411 Politics Fact or Fiction: Week 132 – The War on Drugs Edition: Volume I

Posted by Mark Radulich on 07.04.2009

This is the first of what will hopefully be a series of honest discussions about the War on Drugs and what policies our government should enact to stem substance abuse without hurting more Americans.

In case some of you have missed it, I am a professional social worker. In the 10 years that I have performed duties as a professional social worker, I've spent most of that time either working directly with or on behalf of both drug addicts as well as drug dealers. I've counseled them, referred them for services, worked with their families, taken their children from them and most importantly, I've empathized with them. Though I have never struggled with addiction myself nor have I indulged in selling drugs, I tried my hardest to help those whose lives have been affected by drugs and all that means to be involved with them.

In addition, most of graduate work dealt with the US government's policies toward drug use and drug dealing. I've been on both sides of the legalization debate writing papers on the virtues of both prohibition as well as legalization with regulation. Needless to say, coming up with a coherent, fair, humane and moral policy on drugs is difficult as this is one of our more complex issues. It's also the one that nobody likes to talk to about, thus it's signature as the "third rail of politics."

But we don't run from controversy here at 411Mania, we embrace it. In fact, sometimes we even cause a little (Right Mick Foley?). So I present to the first of what I hope will be an ongoing discussion of the dirty little policy debate that Washington doesn't want to deal with. The following statements are just the tip of the iceberg and only reflect a small portion of what is a most complex issue. More issues will be addressed the next time we tackle this issue. Lastly, the statements themselves are a bit denser than the usual FoF fair and that was done intentionally. With an issue such as drugs, I just don't want to argue about it, I want to educate as well as entertain (where applicable). Hopefully I've done that with this column and will continue to do so.

So without further ado, let's meet our debaters. Introducing first, he's a libertarian with some sympathies on the left & right and is VERY interested in the war on drugs/legalization discussion, from parts unknown, Madcap Unlimited.

And from our very own 411Mania Wrestling Zone, he is head writer/editor of THE most positive article in the IWC: Hidden Highlights and the voice of wrestling's business in The Hamilton Ave Journal, ladies and gentleman, please welcome Mr. JP Prag. By the way JP, we is In Defense Of... coming back? I loved that column.

Let's go to work...

Ding Ding!

1) An Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times stated that, "One major justification for legalization remains tempting: the money. Unfortunately, however, the financial costs of marijuana legalization would never outweigh its benefits. Yes, the marijuana market seems like an attractive target for taxation -- Abt Associates, a research firm, estimates that the industry is worth roughly $10 billion a year...What is rarely discussed, however, is that the likely increase in marijuana prevalence resulting from legalization would probably increase the already high costs of marijuana use in society. Accidents would increase, healthcare costs would rise and productivity would suffer. Legal alcohol serves as a good example: The $8 billion in tax revenue generated from that widely used drug does little to offset the nearly $200 billion in social costs attributed to its use." Given the alcohol model, the social costs of legal marijuana would far exceed the revenue collected from a marijuana tax and therefore marijuana use should remain prohibited.

Madcap Unlimited: Fiction. The Abt Associates research firm's findings were economically in favor of legalization. Let us not forget that The piece in question here is essentially playing devil's advocate by asking about "the social costs" of a legal marijuana trade, claiming that it would exceed the revenue generated. But I'd already say we're paying an excessive "social cost" for prohibition. Let's be clear that the current "social cost" of marijuana comes, almost exclusively, from its prohibition: the cost of people being incarcerated, people losing their jobs, their student loans and their children just for their choice of vice. The fact that this happens regardless of how responsibly or irresponsibly they behave while using it is what makes the law unjust. Well, that and the fact that alcohol prohibition required a constitutional ammendment, while marijuana prohibition required little more than a few public scare tactics and a couple strokes of the pen (Anslinger, Hearst & Nixon specifically). It should be noted that, according to recent polls, a majority of Americans favor legalization. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/06/majority-of-americans-wan_n_198196.html)

Here's a video of FBI Director Meuller defending the war on drugs to congress (successfully? unsuccessfully? you decide!):



The article in question here makes a few wild claims about traffic violations, healthcare and productivity that all seem valid when they aren't examined, but that's not what seems to have in happened in countries like Portugal or the Netherlands. Certainly there will be a SPIKE in use, but that won't continue. Just like with a new restaurant: everyone wants to try it, it doesn't mean everyone will become a regular patron. So whatever negative impact legalization would have in the short term, the revenue generated from a legalized alternative to alcohol would continue into the long term, ultimately making the gains far outweigh the losses (and may even, eventually, negate the costs of alcohol).

In terms of traffic violations: driving under the influence is wrong. Not one person on the legalization front is arguing that it's okay to drive while intoxicated. In fact, most people on the pro-legalization side of the fence would support stiffer DUI penalties if responsible use was legalized. Some people are just idiots, you can't avoid that. People drive drunk. People drive stoned (even now, while it's illegal). Aside from the initial spike in use, this isn't particularly relevant except to say this: if you take a driver who is drunk and a driver who is stoned on marijuana, both are dangerous, but which is the one more likely to be also going at dangerous speeds (and thus becoming exponentially more dangerous)? I think anybody who is honest with themselves and educated on the facts of both drugs is going to say the drunk driver is the more dangerous of the two.

As for productivity, that is a prejudicial statement. There's no real evidence to back it up, and it's partially based on outdated racism. More to the point though, while it's obvious that somebody who is stoned is going to lose productivity, the argument in question assumes that somebody who enjoys marijuana is always stoned. This just isn't the case. There are a large number of closeted marijuana smokers in this country (almost all of those above the college age) who are perfectly capable of holding down professional jobs without puffing the day away. The fact that the assumption is made that all smokers are always lit is a prejudicial stereotype in and of itself that has no place in a real debate on the issues.

As for healthcare: there is no realistic level of marijuana that will cause an overdose. Nobody is on record as having died from only smoking marijuana. EVER. That's pretty common knowledge, but here's a few more thoughts: people can die of alcohol poisoning. If 10% of heavy drinkers become chronic marijuana users post-legalization, and die twenty years later than they would have from drinking, is that really a cost or a benefit? The same goes for perscription painkillers (which, along with alcohol, are physically addictive, while marijuana is merely habit forming).

Further, and something not mentioned very often, marijuana has no cross indications. Alcohol and painkillers can't be combined, while either can safely be combined with marijuana. Even something as relatively benign as Tylenol can cause liver damage if taken with alcohol. This doesn't happen with marijuana. Finally, while many have claimed there are more carcinogens in marijuana smoke than in cigarette smoke two afflictions that have been proven to not be caused by marijuana are COPD and Emphysema. These are nasty conditions, but you don't get them from pot. In fact, most of the negative health consequences of marijuana can be avoided by either using a vaporizer or by eating "special brownies" and the like.

And none of this even takes into account the revenue that would be generated by legalizing industrial hemp (which is much harder to argue against than recreational marijuana). But, as one final note, let's see what White House Press Secretary Gibbs has to say about marijuana and the effects of legalization on our economy. After all, Obama's people must have looked down every reasonable road right and come up with legitimate non-political SCIENTIFIC answers right? RIGHT?



Yeesh... ahem. Quite articulate no? Anyway...

Look, nobody is arguing for anarchy. We're arguing for responsible use by consenting adults. What the anti-drug people must produce to win their "War on Drugs" is a real reason that a pot smoker should go to prison (or even be fined) for coming home, minding their own business and enjoying a joint instead of a martini in the evening.

JP Prag: FICTION. Are there any words left to say here? Here's the bottom line: the cost of prohibiting marijuana forces people who have nothing to do with it (people like me) to pay for something they do not care about. If a consenting adult wants to partake in something of their own volition, who is to say that it is "wrong" for them. As you will see in my later answers, plenty of people think it OK to take a prescription drug everyday, but I don't feel that way at all. Yet these same people will frown on marijuana use. How can you do that? If someone want to take something, they will! We might as well regulate to ensure the safety of the product (to the degree that it can be safe) and tax the hell out of it to get money that we can use towards education, regulation, and treatment.

And yes, there should be much stiffer penalties for driving while impaired on anything, including marijuana (but also prescription drugs that make it hard to concentrate and react). Do whatever you want so long as you are not endangering another person or infringing on their rights, but as soon as you get behind a wheel you have infringed on my safety and I'll have none of that! Recent studies in France, the UK and other European countries have shows that there is a prevalence of other drugs, especially marijuana, in fatal car accidents. While it is nowhere near the levels of alcohol, it is enough to warrant that if legalized more people would be using and therefore more people would be behind the wheel using. For those people, I say, throw the book at them. Any marijuana user who says they are fine (or better) driving while intoxicated is lying to you, themselves, or both. Marijuana slows down reaction time and cognitive recognition, and that makes you a danger on the road. On your living room couch, you are perfectly safe to me.

Now, this brings up the point that usage will increase. Of course it will increase, especially initially! What I believe we'll find, though, is that much of the desire to have marijuana is because it is taboo and counter-culture. Have you ever known someone who was not allowed to drink as a kid, came to college and got smashed everyday, and then stopped drinking for the most part after turning 21? The mystic wears off after a time. Sure, there will be people who use everyday or overuse, but that is their business to deal with, not everyone else's. My parents allowed me to drink when I was younger so I never felt the need to binge and have not had a drink in over ten years. Frankly, it just isn't important to me and my life.

The one part I will disagree with my opponent, though, is that Marijuana does not have long-lasting medical implications. Marijuana does not mix well with all medicines; it can lead to brain, heart, lung, digestive, and cardiovascular problems; and can build up in your system to decline motor functions over time. That said, it is again up to an individual to cover their own medical costs. When they fill out a health insurance form, these people should pay a higher premium the same way a smoker or a drinker does. If they want to fill their body up with a foreign substance that may be toxic, that is up to them. But in the end, they should pay the price (literally in dollars) for their actions. I have no interest in paying their bills, which is what we are doing right now with prohibition.

1 for 1 and for one am not that surprised. I seem to be in the minority when it comes to legalization of marijuana. That has become very evident here on 411Mania. However, there people, like the nice man that wrote the editorial, who believe as I do that it's a bad idea so I think it's at least important to have the debate. And speaking of good ideas for prohibiting marijuana...

2) From the National Institute On Drug Abuse: A number of studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and schizophrenia. Some of these studies have shown age at first use to be a factor, where early use is a marker of vulnerability to later problems. However, at this time, it not clear whether marijuana use causes mental problems, exacerbates them, or is used in attempt to self-medicate symptoms already in existence. Chronic marijuana use, especially in a very young person, may also be a marker of risk for mental illnesses, including addiction, stemming from genetic or environmental vulnerabilities, such as early exposure to stress or violence. At the present time, the strongest evidence links marijuana use and schizophrenia and/or related disorders. High doses of marijuana can produce an acute psychotic reaction, and research suggests that in vulnerable individuals, marijuana use may be a factor that increases risk for the disease (revised 6/08). Marijuana is clearly not as "less harmful" as we may think and it's use should continued to be prohibited.

Madcap Unlimited: Fiction. This is basically political misdirection, by putting the (in)famous "WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!" argument on the table. The reason I say that is because, as with the DUI argument, not one person arguing in favor of marijuana legalization is saying it should be in the hands of underage children. Let me reiterate that: nobody thinks children should smoke pot. Prohibition, however, makes it easier for kids to get marijuana because there are no rules or regulations on the black market. With no regulations in place, the least scrupulous individuals will often thrive. Think about that.

There are definite dangers in children smoking pot. These are really issues with child development & parental responsibility and are only peripherally connected to the question of whether or not marijuana should be legalized. There are innumerable things children should not consume which are perfectly fine for adults. One example would be peanuts: giving children peanuts at a young age can potentially lead to a very severe allergy. Yet you wouldn't argue that peanuts should be illegal, would you? "But Madcap, peanuts aren't psychoactive-- doesn't that make a difference?" Okay, fair enough: how about caffeine? If you don't think caffeine is psychoactive you're obviously not a coffee drinker. There are plenty of studies that say children shouldn't have caffeine, yet it's perfectly acceptable for adults. Only a lunatic would think tequila was okay for kids. Better yet, take a walk down the medicine isle of your local grocery store: anything with a children's version (Tylenol, Sudafed, Robotussin, even aspirin) probably means the adult version isn't entirely safe for children. How many OTC medications say "Children under 12: see your doctor" or something similar? To dress it up as though it were even part of the same argument as what anyone is asking for is just nonsensical.

Imagine a ten year old going into a liquor store and buying a bottle of 151. Is that really an argument to ban alcohol? Wouldn't it be vastly more cost efficient AND morally responsible to prosecute those responsible? Does this make it just for the police to come into the home of an otherwise responsible pot smoker, take their money and possessions (because they "possibly" "could have been" bought with drug money), incarcerate them, and give them a criminal record (a felony no less)?

Does anyone really think that if marijuana were legal, children would be smoking it more? That their parents would allow or encourage that? You know, there's already laws on the books to protect children from abuse and negligence and none of those things are dependent on whether or not marijuana is legal. Again, alcohol is legal and getting your kid blind stinking drunk would be considered a crime pretty much anywhere in the country. LETTING your kid get blind stinking drink would be negligence. Marijuana may play a role in the debate of parental responsibility, but not the role its detractors would like it to.

Also, NIDA is known for spinning the results of studies way out of proportion. The study in question here did find an increased chance of developing mental illness in adults, but the lifetime percentile for the average adult is close to 3%, while the average marijuana smoker's chance is closer to 5%. These aren't astronomical numbers, and once again there's nothing here to show why American pot smokers should be incarcerated simply for their choice of vice. It's not enough to ruin lives, take away scholarships, or add criminal records.

To see the arrest statistics since 1980 check here:

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/53

Those numbers should be sickening to a free society founded on reason and compassion. 2007: 14 million total (3/4 of a million for only possession) out of 304 million of us in one year.

In addition, NORML actually did a web article this week debunking the above study which can be found here:


http://blog.norml.org/2009/07/01/study-debunks-claims-that-pot-smoking-causes-mental-illness/

JP Prag: FICTION. Again, I am left with few words of my own to use. However, this study fails to say whether people with mental challenges are more attracted to Marijuana or Marijuana creates more mental challenges. This study all together lacks a true cause and affect analysis and proves the adage "You can make 78% of statistics say anything".

As Madcap said, and I will say more later, why is this a government responsibility? Children are the responsibility of parents, and parents should make sure their children are not doing things they do not approve of. But parents do not want to raise children and actually work with them because we are now three generations in of parents not working with children. It's become ingrained in our society that others should be taking care of and raising our children instead of us.

It all comes back to personal responsibility and patience. With proper controls like we have for cigarettes and alcohol, we can limit what children have immediate access to. But it is a parent's decision and the child's personal decision whether they want to consume something or not. If they have mental difficulties, then those should be treated and testing in any and all methods, with medication--whether doctor- or self-prescribed--being an absolute last resort.

2 for 2 and the cheese stands alone. As the moderator for this debate this isn't the forum for me to into explicit explanations for why I feel the way I do regarding marijuana. However I will say this, I spend most of my day treating people who are schizophrenic and mostly likely it was drug induced. Here's what hurts about it, when I have to tell their families that marijuana was a contributing factor and they say back through tears, "If we'd only known…" I said this was a complex issue and certainly Madcap and JP make good arguments but if you go that way, you must also accept the all to human consequences of the decision to decriminalize marijuana and the hurt it will absolutely cause.

3) In his open letter to Barack Obama, Green Party activist and former singer of the Dead Kennedy's, Jello Biafra, made the following suggestion, In 2005 the United States spent $780 million on drug eradication in Afghanistan. Where on earth did it all go? It worked so poorly that $600 million of poppies and heroin escaped into the market anyway.

Do the math: We could have saved a whopping $180 million if we had simply gone to the suppliers and bought the drugs, and then destroyed them so they won't keep making people sick and killing my friends. As sickening as it is to even think of doing business with drug cartels, can anyone think of a better way to cut off the supply? A counter-argument is that this will actually force the gangs to drive the street price way up. But with Harm Reduction programs already in place they will have nothing to sell, no place to sell it, and no suckers willing to buy." This is actually a pretty good idea and worth pursuing.

Madcap Unlimited: Fact. Or rather, fact in theory. It's a valid thought, and I personally love the DK, but the thing is: opiates & cocaine are not used exclusively for their illicit purposes. We have acceptable uses for these drugs (cocaine is a schedule II drug and is still used occasionally as a a local anesthetic and opiates can be found in schedules I, II & III despite all coming from the same plant). The relationship between the United States government and healthcare is too complex to get into here (i.e. I'm not touching that one), but it's pretty unlikely that if they got their hands on all of the world's poppies that they'd simply destroy them (especially if they spent tax payer dollars on them). Still, on paper it does make sense and there's nothing to say my attitude isn't just me being cynical so yeah: fact.

JP Prag: FICTION. This does not work because it simply continues the "war" on drugs. As we'll cover in much greater detail below, this so-called "war" does nothing but cost all people money. If someone wants to do heroin, they are going to find a way to do it. All this will do is encourage poppy farmers in Afghanistan to produce more (and raise the price) because they know they have an automatic buyer. At the same time, there is still demand in the American market and some other country will start producing and sell their wares to street dealers.

This is exactly how the federal farming program got started! The United States government wanted to encourage farmers to grow crops, but over time knew they couldn't compete on price. So instead of saying, "Oh well, that's not our industry anymore, time to move on!" they created a method were farmers get paid to produce the crops at a value set way above the industry standard. Farmers learned, then, that they do not actually have to produce the crops, but just have the land and say they tried. When they do this, due to a loophole in the law, the government must pay them for the value of the crops they did not sell.

Now, I'm not saying that every farmer works this way and there is not a value to domestic produce. However, this has cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars over time. And what have we gotten out of it? A few rich "farmers".

This is exactly what would happen here. We taxpayers would pay to have the government buy a product that they destroy, and what do we get out of it? Nothing at all! The product is still available from alternate sources and we are just paying for nothing to be produced.

Instead, let's do the same thing we do with marijuana: legalize, regulate, and tax. This way, we can control the source to ensure at least some semblance of quality and make only the people who want the product pay for it. If you buy it, then you pay the tax on it, and the tax goes towards maintaining regulation, treatment, and education. In this method, the poppy user is the one who pays for their use and not every other American citizen.

2 for 3! Hot diggity, I didn't think there'd be any disagreement the way this was going. My idea about this was the same as Madcap in that if we bought the poppies we could sell them to the pharmaceutical companies. Also, I had assumed that we'd be helping build the local infrastructure by buying directly from the farmers. Certainly there would be some graft but that's unavoidable and it doesn't stop us from doing business in Africa.

I don't like the drugs but the drugs like...Switch!

4) A recent article from Examiner.com stated that, "The problem is that deaths from prescription painkillers and other potent prescription drugs are outnumbering street drug overdose deaths, for example, deaths from heroin overdoses. The gap is widening. And sometimes doctors feel their hands are tied when they're caught between patients coming in to the office to relieve chronic pain and what happens when the patient becomes addicted to ever increasing doses when the drug no longer works at the lower or safer dose" There needs to be more checks and balances in the medical field to keep doctor's from over-prescribing and heavier penalties for doctor's who doing knowingly over-prescribe to their patients.

JP Prag: FACT. There is an overarching issue in western medicine that believes the pill the cure to all things. The problem is that last thing the pill ever "cured" was polio. Western medicine systems are designed for treatment, and treatment means a continual dependency on more and more drugs of higher doses in order to meet the minimum requirements with patients. It's not that there need to be more penalties for over-prescribing prescription medications (As I do not believe any substance should be controlled. As adults, we need to decide what is right for us or not. The government cannot tell you what you should or should not ingest. You need to make an informed decision on your own.). More so, there needs to be incentives for doctors to explore other methods of treatment with patients and incentives for drug companies to come up with cures. If there are no incentives to do these two items, then the problem of too many prescription drugs being taken will only grow. Just as with the prescription drugs, we need to treat the root cause, not the symptoms being created by them.

Madcap Unlimited: FACT. Absolutely. Less people are definitely willing to risk the impurities of street heroin these days when you can just get prescribed opiates from your doctor. And if one doctor stops prescribing them, you just go to another. Opiates are physically addictive and extremely dangerous. An addict is an addict, even if their pusher wears the savory white coat of the medical field. This has done nothing more than whitewash the problem we had to begin with.

Not to beat a dead horse, but medical marijuana can be used to combat many of the same pain issues that come from opiates, and is much gentler on the system. To take it one step further: we need to get NSAID intolerant patients on the list of approved medical marijuana recipients. If you are NSAID intolerant, which means no aspirin and no ibuprofrin you only have three options: settle for OTC tylenol, addictive prescription opiates or breaking the law and smoking marijuana. Many NSAID intolerant patients become addicts because opiates are the only pain medication they can be safely prescribed. Even if you want to limit medical marijuana to those who truly need it, people like this should be included on that list, if for no other reason than to keep them from becoming physically addicted to a much harder drug (opiates).

3 for 4 and harmony is restored. The doctor's I work with are particularly enraged with their colleagues who act as glorified drug dealers. Granted, most psychiatrist don't have lengthy conversations with their clients leaving that venue for therapists and counselors but any doctor worth his salt will be at least on the lookout for drug seekers and not just enable this countries addiction issues.

5) The Association for Youth, Children and Natural Psychology stated recently that, "Drugs for ADHD [have] grown exponentially [in recent years], and some medical professionals believe that either the diagnosis for ADHD, which often begins in the public school system, is being over-diagnosed, or that educators and pediatricians, those in the medical and psychiatric fields are relying on or prescribing drugs much more than in the past.

The advantage of lifestyle adjustments to achieve positive results for ADHD, depression and other mental health disorders, is that the behavioral changes, and mood adjustment achieved is often times long-lasting, rather than temporary.

There are no negative side effects to positive lifestyle changes and these add rather than detract from the quality of life. Serious side effects for drugs for ADHD are experienced by approximately 50% of children and teens who take these drugs, ranging from weight loss, as such drugs can be an appetite suppressant, to nervousness and jitteriness, all the way to death in the case of those who have undetected congenital heart defects. With good reason, then, many parents are hesitant to accept a casual diagnosis leading to drug treatment.

Interestingly, David Rabiner, Ph.D. of Duke University, a leading authority on the subject, interpolates long range scientific studies on the subject of ADHD as indicating that for most who do benefit from drug treatment, the positive effects usually dissipate within two years. That is, for those who are on drug treatment long term, the body or mind apparently becomes accustomed to the drug, and it no longer achieves its desired objective...While it has been noted that the improvement in grades that parents often wish to achieve through drug treatment, is usually of marginal gain, that is drug treatment does not substantially increase a child's grades, some parents have achieved excellent results by cutting out or drastically reducing media time for children during the school week, that is allowing television, video games, movies, internet, only on the weekend, or only after the school term is over. This also has positive effects on children's behavior in school and at home. In light of these findings, it is imperative that practitioners limit prescribing drugs to children in all but the most severe cases as it is exacerbating the problem of childhood drug addiction.

JP Prag: FACT. Just as I stated above, in western cultures we are too centered on the idea that the answer to all is within a little pill. Parents do not want to take the time to work with their children because no one took the time to work with them. In order to affect positive, permanent change, kids with behavioral difficulties need to be worked with to find their outlet. There is no way that for all of recorded human history that the population has had this pervasive of a problem and no one has even noticed. Again, parents are looking for quick fix solutions for themselves and their children instead of a long-term, patient plan. Take this for instance: if you want to get really buffed up you cannot just lift some weights for one day a week and hope everything comes out. You have to actually work at it everyday, eat correctly, understand your body, rest at the right times, etc.... It is a whole lifestyle change that requires one thing that people seem to lack: patience.

Since parents cannot be bothered or do not have enough time to handle their children, they are expecting results from a pill. Unfortunately, in the short term they get those results. But in time nothing is gained because the child will grow accustomed to move on. Worst of all, the child has now been conditioned to believe all answers are in pills and will not strive harder to correct things in their personal life.

Medication is a last resort when all other options run out. To not even try just shows completely laziness and utter disdain for the human condition.

Madcap Unlimited: Fact. ADHD is extremely over-diagnosed, and drugs like ritalin and adderall do not help. There was a study several years back where rats were given a tray of cocaine and a tray of ritalin, the study was to show how the rats would react and which they would prefer etc. The result was that they treated the two as the same drug: as though there was zero difference between them. That says a lot. Adderall is the pill kids are selling these days, and it's extremely dangerous. While some people probably do have a real disorder like ADD or ADHD by and large this is misdiagnosed because of how society has developed (between TV, the internet and video games it's not a surprise so many kids find it hard to focus these days) to practically reward children for having a short attention span.

4 for 5. Did you know that the brain doesn't even stop forming until about 19 years of age? Did you also know that most people haven't faintest clue what normal childhood development looks like and therefore often attempt to medicate what is usually perfectly normal child behavior? This is why medicating children for mental illness needs a moratorium.

6) Though the War on Drugs was begun in earnest with good intentions, it was never winnable as drug use, abuse and addiction will always be a lifelong cultural problem.

JP Prag: FACT. Although I would not say the "War on Drugs" was begun with "good intentions" by those in charge. There were people pushing for it who believe that drugs are the cause of societal problems and they have "good intentions". But as any Terry Goodkind fan would know, good intentions can lead to bad consequences. Now, that said, there were plenty of people in administration and government who personally benefited by this so-called "war", whether through war funding, jobs for friends, companies they owned getting contracts, certain materials like nylon getting the rub with hemp gone, and too many other examples to go in to here.

As far as addition goes, there is a solution that does not involve working against drugs, but working with them. Once again, as adults people need to make the decision about what they want to subject their body and minds to and why. But instead of trying to work against what people want to do and forcing the creation of a black market, why not follow the simple formula of legalize, regulate, and tax. People are going to do whatever they want to do, so you might as well ensure a safe as possible product and make some revenue on it. Then, the money saved on not fighting a "war" and the funds gained on taxation can go towards running regulation and providing treatment for those with abuse problems. Yes, people are always going to abuse something or the other, but we could provide help and education instead of jail time.

Imagine if we taught children the affects--both positive and negative--about substances and let them make up their own minds. Instead of them wondering about the half-truths and giving thirst to their want to experiment, we just lay out the truth and see what happens. Not everyone can be saved from abuse problems, but most people have the potential to make rational decisions if we just let them instead of telling them what to do.

Madcap Unlimited: Fact. Well, not completely. The War on Drugs was not begun with good intentions. It would be better off being called the "War on (Some) Drugs" as Timothy Leary suggested, or the "War on Americans Who Choose A Different Way of Life" (okay, that's too long). It was created to progress the political agenda of the Nixon administration and the interests of pharmaceutical companies and other corporate entities. It started about as righteous as when the government burned all of Wilhelm Reich's books back in the day. Only later, after Vietnam, when heroin actually became a problem (and then cocaine etc) did the WoD gain some small degree of actual righteousness. Unfortunately, they have squandered any and all good will they once earned by grouping marijuana in with more harmful drugs.

If the War on Drugs was well intentioned-- then why are lies and misinformation one of the primary weapons of the prohibitionist? Most of what they teach in DARE is, pardon my French, complete bullshit.

Just to nitpick some semantics: drug abuse is not the problem. Drug abuse is a legal term, like insanity. The clinical term (and real problem) is "substance abuse." "Drug abuse" is willful intoxication for the purpose of pleasure with anything other than alcohol. Drug abuse will continue because not all Americans believe that intoxication is bad, and America is hungry for an alternative to alcohol (marijuana for most).

If substance abuse is ever going to be contained we need to begin taking a whole new approach to the situation: stop punishing people who are being responsible, come down harder on people who endanger others, get parents to take responsibility for their children and treat substance abuse as a medical, rather than criminal, problem. We're doing some of this now, but an America that's 100% sober and happy that way is never going to happen.

And the final score is 5 for 6

This concludes the first volume of 411's debate on the issue of drugs. Now I want to know what you all think. Do you want more themed debates like this one or should I stick to the usual format? Until next week, be safe and if you do indulge in drugs, at least be safe.