From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!duke!bcw
Newsgroups: net.misc
Title: Re: Refresh on addiction discussion
Article-I.D.: duke.2213
Posted: Sat Jun 12 23:40:47 1982
Received: Sun Jun 13 05:16:51 1982


Re:	Refresh on addiction discussion
From:	Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University

The current drug laws mentioned by cbosgd!mark are a classic example
of governmental stupidity.  There is abundant evidence that excessive
alcohol causes quite a bit of trouble, and a lot more than just the
liver problems which are "common knowledge;"  things like cancer and
heart disease are also accelerated.  (this doesn't happen -- at least
to a significant degree -- except at fairly high levels -- say a couple
of "hard" drinks or more a day).  Similarly, there is considerable
evidence that tobacco (not so much nicotine -- it's mostly the tars and
contaminants;  pure tobacco is actually quite a bit better than what
you're likely to get out of the tobacco firms) causes significant
systemic problems.

I'd be quite surprised, given the usual method of taking the drug, if
marijuana were benign.  Since much of the problem with tobacco is in
the tars and contaminants (such as dirt, etc), and since burnt marijuana
is going to have these same constituents, it will likely have many of
the same problems.  The fact that users usually don't take as much of
the marijuana as they do of tobacco is largely offset by the fact that
marijuana users typically inhale much more deeply.

>From what I know of the pharmacological effects of cocaine and heroin,
it appears that they are probably *less* dangerous than large amounts
of alcohol, tobacco, and (speculated) marijuana, assuming that they
are sufficiently pure (not what you'd likely find on the streets).
Even so, heroin is likely to make it difficult for its user to function
in society, given its tendency to monopolize its user's time because
of its physical addiction.

The effects of caffeine are fairly highly disputed.  On the one hand,
the substance is highly mutagenic in prokaryotic organisms (bacteria
and blue-green algae), but on the other hand there have never been
any such effects reliably demonstrated in eukaryotic organisms (higher
organisms including all multicellular organisms).  The stuff is in
fact so poisonous to bacteria that caffeine makes a reasonable anti-
biotic.  Most of the problems reported with caffeine have been with
sources which have other substances as well;  for example, the roasting
of coffee beans generates tars not too unlike the tobacco tars.  These
do not appear too significant except in grossly excessive quantities
in humans.

All of this ignores the issue of whether it is any of the government's
business what recreational drugs people use.  Since the government
sanctions the use of alcohol and tobacco (and even subsidizes them
heavily), it's position from a moral standpoint is at best hypocritical,
the more so because these drugs are the most demonstrably dangerous of
the pharmacopoeia.  It appears that the government tries to ban all of
the "non-approved" drugs not for their merit or lack thereof but because
the businesses involved (the alcohol industry especially) are afraid
that it would impact their sales;  coupled with some Moral Majority
lobbying which would like to bring back Prohibition (if it could only
be politically arranged).

No, I don't use many drugs -- caffeine and a little alcohol excepted --
but that's a personal choice and I see no reason why the government
should have *any* say in this matter at all.  Government officials
however like to produce more legislation -- it makes them feel
important and as if they're actually *doing* something.  The sooner
we realize that we can't trust government any farther than we can
throw it, the better for all of us.

			Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University