You correctly note that police corruption is tied to prohibition (NOW, May 6-12) but don't quite describe the potential scope of corruption. During alcohol prohibition in the U.S., for example, they were literally hauling convicted cops off to prison by the trainload. No one should be surprised at the current problems. Clifford Schaffer Director, DRCNet Online Library of Drug Policy Agua Dulce, CA [end]
I have a suggestion for a recent letter writer here: Before he comes up with too many plans to fight illegal drugs, he should read the major studies on the subject. He can find the full text of nearly every major government commission report on the drug laws in the last 100 years at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer. The collection includes the largest studies ever done by the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, just to mention a few. The first thing he will find is that all the major commissions concluded that drug prohibition is a lost cause -- just like alcohol prohibition -- and should have been repealed long ago because it does more harm than good. Clifford Schaffer, Agua Dulce, Calif. [end]
Agua Dulce, Calif. -- Nice article. The only thing missing was the proud proclamation from the police that this was a major victory in the war on marijuana and they finally are getting things under control. Just give them a lot more money and any day now they will have this problem eliminated. Clifford Schaffer [end]
RE YOUR editorial "A visit from the Supremes (Dec. 24): After at least a dozen major government commission studies over the last 100 years, including two recent ones by your own Parliament, your editors think that marijuana decriminalization was not "thought through." There is only one real explanation - your editors have never read any of the most basic research on the subject. The marijuana laws were founded on ignorance and require ignorance to survive. Your editors have proven it again. Clifford Schaffer Director, DRCNet Online Library of Drug Policy Agua Dulce, Calif. (We know our government, you don't. It wasn't thought through) [end]
Editor, The Journal I hate to rain on anyone's parade, or interfere with the good things that Mike Harcourt said but the final comment in that piece was rather interesting: Where is Elliot Ness when we need him? I regret to inform Hubert Beyer that Elliot Ness was a failure. Yeah, he busted a lot of people and poured a lot of illegal brew down the gutter. But he didn't really change anything. Al Capone and his friends still made millions - so much so that decades later the Guiness Book of World Records still listed Al Capone as the private citizen with the highest income ever. All of the people Elliot Ness busted were quickly replaced by more people after those illegal millions. The situation didn't really change until alcohol was legalized again. There is a message in that. Clifford Schaffer Director, DRCNet Online Library of Drug Policy Agua Dulce, California [end]
To the editor: Dr. Paul Latimer made a number of statements that were questionable. (Marijuana Use and Psychiatric Illness Associated, Nov. 7 Capital News) Among them was "The reality is that for most individuals, regular drug use is incompatible with a life of meaningful relationships, productivity and satisfaction." I suggest that he discusses that with his friends over a glass of wine or beer. Clifford Schaffer director, DRCNet Online Library of Drug Policy http://www.druglibrary.org Agua Dulce, CA [end]
Editor: Re: Drugs as weapons Correct me if I am wrong, but if someone slips something harmful into another person's drink and then rapes them when they are incapacitated, wouldn't that be a crime, or multiple crimes, whether the substance itself was classed as a weapon or not? Alcohol would be the best example, because that accounts for far more sexual assaults than all the other drugs combined. It seems to me that you don't need a new law to address this situation - just adequate enforcement of the existing laws. You got it right when you said that these laws are just PR gestures that will make no real difference. Clifford Schaffer, Director, DRCNet Online Library of Drug Policy, Agua Dulce, California [end]
The Maui News editorial "Drug war needs honesty" (Aug. 6) noted a law enforcement official blatantly lied to promote his own agenda and, when confronted, claimed the lies were correct even when the original source for the figures said they weren't even close to correct. So what else is new? If your readers care to read the history of the drug war, they will find that it has been official U.S. government policy to lie about these issues for at least the last 70 years. Read all about it yourself at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer under Historical Research. I suggest you start with "The Drug Hang-Up" by Rufus King. The drug war was built on lies and requires lies to survive. That's why they lie, and they do it deliberately. Clifford Schaffer Agua Dulce, Calif. [end]
SIR, - If Ian Oliver wants science to settle the cannabis controversy (the Press and Journal, July 23), then he should read some of it. On the medical-use issue, he ignores the obvious. Cannabis is already a legal medicine in the US, where the government sends it to a number of patients each month because those patients went to court and proved to a legal certainty that cannabis was the only medicine suitable for their needs. The plant obviously has medicinal properties because a prescription drug (Marinol) is made from the primary active ingredient. It might have other effects, but it obviously has medicinal effects. [continues 152 words]
Fort Saskatchewan Record--If Jane Buryn really wants to read the research on long-term marijuana use, she can find a big chunk of it at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer under the Cannabis Research Library. The largest study to date was done by the Kaiser Permanente health plan and reviewed the medical records of 65,000 patients over a period of six years. They found no significant differences between the health of marijuana smokers and those who did not smoke marijuana. http://www.druglibrary.org/crl/aging/sidney-01.html The sum of the research [continues 520 words]
Dear Editor: If Mississauga politicians really want to know about marijuana, they can find the full text of nearly every major study of the marijuana laws over the last 100 years at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer under Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy. I would recommend they simply read the accumulated evidence of the last hundred years. For anyone who actually does read it, the conclusions become pretty obvious. Is actually reading the major research far too radical an idea for them? Apparently, it is not just marijuana that causes damage -- just reading accurate research on it is also dangerous. Clifford Schaffer DRCNet Online Library of Drug Policy Agua Dulce, California [end]
Monica Spriggs is to be congratulated for her devotion to kids. It is obvious that she cares deeply about them and sincerely wants to help. Her attitude and efforts deserve a round of applause. Having said that, it is also important to note that good intentions are not an acceptable substitute for programs that actually work. The evidence is quite clear that DARE simply does not work to reduce drug abuse in kids. That's why the federal government has stopped funding for DARE. [continues 174 words]
Katherine Boylen's belief that trying to cut drugs off at the source would be an effective response to the drug problem is a common one (Thwart drug trade before it hits the streets, Letters, May 7). Unfortunately, it is also wrong. The Rand Corporation recently reviewed all the methods of dealing with the drug problem. Trying to cut drugs off at the source and stopping them at the border were the least cost-effective methods of control. The most cost-effective method of controlling the drug problem was treatment. It is certainly not perfect or a guarantee of success, but it is more cost-effective than law enforcement approaches by several orders of magnitude. Clifford Schaffer Director DRCNet Online Library of Drug Policy Agua Dulce, Calif. [end]
I am one of the founders of the Drug Reform Coordination Network, the organization that spawned Students for a Sensible Drug Policy. I also established the DRCNet Online Library of Drug Policy, the world's largest online collection of research on drug policy at http://www.druglibrary.org . I cannot comment on any issues with SSDP and its chapters but I have taught more people how to debate this subject than anyone else, so I can comment on Alexander Marriott's arguments. [continues 374 words]
Dear Editor, It is always disappointing to see this kind of misinformation in any publication. It is most disappointing when it comes from a university setting where, presumably, the students should have access to better information and be encouraged to seek it out. Yes, marijuana is illegal for a reason, but Tristan Meyer obviously doesn't know what the reason is. Actually, there were two major reasons for the marijuana laws. Marijuana was originally outlawed because "All Mexicans are crazy and marijuana is what makes them crazy" and because of the fear that heroin addiction would lead to the use of marijuana. Note that the second reason is just exactly the opposite of the "gateway myth" that Tristan parrots. [continues 307 words]
Terence P. Farley is correct that misinformation abounds on medical marijuana. If you want some misinformation, just go ask any DEA agent about the issue. Lying about marijuana has been official U.S. government policy since 1937 when Harry Anslinger, then head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, realized that cannabis was already so widespread then that he would never be able to control it with his limited budget and manpower. As a result, he decided to use The Big Lie. And the lies were stupendous, to say the least. The U.S. official expert on marijuana testified in court, under oath, that marijuana would make your incisors grow six inches long and drip with blood. Farley apparently forgot that evil effect. [continues 423 words]
The larger, and more important, point is that it doesn't make any sense to punish sick people for trying to relieve their own suffering, even if you disagree with their choice of medicine. Agua Dulce, Calif. [end]
Editor, The News: If Eric Myrholm means to suggest that there are studies on both sides of the issue of whether the marijuana laws should be changed, he is mistaken (`Two sides to pot story: Here's mine,' Opinion, Jan. 23). I spent several years collecting the major government studies of drug policy from around the world, and I put the full text of nearly all of them on the Internet at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer, under Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy. [continues 452 words]
Nancy Phillis is simply wrong when she says that doing anything to prevent drug use by children is never a bad idea. If she will read some of the history of our drug laws in this country, she will find a very surprising fact. Historically speaking, the single biggest cause of drug epidemics among children is hysterical, ill-thought anti-drug campaigns. The first was the huge teen drinking epidemic during alcohol Prohibition. Other drug epidemics triggered by anti-drug campaigns included LSD, speed and glue sniffing. [continues 114 words]
Editor: If anyone cares to read the history of the drug war, it should be abundantly clear how such "statistics" as the "ice" statistic arise. They are made up by someone in political office to suit their own agenda. This is nothing new. It has been official U.S. government policy for the last 60 years, at least. Clifford Schaffer Agua Dulce [end]
Dear editor: Re: Don't make it legal: Herder (Sept. 11, Chatham This Week) Chief Herder expresses concerns about kids being able to easily get pot if it's legalized. If he'd read the most basic research on the subject, he'd know that, historically speaking, the biggest single cause of drug epidemics among children is anti-drug campaigns. The first and best example was alcohol prohibition in the US. Alcohol was outlawed with a campaign of "Save the Children from Alcohol". But within five years, the US was in the middle of the biggest teen drinking epidemic it had ever seen. [continues 131 words]
Can Nancy Le (Letter Box, June 14) or any other DARE supporter produce any actual research that shows DARE reduces drug use in kids? No? I didn't think so. I have asked before, and nobody has come up with any yet. There are other drug education programs that really do work, there is a way to measure whether they work, and there is research to prove they work, so they get federal government funding. DARE does not get federal government funding because there is no evidence that it works. The research shows that, by the senior year in high school, up to 95 percent of students regard DARE as having no credibility at all. Some research has even shown that DARE students may be more likely to use drugs than their non-DARE peers. It is a real sin to waste precious time and money on DARE when there isn't a shred of evidence that it works. Canyon Country, Calif. The writer is director of the DRCNet Online Library of Drug Policy (http://www.druglibrary.org). [end]
Arthur Lyon suggested that we should shoot all drug dealers (Letter Box, March 29). In response (April 1), I asked him a couple of simple questions: 1) How many people are currently killed by drugs? 2) How many people should we kill to solve the problem? I asked these questions so we could determine whether his proposal would kill more people than the problem we are trying to solve. I then stated that people who make this suggestion never know enough about the subject to answer basic factual questions. [continues 180 words]
Arthur S. Lyon (Letter Box, March 29) claims that we ought to summarily shoot drug dealers to solve the illegal drugs problem. I have heard this assertion many times, and I always have two questions to ask anyone who makes such an assertion: 1. How many people are actually killed by drugs in the United States in a typical year? Please include the figures for alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs, as well as the illegal drugs. 2. How many people do you propose that we kill to solve that problem? [continues 91 words]
Paul Dougan is almost right when he says the drug laws were the result of "prejudice, bigotry, and intolerance" ("War on ponytails," Speaking Out, Feb. 28). Dougan left out "ignorance and nonsense." For example, the U.S. Official Expert on marijuana from 1938 to 1962 testified in court, under oath, that marijuana could make your incisors grow six inches long and drip with blood and, when he tried it, it turned him into a bat. (Surely, everyone who has been to a good party has seen these awful effects.) [continues 101 words]
I recently had the good fortune to attend a meeting of law enforcement officers where the chief of police of San Jose, California spoke. He said that he would not allow a SWAT team or other similar tactical unit ever to be used in surprise raids on any house, for any drug offense, under any circumstances. The reasons he gave were simple enough-it's unnecessary and, as West Milwaukee and the Milwaukee County sheriff has adequately demonstrated ["A Shot in the Dark," Jan. 31], it puts both officers and innocent citizens at great risk. [continues 170 words]
Just to let Brian Martinka know, I have been an activist for drug law reform for almost 15 years, and I have personally discussed the issue with nearly every leader of nearly every major group advocating reform. To date, no one I know of has suggested any change in any law that would allow anyone to cause harm to anyone else while intoxicated. That includes blowing pot smoke, or anything else, in anyone's face. Clifford A. Schaffer, Agua Dulce, California [end]
If you are going to report on the issue of marijuana's potential addictiveness ("Studies Show Marijuana may be Addictive," Feb. 15), at least give all the facts. The article states "scientists at the National Institute on Drug Abuse found monkeys would voluntarily give themselves THC in amounts similar to those inhaled by people who smoke marijuana. Self-administration of drugs by animals is perceived to be a trademark of addictive substances." The truth is the only way the NIDA scientists could get monkeys to self-administrate THC was to get them seriously addicted to cocaine first. The monkeys were going through cocaine withdrawal. Is it any wonder that an animal going through cocaine withdrawal would want another drug to alleviate the suffering? [continues 350 words]
Re: "Debating the magnitude of this story" by John Winn Miller (column, Jan. 30). There is one other thing that distinguishes this news story: The woman who was busted is the daughter of one of the nation's chief proponents of jailing people for drug offenses. Let's see how serious he is about jail being such a wonderful solution to the drug problem when the person who might be going to jail is his own daughter. Just to keep things entirely fair, let's make sure she goes through the system with an ordinary public defender, not some high-priced friend of her daddy - just like all the young black men who preceded her. There's a word for this kind of situation. It's called "karma." [continues 14 words]
Dear Editor: How to build a better drug policy. Step One: Read the most basic research on the subject. You can find the full text of nearly every major study of the subject, along with summaries of each, at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer under Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy. The collection includes the largest studies ever done by the governments of the US, the UK, Canada, and Australia, just to mention a few. Step Two: By the time you get done with Step One, Step Two will be fairly obvious. Lila Stanford obviously didn't read the most basic research on the subject. Somebody should. And those who haven't shouldn't pretend they are really interested in a solution until they have. Clifford A. Schaffer, Director, DRCNet Online Library of Drug Policy [end]
The U.S. government claim that marijuana has no medical value is absurd on its face. Every month, the U.S. government sends big tin cans full of 300 medicinal joints to a number of people. The reason they do that is because some of those people went to federal court and proved to a legal certainty that: Marijuana is a medicine. It is the only medicine suitable for their conditions. In addition, a prescription drug -- Marinol -- is made from the primary active ingredient in marijuana. If a prescription drug is made from a plant, then obviously the plant contains the medicine and, therefore, would have medicinal value. [continues 310 words]
To the editor: Walter Hickman is quite correct that it is a community concern when an intoxicated person becomes a danger to others ("Incoherent rambling about legalization," Jan 6). But he misses a few points. First, alcohol wins all the prizes for creating hazards in the community. Alcohol accounts for about half of all deaths by homicide, auto accident, drowning, and fire, and about 70 percent of all sexual assaults on children. All of the illegal drugs combined don't even come close to alcohol's toll. We tried outlawing alcohol to eliminate those problems. It was a disaster. [continues 107 words]
Re: Toke Up, and Dumb Down, Aug. 23. Professor Filip Palda asserts that marijuana is not legal because it stupifies its users. I have read several major studies on the subject, and I can't find any historical evidence that marijuana is not legal because it stupifies its users. Indeed, if that were the rationale, then obviously the toughest penalties would have to be against the use of alcohol. Marijuana is illegal because of racism, ignorance and laws that never did make sense. Clifford A. Schaffer, director, DRCNet Online Library of Drug Policy, Calif. [end]
A recent letter writer here said that unused portions of prescriptions should be required to be returned. There are obvious problems with returning any prescription -- the biggest one being that the pharmacist has no idea what may have happened to the medicine before it was returned. But there are laws on the books stating that it is illegal to give prescription medicines to someone other than the intended party. I might also add that anyone who takes a prescription intended for another person is showing a profound lack of judgment -- just like the person who gave it to them. As this example demonstrates, laws don't do a lot of good if people don't have the good judgment not to endanger themselves. Clifford Schaffer Aqua Dulce, Calif. [end]
Cannabis is no more effective than codeine for treating pain. ("Cannabinoids Compared With Codeine for Pain," July 9.) The last time I checked, codeine was commonly prescribed for pain because it is widely recognized to be effective. By comparison, that would make marijuana fairly effective as well. Clifford A. Schaffer Director, DRCNet Online Library of Drug Policy Canyon Country [end]
Sir, There is little evidence for Susan Greenfield's claim (Comment, July 14) that cannabis causes brain damage in humans. In one famous study where monkeys were force-fed huge amounts of cannabis smoke the results showed brain damage, but the damage was more likely due to carbon-monoxide poisoning and oxygen deprivation. The most comprehensive study of the health effects of marijuana on humans was done recently by Kaiser Health Group. They surveyed 65,000 patients and compared the medical records of long-term pot smokers versus non-smokers. They found no significant differences in the health histories of the two groups. [continues 194 words]
Editor: DARE is like apple pie. It is extremely popular but, just like apple pie, popularity doesn't mean it keeps kids from doing drugs. The evidence against DARE is so overwhelming that even the U.S. government and the founders of DARE themselves had to admit that DARE doesn't work. This isn't a question of doing the research on DARE anymore. Now it is a question of getting people like Mr. Gladue to actually read it. As for the legalization of pot, it is obvious that Mr. Gladue hasn't read the research on that subject, either. If he is actually interested in reading the evidence, he can find a wealth of information on both topics at: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer Clifford A. Schaffer Director, DRCNet Online Library of Drug Policy Canyon Country, CA [end]
Paul Varga, like so many other supporters of DARE, fails to mention the evidence against DARE is so overwhelming that even the United States government has been forced to admit the facts and has cut off funding for the program. Clifford A. Schaffer Director, DRCNet Online Library of Drug Policy Canyon Country, California, U.S.A. Ed. note: Not sure if the U.S. government's funding cuts are a condemnation or an endorsement of DARE. But thanks for the info. [end]
My mother is a chronic pain patient who suffered through years of trying to find a doctor who would give her adequate pain relief. On several occasions she called me to ask me if I would understand if she committed suicide. Thankfully, she finally did find relief through a doctor who would listen. The way we treat pain patients in this country is often a crime in itself. A few years ago the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a report saying that two-thirds of all terminal cancer patients do not recieve adequate pain medication. The numbers for nonterminal patients must be even higher. They called it a "national tragedy". I would call it disgrace, fit only for Dr. Mengele and his ilk. [continues 63 words]
Dear Editor: It would be nice if John Conway or your editors had enough elementary knowledge of drugs to know that cocaine is not a narcotic. Errors like that just show your complete ignorance of the subject. In 1973, President Nixon's U.S. National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse said the real drug problem is not marijuana or heroin or cocaine. The real drug problem, they said, is the ignorance of the people who have never bothered to read the most basic research on the subject. John Conway and your editors prove it is still true. [continues 61 words]
Dr Michael Dawson says that no-one denies that there were fewer alcoholics during alcohol prohibition (Letters, March 14). That statement is incorrect. Study of the alcohol consumption records of the US around that time shows that alcohol consumption dropped from about 1914 to about 1922. Alcohol prohibition went into effect in 1920. From 1922 to the end of prohibition, alcohol consumption, and the problems related to it, rose dramatically. By 1926, arrests for public intoxication and related offences had climbed to levels about 60 per cent higher than the pre-prohibition records. [continues 60 words]
To the Editor: As long as you are going to be writing articles on DARE, why don't you tell the truth about it. Like for instance, the fact that there isn't a single shred of credible research to show that it works to keep kids off drugs. Anyone who is actually interested in whether DARE works can find the major research on the subject at: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer under the section titled "Kids and Drugs". Clifford A. Schaffer DRCNet Online Library of Drug Policy Canyon Country, CA [end]
Martinuk can find the full text of every major study done on the subject in the last 100 years at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer under Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy. If Owen is supporting harm reduction, it is because he has done his homework and read the research on the subject. Martinuk apparently has not. Clifford A. Schaffer, Director, DRCNet Online Library of Drug Policy, Canyon Country, Calif. Cited: http://www.druglibrary.org/ [end]
It is quite appropriate that Bobby Charles brings up DARE and apple pie in the same breath: Both are quite popular, and both are ineffective in reducing drug abuse. I have been asking DARE supporters for the past several years to send me the full text of any study that supports the idea that DARE has reduced drug use. Though I have managed to collect quite a body of research on DARE, I have yet to see any such evidence. If Mr. Charles has the research, I would like to see it. The future of our children is important, so it is time to get rational and stop believing that large doses of apple pie will prevent drug abuse. Clifford A. Schaffer, Director, DRCNet Online Library of Drug Policy, Canyon Country, Calif., www.druglibrary.org [end]
Editor, The Star, Sir, If Frank Sterle is concerned about the use of drugs by children, he should do a little more research on the effects of US alcohol prohibition. Rates of consumption of alcohol apparently dropped in the US from about 1910 to about 1922. Prohibition became national law in 1920. Rates of consumption went up every year thereafter from 1922 to the end of prohibition. By the end of prohibition in 1933, rates of alcohol-related problems were estimated to about where they had been when prohibition started. [continues 158 words]
In 1973 the U.S. Government conducted the largest and most comprehensive study of the drug laws which has ever been undertaken. The real drug problem, they concluded, was not marijuana, or heroin, or cocaine. The real drug problem, they said, was the ignorance of the people who had never bothered to read the most basic research on the issue. Twenty-seven years later, your editors prove it is still true ("Should we let drug users off the hook?", "Courier Comment"). [continues 185 words]
IF Mairead Scannell really wants factual information on the health effects of cannabis, she doesn't have to go to one article in the Reader's Digest. There are hundreds of books and articles on the subject on the Internet at www.druglibrary.org/schaffer, including studies by the Governments of the US, UK, Canada, and Australia. To quote the US Drug Enforcement Agency chief administrative law judge: "marijuana, in its natural form, is probably one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man." His ruling can be seen under Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy. Clifford A Schaffer, Director, DRCNet Online Library of Drug Policy, PO Box 1430, Canyon Country, CA 91386 1430, http://www.druglibrary.org [end]
For the record, Johnson never said that smoking pot or using any other drug was OK or "cool." In fact, he described them as a "bad choice." Your editorial was nothing less than dishonest. Clifford A. Schaffer Director DRCNet Online Library of Drug Policy www.druglibrary.org Canyon Country, Calif. [end]
There have been lots of program reviews of the marijuana laws in general. They all say that the marijuana laws were based on racism, ignorance, and nonsense, and that the laws do far more harm than good. You don't have to take my word for it, you can read them yourself on the Internet at the following site: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer under Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy. Clifford A. Schaffer [end]
Isn't it time we all recognized the drug war for the massive failure that it is, and thought about Plan B? Clifford Schaffer, Canyon Country, Calif. [end]
