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