I might spend a decade in jail for participating, the motivation far exceeds my fear of punishment. It turns out that many, many people are willing to take the risk -- you nab a dozen and a dozen more rise up to fill their places. Advancement by way of attrition.

That said, I think enforcement is driven by the same instinct we have to put out house fires. We can't not do it. Here are people who make huge sums of money selling poison to the vulnerable. How can I, in good conscience, ignore that?

In my country, if you sell a toy with lead-based paint on it, the public demands action. And someone wants me to allow cocaine and heroin in? No way. If we want to avoid collateral damage, then let's do that.

Here's my new PSA:
"This is your daughter."
"This is your daughter on heroin."
"No worries. It's legal and she won't go to jail."

 

[psionl0]

I'd say that Portugal is an excellent example of keeping enforcement in place, reducing penalties and increasing treatment. We should emulate them.

Why?

Is there some social or economic benefit to society as a whole from reducing marijuana consumption at all costs?

 

[marplots]

Why?

Is there some social or economic benefit to society as a whole from reducing marijuana consumption at all costs?

We'd drifted from marijuana into drugs in general by the time I'd made the Portugal comment.

I'd like to see the results of upcoming experiments on marijuana. With three states having some form of legalization (for non-medical use) on this November's ballot, we might have some good examples by late next year. I'm not at all against moving marijuana into the alcohol column. Doing it in one or a few states should give us some objective evidence -- let's see what happens.

I support marijuana for medical use in Michigan and would be willing to try full legalization as well. In fact, I'm currently finishing up a voter's guide for the pro-marijuana reform movement here. The politics are interesting.

But why not let another state try full legalization first and see how it goes?

 

[RandFan]

We should emulate Portugal, where drugs are illegal and low level possession gets forced treatment and dealers get jail. Users are, in a sense, victims. Dealers exploit these victims for profit. I can't see needing another reason to keep drugs illegal than that.

I think your post has some good points. I've had my say, I'll leave it at that. Thanks.

 

[marplots]

I think your post has some good points. I've had my say, I'll leave it at that. Thanks.

Randfan,
Forgive me if I came off as even a little bit strident and insulting. I enjoy reading your posts and comments and you have a great way of making me think my position through. Appreciate it.

 

[RandFan]

Randfan,
Forgive me if I came off as even a little bit strident and insulting. I enjoy reading your posts and comments and you have a great way of making me think my position through. Appreciate it.

Likewise marplots.

 

[cosmicaug]

Say the addiction rate is set at 1%. Pretend usage and addiction won't increase if drugs are legal. You are still willing to sacrifice that 1% (some 3 million people) in the service of saving a few dollars?

This is an argument for prayer. I say praying is not an appropriate approach to deal with this 1%. Someone else might call me a monster for not willing to spend the small effort which would be expended to pray for the recovery of drug addicts.

The difference is that, unlike drug criminalization regimes (ours in particular) which have a huge cost associated with them (and the money spent is the least of that cost, by far), prayer at least is neutral in its effects (other than a little wasted mental effort).