Comments on: Illegal drugs and the drug war http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/06/illegal-drugs-and-the-drug-war/ Skepticism. Critical thinking. Podcast. Community. Wed, 01 Sep 2010 17:46:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Chris http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/06/illegal-drugs-and-the-drug-war/comment-page-1/#comment-4611 Chris Sun, 06 Sep 2009 21:41:41 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=339#comment-4611   Regarding of the health care costs of smokers, the issue came up in Canada as well.  Because we have a public health care system, some people were complaining that taxpayers were subsizding smokers, who cost the system much more.  So, the government did some studies, which showed this wasn't the case, mainly because of lifespan and taxes paid by smokers, as the other posters have stated.  The studies were done expecting to support the original assumption of the complainants, but when they showed the opposite, they were honest about them and they were still published and reported on. Another point about why the "war on drugs" still exists and will be hard to stop is because this is often used by the US as justification for operations in other countries, especially latin america.  This has been used as a cover for covert operations, coups and even assassinations.  The US is today still using this as a justification for settings up new bases in Columbia.  Unsurprisingly, just about every country in latin america is very skeptical about the stated reasons for this.  
Regarding of the health care costs of smokers, the issue came up in Canada as well.  Because we have a public health care system, some people were complaining that taxpayers were subsizding smokers, who cost the system much more.  So, the government did some studies, which showed this wasn’t the case, mainly because of lifespan and taxes paid by smokers, as the other posters have stated.  The studies were done expecting to support the original assumption of the complainants, but when they showed the opposite, they were honest about them and they were still published and reported on.
Another point about why the “war on drugs” still exists and will be hard to stop is because this is often used by the US as justification for operations in other countries, especially latin america.  This has been used as a cover for covert operations, coups and even assassinations.  The US is today still using this as a justification for settings up new bases in Columbia.  Unsurprisingly, just about every country in latin america is very skeptical about the stated reasons for this.

]]> By: ty http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/06/illegal-drugs-and-the-drug-war/comment-page-1/#comment-2853 ty Fri, 01 May 2009 02:21:49 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=339#comment-2853 See, "American drug war. The last white hope" regarding the drug war and why it's absurd. Should be able to find it on youtube. My Dad's been in jail for 16 years for drug smuggling. He's long since reformed, but these mandatory minimum laws seem self defeating, unless you know the real reasons for the drug war. See, “American drug war. The last white hope” regarding the drug war and why it’s absurd. Should be able to find it on youtube. My Dad’s been in jail for 16 years for drug smuggling. He’s long since reformed, but these mandatory minimum laws seem self defeating, unless you know the real reasons for the drug war.

]]> By: M Parrott http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/06/illegal-drugs-and-the-drug-war/comment-page-1/#comment-2851 M Parrott Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:07:00 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=339#comment-2851 Just as an addition to my statement about my uncle: Dihydrocannibol has been raised to a class b drug in the UK. Making it more illegal for him to have possesion of this drug. This man is in serious pain yet some twits who sit in government say he can't ease his pain over some bull studies? Just as an addition to my statement about my uncle:

Dihydrocannibol has been raised to a class b drug in the UK. Making it more illegal for him to have possesion of this drug. This man is in serious pain yet some twits who sit in government say he can’t ease his pain over some bull studies?

]]> By: Dean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/06/illegal-drugs-and-the-drug-war/comment-page-1/#comment-1470 Dean Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:28:29 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=339#comment-1470 If drugs were legal, I also believe that we would see a trend towards the use of "softer" drugs. I know of many instances where people would rather smoke pot, but it is bulky and smelly and much harder to conceal - so they take harder, more easily concealed drugs instead. My school had a student lounge on the ground floor of a building, and students would hop out the window to smoke a joint. The school found out about it and moved the lounge to the top floor of the building - after which, cocaine became the new drug of choice, because you can do it in a bathroom stall. Brilliant policy. If drugs were legal, I also believe that we would see a trend towards the use of “softer” drugs. I know of many instances where people would rather smoke pot, but it is bulky and smelly and much harder to conceal – so they take harder, more easily concealed drugs instead.

My school had a student lounge on the ground floor of a building, and students would hop out the window to smoke a joint. The school found out about it and moved the lounge to the top floor of the building – after which, cocaine became the new drug of choice, because you can do it in a bathroom stall. Brilliant policy.

]]> By: matt the coolist http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/06/illegal-drugs-and-the-drug-war/comment-page-1/#comment-948 matt the coolist Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:39:00 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=339#comment-948 Accordingly, how much has fast food cost us? How much has refined sugar cost us? A woman can kill a young baby because it's her body, yet a person can't use certain drugs because..........? The only thing that should be illegal in the action that a person does rather he/she is on refine sugar (certaily a drug) or on whatever. Is it not the act that should be punished? Accordingly, how much has fast food cost us? How much has refined sugar cost us? A woman can kill a young baby because it’s her body, yet a person can’t use certain drugs because……….? The only thing that should be illegal in the action that a person does rather he/she is on refine sugar (certaily a drug) or on whatever. Is it not the act that should be punished?

]]> By: M Parrott http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/06/illegal-drugs-and-the-drug-war/comment-page-1/#comment-808 M Parrott Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:22:56 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=339#comment-808 To "The Thomas" Ah, you're only talking about people who use alcohol. What about tabaco? Not everyone smokes now do they, yet it is legal. And as for your comment on alcohol, I don't drink alcohol, and it's not something I'm saying to back my argument, I really don't. And why not? Because I think its dangerous. If you just educate people on the danger that's enough. Let people be free to dowhat they want. Let people be stupid on their own. To “The Thomas”
Ah, you’re only talking about people who use alcohol. What about tabaco? Not everyone smokes now do they, yet it is legal. And as for your comment on alcohol, I don’t drink alcohol, and it’s not something I’m saying to back my argument, I really don’t. And why not? Because I think its dangerous. If you just educate people on the danger that’s enough. Let people be free to dowhat they want. Let people be stupid on their own.

]]> By: M Parrott http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/06/illegal-drugs-and-the-drug-war/comment-page-1/#comment-723 M Parrott Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:01:07 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=339#comment-723 On the point of smokers being a burden on the health service; it's balls! A lot of money for health service like the NHS come from the money collected by tax on cigarettes. 80% of the price of a pack of cigarettes in Britain is tax. Imagine how much money that earns! Remove that and you lose a major income to fund the NHS. On the point of smokers being a burden on the health service; it’s balls! A lot of money for health service like the NHS come from the money collected by tax on cigarettes. 80% of the price of a pack of cigarettes in Britain is tax. Imagine how much money that earns! Remove that and you lose a major income to fund the NHS.

]]> By: Aiden http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/06/illegal-drugs-and-the-drug-war/comment-page-1/#comment-707 Aiden Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:06:03 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=339#comment-707 Sandra, the article you referenced states: "It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, <b>according to a Dutch study</b> that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars." That's just one unduplicated study. Where's the rest of the literature? You cite Alzheimer's as requiring expensive long term care, but you fail to note that smoking increases one's risk of Alzheimer's disease: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/166/4/367 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17573335 The article also said the Dutch study showed that healthy people had the most strokes. However, as I noted in my first reply, smoking also increases your risk of cardiovascular diseases, which includes strokes. I'm sorry, but one Dutch study is simply not enough to conclusively say that smokers cost less overall. They "created a model to simulate lifetime health costs for three groups of 1,000 people" ... That's not a very large study, therefore not very reliable, preliminary at best. Sandra, the article you referenced states: “It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.”

That’s just one unduplicated study. Where’s the rest of the literature? You cite Alzheimer’s as requiring expensive long term care, but you fail to note that smoking increases one’s risk of Alzheimer’s disease:
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/166/4/367
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17573335

The article also said the Dutch study showed that healthy people had the most strokes. However, as I noted in my first reply, smoking also increases your risk of cardiovascular diseases, which includes strokes.

I’m sorry, but one Dutch study is simply not enough to conclusively say that smokers cost less overall. They “created a model to simulate lifetime health costs for three groups of 1,000 people” … That’s not a very large study, therefore not very reliable, preliminary at best.

]]> By: Sandra H http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/06/illegal-drugs-and-the-drug-war/comment-page-1/#comment-701 Sandra H Wed, 08 Oct 2008 19:09:26 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=339#comment-701 Aiden, the idea that smokers are cheaper to health systems was not idle speculation on my part. I first read of it in an article (in the Economist I think) but this article cites the same study. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_/ai_n24350406 To sum it up: Thin, healthy people cost the most money over their lifetimes to care for. The obese and smokers cost more while younger but die younger. When they do die it is often from quickly progressing diseases (lung cancer) which cost relatively little to treat. Healthy people often require very expensive long term care associated with degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's. Those few years at the end may not seem like much but when you are paying $5,000 to $6,000 a month for care (this is the going rate at the senior citizens center I volunteer at), the money really adds up quickly. This certainly isn't a reason to encourage smoking and poor diet, but the facts are the facts. Aiden, the idea that smokers are cheaper to health systems was not idle speculation on my part. I first read of it in an article (in the Economist I think) but this article cites the same study.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_/ai_n24350406
To sum it up: Thin, healthy people cost the most money over their lifetimes to care for. The obese and smokers cost more while younger but die younger. When they do die it is often from quickly progressing diseases (lung cancer) which cost relatively little to treat. Healthy people often require very expensive long term care associated with degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s. Those few years at the end may not seem like much but when you are paying $5,000 to $6,000 a month for care (this is the going rate at the senior citizens center I volunteer at), the money really adds up quickly. This certainly isn’t a reason to encourage smoking and poor diet, but the facts are the facts.

]]> By: Aiden http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/06/illegal-drugs-and-the-drug-war/comment-page-1/#comment-699 Aiden Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:53:49 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=339#comment-699 In response to Sandra H: I must disagree with your claim, as it lacks any real logic. Regular smokers are estimated to live to 2.5 to 10 years fewer than non-smokers. That's not a very big difference... In their comparative lifetimes, how can you not see that smokers would cost health/insurance companies far more because smokers are at a much higher risk for chronic illnesses that most non-smokers do not experience in nearly as high numbers, such as cancer (lung, mouth, larynx, pancreatic, etc.), cardiovascular diseases, bronchitis, emphysema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and even erectile dysfunction? Treatments for such diseases are not certainly not cheap. So even if the smoker dies younger than the non-smoker, the non-smoker is less likely to need nearly as much (or as expensive) medical treatment as the smoker. In response to Sandra H:

I must disagree with your claim, as it lacks any real logic. Regular smokers are estimated to live to 2.5 to 10 years fewer than non-smokers. That’s not a very big difference… In their comparative lifetimes, how can you not see that smokers would cost health/insurance companies far more because smokers are at a much higher risk for chronic illnesses that most non-smokers do not experience in nearly as high numbers, such as cancer (lung, mouth, larynx, pancreatic, etc.), cardiovascular diseases, bronchitis, emphysema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and even erectile dysfunction? Treatments for such diseases are not certainly not cheap. So even if the smoker dies younger than the non-smoker, the non-smoker is less likely to need nearly as much (or as expensive) medical treatment as the smoker.

]]> By: DB Skeptic http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/06/illegal-drugs-and-the-drug-war/comment-page-1/#comment-698 DB Skeptic Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:54:19 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=339#comment-698 <i>I think the answer is almost universally yes</i> I'd say yes and no. It depends on what drug you're talking about. I think many people wouldn't have a problem trying pot, but a similar ratio will stay away from the known damaging, highly-addictive ones like heroin and cocaine. Anything nearing the upper-right of this graph: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg" rel="nofollow">Drug addiction and harm</a> I think the answer is almost universally yes

I’d say yes and no. It depends on what drug you’re talking about. I think many people wouldn’t have a problem trying pot, but a similar ratio will stay away from the known damaging, highly-addictive ones like heroin and cocaine. Anything nearing the upper-right of this graph:

Drug addiction and harm

]]> By: TheThomas http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/06/illegal-drugs-and-the-drug-war/comment-page-1/#comment-672 TheThomas Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:49:01 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=339#comment-672 "...if you don’t use drugs now, would you if they became legal? Of course not. " -- I think the answer is almost universally yes...consider alcohol. It's hard to find a person that doesn't use alcohol "recreationally" or "on occasion." Whether drug use would--or does--go up in countries where the drugs are legalized, is really an unanswered question, but (http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/03-04/05-03/drug_study.html) it looks like it remains the same. “…if you don’t use drugs now, would you if they became legal? Of course not. ”
–
I think the answer is almost universally yes…consider alcohol. It’s hard to find a person that doesn’t use alcohol “recreationally” or “on occasion.”
Whether drug use would–or does–go up in countries where the drugs are legalized, is really an unanswered question, but (http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/03-04/05-03/drug_study.html) it looks like it remains the same.

]]> By: Sandra H http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/06/illegal-drugs-and-the-drug-war/comment-page-1/#comment-669 Sandra H Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:03:00 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=339#comment-669 Smokers (and I could assume heavy drug users) generally cost health systems less because they die younger. This certainly isn't a good thing but the excuse that they are a burden on others is not true. Smokers (and I could assume heavy drug users) generally cost health systems less because they die younger. This certainly isn’t a good thing but the excuse that they are a burden on others is not true.

]]>