THE question of what to do about drugs is not a new one. Over the last 100 years, there have been numerous major government commissions around the world that have studied the drug laws and made recommendations for changes. You can find the full text of all of them at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer under "Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy". They all reached remarkably similar conclusions, no matter who did them, or where, when, or why. They all agreed that the current laws were based on ignorance and nonsense, and that the current policy does more harm than good no matter what you assume about the dangers of drugs. You don't have to take my word for that. Read them yourself. [continues 179 words]
Joe Graves simply doesn't have a clue about marijuana. To the Editor: Joe Graves simply doesn't have a clue about marijuana. He needs to read the following and try again: The short history of the marijuana laws at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm. This is funny and fascinating, and not what you expected. The history of the marijuana gateway myth at: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/media/schaffer1.htm The idea was fabricated from whole cloth in 1951. Anyone who makes the argument would instantly flunk any class in basic logic. [continues 312 words]
Regarding the editorial "Stop 'reefer madness': Legalize marijuana" (July 29 and TribLIVE.com): Prohibition is such a spectacular failure that marijuana is America's largest cash crop. Nationwide sales have been estimated at $100 billion per year -- about the same as beer. There are only three options for who will control the marijuana trade and get all that money. 1. Government, with proper regulations and taxes to address social problems. 2. Private business, with proper regulations and taxes to address social problems. [continues 130 words]
Your editors almost got it right. The marijuana laws were based on racism, ignorance, and nonsense from the very beginning. Every major study of drug laws from around the world over the last 100 years agrees that marijuana prohibition does more harm than good. You got that right. However, keeping sales illegal simply means that organized crime will have a monopoly on a multi-billion dollar market. There are really only two choices for sales of marijuana. Either the Mexican drug lords get tens of billions of dollars per year, or that money could go to law-abiding American citizens. It is the same choice we had with beer -- Al Capone or Anheuser-Busch. [continues 157 words]
I know a number of judges and doctors. The good ones have some respect for the truth. Not so with Bill Schuette and Daniel Michael. Their first misstatement was that California has seen a dramatic increase in drug use because of Prop 215. The truth is that teen use of marijuana has actually dropped since Prop 215 was passed. Their second bogus statement was that California is in "chaos" because a security guard at a marijuana dispensary was killed. If this reasoning made sense, then liquor stores should be banned everywhere. [continues 100 words]
Editor: Raymond J. Bertrand says "violence is common" with the use of cocaine. This is after he provides a few tidbits of history. If "violence is common" with cocaine use then perhaps Mr. Bertrand will explain why cocaine-related violence and crime was essentially unknown before cocaine was outlawed. It is correct, as he says, the cocaine was sold over the counter at one time. There were no restrictions at all on cocaine. Cocaine was included in lots of common medicines, and even soda pop. Kids could buy it as easily as they can buy aspirin today. [continues 100 words]
Your otherwise excellent article on marijuana (Broadcaster, July 17) failed to mention two important points. The first is why marijuana was outlawed in the first place. There were two major reasons for the marijuana laws. The first was because "All Mexicans are crazy and marijuana is what makes them crazy." It was racial prejudice against Mexicans that used it. The second reason was the fear that heroin addiction would lead to the use of marijuana -- exactly the opposite of the modern gateway idea. [continues 112 words]
I have a better idea. If drug-free zones really work ("Debate over drug-free zones," June 15), then just make the whole city a drug-free zone and there won't be any drugs in the city anymore. Better yet, make the whole state a drug-free zone and there won't be any drugs in the state. Even better, declare all of North America a drug-free zone and drugs will disappear from the entire continent. The idea that "drug-free zones" will eliminate drugs is absurd, of course -- even if we ignore the obvious hypocrisy of alcohol and tobacco sellers within those zones. What drug-free zones really do is prove beyond question that public officials have never read the most basic research on the subject and really don't have a clue what to do. Clifford A. Schaffer, Agua Dulce, Calif. The writer is director, Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. [end]
To the Editor: (Editors Note: The following letters are in response to a Letter to the Editor in the Thursday, June 12 issue of The News Review entitled: World would be better without cocaine...) The world would be better without cockroaches, too. That doesn't mean it is a good idea to burn down the house to get rid of them. There was a time when most of the current drug problems simply didn't exist. There were addicts - about the same percentage as today - but the addicts didn't commit crimes to support their habits. There were no drug gangs. There was no drugrelated violence, except for that related to alcohol. [continues 88 words]
If 4,000 people killed is a sign of progress in the "war on some drugs," then what would indicate failure? Clifford A. Schaffer Agua Dulce [end]
Since Jim Abbott is so concerned about kids and drugs, he should surely be able to answer a simple question: Historically speaking, what is the biggest single cause of drug epidemics among children? But, surprise, surprise, the man who claims to be solving this terrible problem couldn't answer this simple question, even if it meant saving his own kids. He will likely guess "peer pressure" -- like most people do -- and he will be dead wrong. That is, some kids will be dead because he was wrong. [continues 264 words]
Re: Dr. Michael T. Jamison's April 27 commentary, "Medicinal marijuana at what cost?": Dr. Jamison is confused about the argument related to alcohol. The argument is simply this: Just because something is dangerous doesn't mean that prohibition is the solution. Why is alcohol legal? It isn't because alcohol is safe. Alcohol is clearly dangerous, more dangerous than marijuana by any standard of measure. But alcohol Prohibition didn't solve the alcohol problems, it only made them worse. Homicides skyrocketed. The Mafia got rich. Police corruption was so bad that they shipped convicted cops off to prison literally by the trainload. By 1925, arrests for public drunkenness and similar crimes were already above the pre-Prohibition records. Worst of all was the effect on children. Alcohol Prohibition produced the biggest teen drinking epidemic ever seen among U.S. children. [continues 212 words]
Joseph Brown proved he doesn't know anything about the subject. The drug laws were lunacy from the very beginning. Every major study of the subject in history has said that the drug laws were the product of racism, ignorance and nonsense. At no time was there any rational consideration of the alternatives or the effects of prohibition. Brown has a lot of reading to do. He should start his education with the following items: The short history of the marijuana laws at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm [continues 63 words]
Let me suggest an additional set of alternatives to those proposed by letter writer Bailey Geeslin. We know that drugs are not going to go away. They have been with us since the beginning of time, and they will be with us until our great-great grandchildren are dead and gone. In the history of the earth, there has perhaps been only one drug-free society. That was the Eskimos, and the only reason was because they couldna=80TMt produce any drugs in that climate. [continues 129 words]
Note to government officials: If you are bragging about success because you seized a DC-9 full of cocaine, and because drug-related violence is up, then you are not losing the war on drugs. You have already lost. If you were winning then the opponents would never get to the point of buying a DC-9. Clifford A. Schaffer Director Schaffer Library of Drug Policy Agua Dulce, Calif. [end]
Did anyone tell these D.A.R.E. crusaders that D.A.R.E. has been officially barred from receiving United States government funds because there is no proof that it works? In fact, the research shows that D.A.R.E. students may be more likely to use drugs than non-D.A.R.E. students. D.A.R.E. is like apple pie - it is very popular, but there is no proof that either apple pie or D.A.R.E. stops kids from using drugs. Clifford A. Schaffer Director, Schaffer Library of Drug Policy http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer Agua Dulce, CA [end]
Re: Marijuana vending machines - unbelievable (Jan. 31 editorial, Sentinel-Review) I live in the Los Angeles area and I have taken the time to actually survey the operations of the marijuana clubs, so let me offer a little perspective on the issue. California legalized medical marijuana in 1996 by popular vote. Under the law, marijuana is legal for treatment of any illness for which it provides relief. Furthermore, the decision of whether it is useful is solely up to the doctor, in consultation with the patient. In actual practice, marijuana is legally available to any adult wants it. All they have to do is pay the $100 "tax" to the doctor. Except for the fact the "tax" goes to the medical profession, rather than the government, this is just the way it should be. [continues 506 words]
Re: For their own protection, Dec. 28. If columnist Licia Corbella's idea of jailing people with drug problems is such a good idea, then it should be applied across the board. Alcohol wins all the prizes for causing problems in society. In the United States, it is connected to half of all deaths from homicide, auto accidents, fires, and drownings. It is related to about half of all domestic abuse and about two-thirds of all sexual assaults on children. [continues 117 words]
Steve Clements is correct (No smoking gun, Letters, November 2). Every major study of the drug laws from around the world in the last 100 years has concluded that marijuana is not a significant threat to public health, safety, or personal ambition. You don't have to take Steve's word for it, or mine. You can read the full text of those government commission reports at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer under Major Studies Of Drugs And Drug Policy. They all say that the marijuana laws were based on racism, ignorance, and nonsense. [continues 62 words]
I suggest a simpler law that would get back to basics. Educational institutions should require their students to do their homework before they write editorials. The points missed in this case include the following: 1) The U.S. federal government already distributes marijuana as a medicine to a number of people. They do that because some of those patients went to court and proved to a legal certainty that marijuana is the only medicine suitable for their needs. 2) Statements about there not being enough research are signs of abject ignorance. Every major government commission report on drug policy in the last 100 years has concluded that the marijuana laws were based on racism, ignorance and nonsense. They all said the laws should have been repealed long ago because they do more harm than good. You can read them at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer under Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy. [continues 223 words]
