I don't think *any* lips would want to touch their lips.
What do they think they're accomplishing here?
Ironically, only men drunk on "liquor" would *want* to kiss 'em! Without the aid of beer goggles, they're safe in their little siege fortress of a mental construct.
Ben Goldacre, Saturday 7 November 2009, The Guardian
Obviously it’s pleasing to see, in the storm of commentary over Professor Nutt’s sacking, that everyone outside of politics now recognises the importance of scientific evidence in devising laws. But a strange reasoning twitch has appeared, in the arguments of politicians and right wing commentators. Science can tell us about the molecules, they say, about their effect on the body, and the risks. But policy is a separate domain: a matter for judgement calls on social and ethical issues. Only politicians, they say, can determine the correct way to send out a clear message to the public. It is not a matter for science.
Interestingly this is wrong. Alongside research into the risks of drugs, lots of research has also been done examining the deterrent impact of different laws, classifications, and levels of enforcement. Since every piece of research has its own imperfections (and nobody has yet conducted a randomised controlled trial on drugs policy) you can make your own mind up about whether you find this research compelling.
One strategy is to compare different countries. A World Health Organisation study from 2008, published in the academic journal PLOS Medicine, compared drug use and enforcement regimes around the globe. It was clear: “globally, drug use is not distributed evenly and is not simply related to drug policy, since countries with stringent user-level illegal drug policies did not have lower levels of use than countries with liberal ones.”
Alternatively you can compare drug use between states within one country, if they have very different enforcement regimes, as happened when some parts of the US liberalised their laws a few decades ago. In 1976 Stuart and colleagues found that cannabis use in Ann Arbor, Michigan, wasn’t affected by reductions in cannabis penalties, when compared with three neighbouring communities which kept penalties the same. In 1981 Saveland & Bray looked at national drug use surveys from 1972 to 1977 and found that cannabis use was higher in the ‘decriminalised’ states, both before and after the changes in law, and when they looked at rates of change, although cannabis use was increasing everywhere, the most rapid increase was actually in the states with the most severe penalties. In the same year Johnson and colleagues used survey data on high school use and found decriminalisation had no effect on attitudes or beliefs about drugs. These studies are old, of course, but only because the liberalisations in the law which they rely on for data happened a long time ago.
Another line of evidence comes from “before and after” studies, when laws are changed. Cannabis use in the UK dropped, of course, after cannabis was moved from class B to class C. Prohibition of alcohol in the USA from 1920 to 1933 is the most famous example: here, alcohol use fell dramatically when prohibition began, and the price of alcohol rose to 318% of its previous level. But by 1929, this initial impact had begun to wear off, and rapidly: alcohol consumption had risen to 70% of pre-prohibition levels, was still rising when prohibition was repealed, and the price had fallen to only 171% of pre-prohibition levels. Notably, this reversion to old patterns of use occurred despite escalating expenditure on enforcement, which rose by 600% over the same period. There are many more examples.
This is not an unresearchable question. It is clear that there are many other factors at play in all of these studies, and if they are not sufficiently rigorous for the government, or a brief informal dip into the literature is not enough (it shouldn’t be) then they should commission more formal research: because it is a basic tenet of evidence based policy that if you discover a gap, you flag it up, and commission more work to fill it.
This is important for one simple reason. If you wish to justify a policy that will plainly increase the harms associated with each individual act of drug use, by creating violent criminal gangs as distributors, driving the sale of contaminated black market drugs, blighting the careers of users caught by the police, criminalising 3 million people, and so on, then people will reasonably expect, as a trade-off, that you will also provide good quality evidence showing that your policy achieves its stated aim of reducing the overall numbers of people using drugs.
Should drugs be legalised? Of course, and as soon as possible. Every human society we know about has used drugs to dull pain, to bring about sleep, to prolong wakefulness, to increase physical endurance, to induce hallucinations, or just to feel better and promote good fellowship. The war on drugs, so-called, is a policy of utter and unforgivable folly; you might as well make war on human nature.
Legalising drugs would have three huge and immediate benefits: it would cut the link between drugs and crime, and empty the prisons; it would ensure that supplies were pure and reliable and not cut with chalk or worse; and it would provide a vast new source of tax for the Treasury. No one was a bigger fan of Prohibition than Al Capone.
As regards the MAGIC MUSHROOMS
The Wassons have suggested that perhaps the idea of God arose from the
accidental ingestion of these mushrooms as ancient man foraged for his food.
"They may have served as a mighty detonation for early mans's soul and mind
and imagination." (R.G. Wasson, 1959, 1961; V.P. Wasson & Wasson 1957).
LOL! yeah, this is exactly what happens if you drink.
Step 1: A glass with a friend.
Step 2: A glass to keep the cold out.
Step 3: A glass too much.
Step 4: Drunk and riotous.
Step 5: The summit attained. Jolly companions, a confirmed drunkard.
Step 6: Poverty and Disease.
Step 7: Forsaken by Friends.
Step 8: Desperation and crime.
Step 9: Death by suicide.
Came across this interesting information:
It’s time to rethink the drinking age
In 1984 Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which imposed a penalty of 10% of a state's federal highway appropriation on any state setting its drinking age lower than 21.
Twenty-four years later, our experience as college and university presidents convinces us that…
Twenty-one is not working
A culture of dangerous, clandestine “binge-drinking”—often conducted off-campus—has developed.
Alcohol education that mandates abstinence as the only legal option has not resulted in significant constructive behavioral change among our students.
Adults under 21 are deemed capable of voting, signing contracts, serving on juries and enlisting in the military, but are told they are not mature enough to have a beer.
By choosing to use fake IDs, students make ethical compromises that erode respect for the law.
How many times must we relearn the lessons of prohibition?
We call upon our elected officials:
To support an informed and dispassionate public debate over the effects of the 21 year-old drinking age.
To consider whether the 10% highway fund “incentive” encourages or inhibits that debate.
To invite new ideas about the best ways to prepare young adults to make responsible decisions about alcohol.
We pledge ourselves and our institutions to playing a vigorous, constructive role as these critical discussions unfold.
Click here to download PDF of statement.
To sign:
- Review and print statement
- Sign, indicating your name and institution
- Return by mail to:
Amethyst Initiative
10 E Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003Or by fax to: 202-543-8764
Currently, membership in the Amethyst Initiative is limited to college and university presidents and chancellors. If you are not a president or chancellor, but would like to become part of this larger effort, please sign-up here.
The Amethyst Initiative to rethink the drinking age. How many times must we relearn that lessons of prohibition?
I'm sick in disbelief and embarrassed that alcohol was actually illegal at one time in American history. Imagine not being able to drink a beer. What kind of insanity is that? This photo says it all. Wasting perfectly good hooch. Oh the humanity!
While we are on the topic, I've converted this photo into a t-shirt to point out the ridiculousness of it all.Wyandotte's Historical Society hosted a Speakeasy downtown on Saturday night. Annie's parents were bar tending so Annie, Jordan and myself decided to get dressed up and head down there for the night.
There were old Model Ts, Charlie Chaplin movies, a fashion show (I got third place), apple juice and grape juice (wine) and ginger ale (beer).
It was a lot of fun. Here are some pictures from the night.
I just got back from living a night in the 1920s. Jordan, Annie, and myself spent the night at a speakeasy and had a grand 'ol time. I'm exhausted but I will most definitely post pictures soon.
