Junk science and cocaine scares
In the case of cocaine, there is an even more striking precedent for evidence being ignored: during the early 1990s the World Health Organisation conducted what is probably the largest ever study of global cocaine use. In March 1995 they released a briefing kit which summarised their conclusions, with some tantalising bullet points.This is my column. This is my column on drugs. Any questions?"Health problems from the use of legal substances, particularly alcohol and tobacco, are greater than health problems from cocaine use," they said. "Few experts describe cocaine as invariably harmful to health. Cocaine-related problems are widely perceived to be more common and more severe for intensive, high-dosage users and very rare and much less severe for occasional, low-dosage users."
The full report - which has never been published - went on to challenge several of the key principles driving prohibition, and was extremely critical of most US policies. It suggested that supply reduction and law enforcement strategies have failed, and that alternative strategies such as decriminalisation might be explored, flagging up such programmes in Australia, Bolivia, Canada and Colombia....This report was never published, because just two months after the press briefing was released, at the 48th World Health Assembly, the US representative to WHO threatened to withdraw US funding for all their research projects and interventions unless the organisation "dissociated itself from the conclusions of the study" and cancelled the publication. According to WHO, even today, this document does not exist, (although you can read a leaked copy in full on the website of the drugs policy think tank Transform at www.tdpf.org.uk/WHOleaked.pdf ).
- Milk: The Gateway Drug - Boing Boing
- Will Obama continue failed drug war policies? - Boing Boing
- Slate's Jack Shafer on Rolling Stone drug war article - Boing Boing
- BB Video: United Nations Drug Policy- the Skeptics Chime In ...
- Law enforcement professionals against the war on drugs - Boing Boing
- Photos from the Afghanistan Drug War - Boing Boing
- American Violet: docu-drama about racism and the drug-war - Boing ...
- Bad Science versus the piracy scare story - Boing Boing
- Corrupted Science: the history, cause, effect and state of bad ...
- BBC shredded on bad science in WiFi scare report - Boing Boing
- More bad science on kids' food packages - Boing Boing
- 10 rules for bad science - Boing Boing
- The Doctor Will Sue You Now: the missing chapter of Ben Goldacre's ...
the latest
latest episodes
There's a lot of names of the supposed participants in this study. Why not track them all down and ask them if this is real? Seems like that would settle the veracity of this WHO document.
Of course, when cocaine first came out in the 19th century, it was totally legal and advocated by big names like Sigmund Freud. The backlash and the hysteria came later. And so did the anti-cocaine studies.
http://drvitelli.typepad.com/providentia/2007/05/selling_cocaine.html
A little bit of cocaine isn't really dangerous, but a little bit of cocaine is never enough...
I agree with #1
Legalizing cocaine is a pipe-dream while we still haven't legalized marijuana.
There documentary sometimes shown on the history channel which was about how cocaine and how it became illegal and it was almost completely for racial reasons. I was surprised by show actually. It managed to showed the negative effects but also dispelled the misinformation about it and changed my perception on the drug.
Interesting it also mentioned how caffeine was being considered to ban. I don't think its a stretch to imagine coffee beans with the same status as marijuana or coke. Criminals buying coffee from drug dealers and how strange and demonizing those in law enforcement could make it look with all the paraphernalia (french press, percolator, etc) you could use take the drug.
At the very least coca leaves should be legal give users some alternative away from black markets and drug cartels. But even beyond that laws need to change. A "free" country shoving vast amounts of its citizens in prison for putting something in their body is a contradictory and belittling to the whole concept of a free society. Although cocaine is used in every class (made apparent by the 80's) the poor are the main and easiest targets for law enforcement. It's depressing that this country sticks to information that itself maid up starting near a century ago will actively suppress any information and research out the to help and correct it.
So would recreational drugs like cocaine be even safer to use if they were being manufactured by a national pharmaceutical company as opposed to a guy in a jungle?
#4 Ian_McLoud, I don't think legalizing cocaine is the question here, but setting better priorities for public policies.
Oh yeah, cocaine's not really harmful, let's survey the health of people who have been using it for a week or two, see they're just fine.
@lesbianjesus
I think the point he's trying to make here is that although cocaine CAN be (and often is) quite harmful, it is not necessarily harmful by default, as current drug policy would have us believe ("any use is harmful misuse"). Substantial evidence does exist for "healthy" (or at least non-harmful) patterns of cocaine use.
dude, if you ate cheeseburgers all day for a week or two, youd be in pretty bad shape too.
"Health problems from the use of legal substances, particularly alcohol and tobacco, are greater than health problems from cocaine use"
Ok, fine, but this sentence's meaning is a little unclear. These kinds of statements often crumble under a little probing:
Is it "Health problems" for the whole of society, or on a per-capita basis? When a cocaine user also drinks and smokes AND gets sick, does the medical chart say "Cocaine user" or "Smoker"?
If cocaine was legal and relatively inexpensive, and therefore under common use, would this still hold?
Chuck Klosterman managed to only eat Chicken McNuggets for an entire week straight:
However, I think the point still stands that, medically, cocaine use is probably no better or worse, on average, than drinking alcohol.
Yes, some people become alcoholics, or coke fiends, (or potheads). But the vast majority of people use recreational drugs, well, recreationally. It's fun on the weekends; not a way of life.
Can you have one cigarette and walk away? Then you can have a little coke or a little heroin too. And both are fantastic and safe drugs if the substance is pure, and the dosage pure. Heroin was a brand name drug from Bayer company, and was in over the counter cold medicine. Cocaine was in soft drinks. Peruvian farmers chew on coca leaves and report mild euphoria, and a boost in energy (without all the jitters like caffeine) Do your own reserach- don't believe the hype. The problem isn't the substance folks - It's the purity (illegal means you don't know how pure the drug is, or what it might be cut with) and dosage.
I'm drinking an entire bottle of vodka right now.
Thank goodness I'm not 'on drugs'. Phew!
Lesbianjesus: Look up "hyponatremia."
#5: speaking of pipe dreams, how about heroin?
Uh hate to break it to you but there a very few "low dosage infrequent" cocaine users out there.
legalizing cocaine would remove one of the major black operations currencies.
If even Dr.House is addicted to methylmorphine which according to wikipedia is only 8-12% as strong as morphine, Heroin must be some pretty badass shit... Heroin is one thing I didn't try yet (just don't feel the need to do so), but I wouldn't compare it to cocaine... seriously...
Legalize pot! Legalize cocaine... okay maybe? But why would you want to legalize Heroin?!
The worst part about using coke is knowing how many people have been brutalised or murdered for your recreation. If there was ever a "bad karma" drug, this is the one. That little high just ain't worth the heebie jeebies of a thousand ghost-peasants standing over your shoulder tsk-tsk-ing and mournfully shaking their heads.
perhaps to remove the profit motive from criminal traffic? It is possible for humanity to finally grow up one day. It is even possible for us to leave behind the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians in the name of whatever war. Look at the progress so far. It is possible.
People who insist progress like the mature and sensible use of drugs is impossible are the enemies of humanity.
I'm with the Economist (which I hate) on this one. Decriminalise and you de-risk the supply process, which sucks the criminals down the plughole, as their participation is only required by the illicit nature of the market.
Nonetheless, any dickhead buying coke prior to the deconstruction of the criminal market - from a bar, mobile dealer, whatever - is contributing to the pain and suffering of participants in that market and the people the come into contact with. Maintaining and entire ecosystem of nasty activity.
Does it mess you up? Do I care?
"People who insist progress like the mature and sensible use of drugs is impossible are the enemies of humanity."
In the immortal words of Paris Hilton, "That's hot!"
So, those holes it puts in hearts really AREN'T a problem? The medical name is aneurysm. Using cocaine once a week, for maybe a year or so, causes serious heart damage down the line. Marijuana is one thing, but this substance kills people. Here's a site with info:
http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/000727/38/
you'll have to do better than that.
"Legalize pot! Legalize cocaine... okay maybe? But why would you want to legalize Heroin?!"
Heroin used to be legal back when it was first developed. Bayer even marketed a children's aspirin with heroin before it all hit the fan. Heroin and cocaine only became illegal when the addiction problems became all too apparent.
http://drvitelli.typepad.com/providentia/2007/09/ending-the-bing.html
@ #22 Sure cocaine makes the lives of those peasants miserable now, but legalization would allow you to grow the plant in pots in your back yard (in Texas, AR, LA and CA at least, the climate's right for it), or simply harvest it here in the US commercially. I'm sure If I tried the stuff, I would certainly trade my morning cup of joe for some homemade coca leaf tea. Columbian coca tea leaves would be marketed here in the US in the same way that Cuban cigars used to (and still are, depending on who you ask).
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34821
Louisiana maybe. Texas, California, etc. are probably too dry. You can irrigate, but humidity is a bigger factor than most people realize.
I'm speaking as someone who supports the decriminalization of recreational drugs, is an occasional user of recreational drugs, and who really, really likes coke (quit about a year ago). I'm also speaking as a scientist who happens to specialize in the neurobiology of addiction, and who, by absolute coincidence, is working on a cocaine study right now.
The problem with decriminalization is this: drug addiction is not solely driven by neurobiological factors, such as potentency of reinforcement. Addiction is also driven by availability, associative cues, and by social factors.
For example, nicotine is obviously an addictive drug, but as a reinforcer, it comes nowhere near to being as powerful as heroin. But ask people who used to be addicted to both nicotine and heroin, and they will tell you that quitting smoking was harder. Why is this? Because you can buy cigarettes at every convenience store and gas station--it's incredibly easy to buy a carton on impulse. Because there are ads for cigarettes on billboards and in magazines, reminding smokers of their need (associative cues, which trigger drug craving). Because there is relatively little social stigma attached to smoking, and thus, less pressure to quit. All of these things are consequences of tobacco being legal.
Decriminalizing cocaine would have the effect of making it more addictive than it already is. I used to support full decriminalization. These days, I have my doubts. I still don't think we should be punishing end-users. But full decriminalization of highly-addictive drugs (heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine fall into this category) seems to me like it would cause more harm than good.
I've had bad experiences with loved ones using coke. It's a little hard for me to jump on the bandwagon of legalize for this substance. Coca leaves are one thing, in a natural state. I guess people should have the right to make their own bad decisions.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1704
"because of the altered physiological state of the brain, events that previously caused stimulation of the DA pathway (pleasurable experiences other than cocaine use) no longer do; only cocaine can induce the feeling of happiness."
Ask a cardiologist why you should not use cocaine.
I work for one who is a major guy in trauma care and is responsible for a certain county having triple the survival rates in heart attacks over anywhere in the US.
Your odds of dropping effing dead from a cardiac event each and every time you do coke do not change. So the first time user or the 1.000th time user still have the same odds of dropping dead. Is that good news or bad news? If you like playing russian roulette with your life, it's great news.
Look, I HATE THE DRUG WAR. But this information in the article is not clear. Cocaine can kill you the first time you use it.
It sounds like the same argument marijuana supporters claim of their drug.
past a certain age, so can an orgasm.
not to mention peanuts either. deadly. ban them immediately right?
I have no general problem with people who do coke. It just turns them into cocks, that's all. Having never really been into drugs, nor ever taken coke, it took me a long time to realise why friends or people I met at parties would alter throughout the evening. It's disconcerting to say the least.
My main and bleeding heart liberal problem with cocaine is the trail of bodies it leaves on its way from Columbia et al, to the USA and Europe. I think from that perspective, it's a despicable drug.
Politically legalisation is difficult, because it would almost condone everything that has brought it to this point. Besides, cannabis and ecstasy are far less harmful socially, and they can't be boiled down into crack.
"Heroin used to be legal back when it was first developed."
So what? We used to think that cigarettes were healthy, until everybody started dropping dead from cancer.
People who insist progress like the mature and sensible use of drugs is impossible are the enemies of humanity.
Weeeell... yeah... I guess. Still, why would you want to legalize HEROIN?! For now, no matter how strong and responsible you are, Heroin can only make you to the slave of a dealer and/or criminal organizations, do you also want to be the slave of big corporations? Just like with cigarettes, only that Heroin is like 100 times more addictive!?
Would you rather be the "slave" of the police?
Legalize all drug use, top to bottom: all associated & remaining problems would be health, not police, matters. Control distribution, to be sure: but don't close the pipe entirely. or else the crooks control it: like they do now, and buy off the cops, prison guards, and politicians. And then, who's a slave?
Are you free to try or use these drugs? Well, no: not as free as you once were, in the absence of prohibitory laws, but that's a good thing, for the elites of the USA...and the harm from these substances (if any) is now magnified & intensified, and made as certain as the State can make it, and spread beyond the users to include ALL tax payers - by the "reasoned" policies of the State.
"100 times more addictive"
very scientific use of numbers...
There are too many humans on the planet. Why are we so concerned about protecting people who would knowingly put poison into their bodies?
In a society where everyone has the same advantages, possibilities, means, education etc. People are capable of making personal and informed choices, in that case, legalize all drugs. But unfortunately we don't live in this kind of society. Corporations don't care about your health, and they will pay for huge marketing campaigns to maximize the profits for every product on earth they can exploit. The police protects tobacco factories, I don't want them to also protect future heroin factories.
#11
I can see what you mean, but what i was getting at without articulating anything (sorry) is
when you or anyone chooses to start cocaine, you can not predict whether they will be able to use it safely or they will spin out of control destroying your life and health, therefor it is dangerous even if some people use it safely... ie. Most people who reach 150 mph in a vehicle are just fine, does that mean you should try and reach that speed ? If someone wants to argue that cocaine can be harmless they word first have to prove that.
Len Bias.
Supposed there was a drug that has no significant bad side effect, other than addiction. Supposed that it is stronger than any existing drug, but can be taken safely without killing you. When you get off the high, you can function normally. Suppose that it can displace other drugs. Instead of being addicted to heroin or cocaine, or caffeine or alcohol, you will be addicted to this new drug.
Is this drug good? For the individual, for the community. Do we want to promote it's use?
Why are we not searching for / developing this drug.
Those who are against legalization appear to assume a totally, libertarian-style free market will appear where corporations, gas stations, grocery stores, etc. will all have boxes of cocaine around for everyone to buy and try. This is ridiculous!
The idea about legalization is that by making something legal, laws can then actually influence the market. Now, laws just stand back and say "Tsk Tsk, don't do that, if we catch you then we'll send you to jail." These laws don't work, as there are still plenty of drug-taking people.
When drugs are legalized, they will be regulated. Corporate profits can be severely limited, advertising can be prohibited, the substances can be costly through taxes (though not so costly as to encourage a black market of tax-avoidance), and the taxes generated can be used to setup treatment centers for those persons who do not understand recreational use or alternatively are genetically destined to become an addict on the first try.
It is not the government's place to ban these substances just because they are harmful. You know what else is extraordinarily harmful? Driving. How many people die each year? What's the environmental cost? But we still consider driving to be a God-given right in this country. Who are we to tell consenting adults what they can do with their bodies? We should help them if they make mistakes, but life is about making mistakes and hopefully learning from them with a little help from your fellow citizens.
Legalization will not increase use substantially, will generate increased legal economic ability, drastically reduce profits for criminals, and help get a million people out of jail that should not be there.
The blood of the ghosts isn't on the hands of the users. It's on the hands of those that support criminalization.
There are few states of the human condition more miserable and more degrading than cocaine and opiate addiction.
Freedom of choice is important, but these chemicals do far more physiologically to supress free will than any law.
Practically speaking, the law is not that much of a limiting factor, anyway in controlling availabilty and use.
This article concerns me in that it seems to imply that drugs do not cause suffering. Ask the family of an addict if these drugs are not devistating to the individual and anyone who cares about him or her.
Drugs feel good :)
not everyone who uses these substances becomes an addict.
People talking about the legalization of heroin and even cocaine, use pretty much the same arguments as with the Cannabis debate. It's not remotely comparable.
On the one hand, Anonymous @ #47 you say:
When drugs are legalized, they will be regulated."
and on the other:
"These laws don't work"
To me, this sounds pretty fucking contradictory.
If Heroin was introduced to the free market, there would be an increase of use. Just look at the increase of use of tobacco when cigarettes were sold for the first time.
It is not the government's place to ban these substances just because they are harmful.
I don't think any chemical substance should be banned and its use should never be penalized. People should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies. Still, it's not a reason to give the opportunity to the gangsters of this world to legally make money out of something that would slowly kill their customers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/opinion/14kristof.html
i.e. morphological freedom
Failix-
I suppose you can use a strawman of the laws that don't work to say no laws will work, but you are committing a glaring logical fallacy.
As I said above, by legalizing these substances they can then actually be affected by ***well-written*** laws. It is the legislators' jobs to write these laws correctly, and it is the populace's job to elect competent legislators that are up to the task.
Some laws are useless, and some laws do indeed work quite well. Society has a wealth of evidence saying that criminalization does not solve the problem of drug use, and that evidence can be effectively argued as proof we need to rethink our priorities. Now, drug users of all kinds are made into criminals whose lives will forever be ruined with a criminal record - drugs look pretty good when your life has been ruined with a criminal record. It is far better for taxes to support public health programs that treat addicts.
I have someone in my family who has been on and off drugs her entire life. Her children have suffered for it, and the rest of the family has suffered. All of us know someone who has ruined their lives with drugs, and none of us thinks that we want these people to be able to ruin their lives.
The fact that must be swallowed is that jail will not work. Making the drug a taboo doesn't work. Nobody suggests making drugs readily available to all who want to try them. Harder drugs like cocaine and heroin need some protection scheme to prevent repeated easy use, and anyone who sold them would have to be regulated heavily. Each business which sold these drugs could be forced to hold conferences with repeat users to make sure they don't need treatment, etc. Or, forget making it a business, and have government-owned stores like ABC stores deal in these items.
There are a lot of potential solutions, some may fail and some will work. I do know that what is happening now IS NOT WORKING!
Everyone should be made aware of Portugal's effective drug policy, let's hope one day our own governments can be as forward thinking:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html
@Zuzu
Yeah I know, I found out that I happen to be some kind of techno-progressive democratic transhumanist, so morphological freedom is pretty high (no pun intended) on my list.
@Anonymous
I do know that what is happening now IS NOT WORKING!
Yeah me too, that's for sure. I just think the libertarian approach isn't the right one for hard drugs that have a high degree of addictiveness. I only want to emphasize the fact that I'm okay (no I'd be delighted) with Cannabis becoming an industry, but not with Heroin.
Or, forget making it a business, and have government-owned stores like ABC stores deal in these items.
Sounds like the most reasonable and realistic thing to do. But it hardly solves the problem does it?
There are few states of the human condition more miserable and more degrading than cocaine and opiate addiction.
Perhaps sniffing gas or glue? I think we should make all industrial solvents should be illegal.
The fact is we just don't know at the moment. Anecdote, personal experience and posturing have replaced rigorous and unbiased methodology in our policy making. Like guns and abortion, illegal drugs occupy the hot button place in the 'merican political psyche.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i_7aIzdypWz2A-dtVHeJ8VZ7vLFAD98R92S80