• Drug Policy - Question of the Week

    Which are the most harmful drugs?

    Drug Policy Question of the Week – 12-18-10

    As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 12-18-10. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3189

    Question of the Week: Which are the most harmful drugs?

    Title 21, Chapter 13, Section 812 of the U.S. Code contains the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 that established five drug “schedules” presumably based on harm. Schedule I are said to the most dangerous. The other four schedules suggest gradually less harm. The United Kingdom has a similar classification system using the letters A, B, and C. Neither includes alcohol or tobacco.

    Several studies have compared the harms of various drugs. A famous New York Times article from 1994 looked at nicotine, heroin, cocaine, alcohol, cocaine, and marijuana and found heroin to be the most dangerous, followed closely by alcohol. Cannabis and caffeine were deemed to be least dangerous.

    The American Scientist magazine analyzed drug dependence and concluded,

    “Heroin and methamphetamine are the most addictive … Cocaine, pentobarbital, nicotine and alcohol are next, followed by marijuana and possibly caffeine. Some hallucinogens—notably LSD, mescaline and psilocybin—have little or no potential for creating dependence.”

    A similar analysis recently appeared in the British medical journal, The Lancet that found,

    “… heroin, crack cocaine, and metamfetamine were the most harmful drugs to individuals, whereas alcohol, heroin, and crack cocaine were the most harmful to others.”

    A table from another Lancet analysis now appears on Drug War Facts. This study ranked 20 drugs by physical-, dependence-, and socially-related harms. The table also shows their legal classifications in the U.K. and U.S.

    Of the top five drugs rated as most harmful, only one – heroin – is a Schedule I drug in the U.S. Of the nine drugs that had ranking among the least harmful, four including cannabis are Schedule I.

    These facts and others like them can be found in the Crime and Addictive Properties of Drugs chapters of Drug War Facts at http://www.drugwarfacts.org.

    Questions concerning these or other facts concerning drug policy can be e-mailed to [email protected]

    These facts and others like them can be found in the Crime and Addictive Properties of Popular Drugs chapters of Drug War Facts at www.drugwarfacts.org.
    Drug Rankings by Harm
    Substance Physical Harm Dependence Social Harm UK Class US Schedule
    Heroin 2.78 3.00 2.54 A I
    Cocaine 2.33 2.39 2.17 A II
    Barbiturates 2.23 2.01 2.00 B III
    Street Methadone 1.86 2.08 1.87 A II
    Alcohol 1.40 1.93 2.21 n/s n/s
    Ketamine 2.00 1.54 1.69 C III
    Benzodiazepines 1.63 1.83 1.65 C IV
    Amphetamine 1.81 1.67 1.50 A II
    Tobacco 1.24 2.21 1.42 n/s n/s
    Buprenorphine 1.60 1.64 1.49 C III
    Cannabis 0.99 1.51 1.50 B I
    Solvents 1.28 1.01 1.52 n/s n/s
    4-MTA 1.44 1.30 1.06 A n/s
    LSD 1.13 1.23 1.32 A I
    Methylphenidate 1.32 1.25 0.97 B II
    Anabolic steroids 1.45 0.88 1.13 C III
    GHB 0.86 1.19 1.30 C I
    Ecstasy 1.05 1.13 1.09 A I
    Alkyl nitrites 0.93 0.87 0.97 n/s n/s
    Khat 0.50 1.04 0.85 C I


    Notes:
    – United Kingdom drug classes were initially assigned based on Table 2 in The Lancet report. However, since then, two drugs have been reclassified:
    – Methamphetamine was moved from class B to class A in 2006.
    – Although Cannabis was downgraded from class B to class C in 2004, it was subsequently upgraded to class B in 2009.
    – “n/s” = no scheduling

    A printer-ready “From the Chapters of Drug War Facts” fact sheet in PDF format can be found at: http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/files/Drug-Rankings-by-Harm.pdf

  • Drug Policy - Question of the Week

    What is Harm Reduction?

    Drug Policy Question of the Week – 12-6-10

    As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 12-6-10. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3175

    Harm Reduction is a term often mentioned in conjunction with drug policy. A recent report from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies entitled, “Out of Harm’s Way: injecting drug user and harm reduction,” defined Harm Reduction as:

    “… a range of pragmatic and evidence-based public health policies and practices aimed at reducing the negative consequences associated with drug use and other related risk factors such as HIV and AIDS. These interventions exemplify human rights in action by seeking to alleviate hazards faced by the injecting drug users, where needed, without distinction and without judgement.”

    The Red Cross concluded that,

    “Harm reduction is pragmatic, cost-effective and evidence-based. From a public health perspective, it safeguards the well-being of drug users by allowing them to minimize harm to themselves and others”

    It went on to say that,

    “Changing policies and reforming the justice system are central to harm reduction. Injecting drug use should not be seen as a criminal act but as a major public health issue.”

    Another recent report from the International Harm Reduction Association called, “Three cents a day is not enough: Resourcing HIV-related Harm Reduction on a global basis,” supports Red Cross, stating,

    “Prevention of HIV is also cheaper than treatment of HIV/AIDS. For example, in Asia it is estimated that the comprehensive package of HIV-related harm reduction interventions costs $39 per disability-adjusted life-year saved, whereas antiretroviral treatment costs approximately $2,000 per life-year saved. Such figures demonstrate that harm reduction is a low-cost, high-impact intervention.”

    The IHRA’s conclusion in this report was a simple one,

    “More money is needed for harm reduction, and it is needed now.”

    These facts and others like them can be found in the HIV/AIDS chapter of Drug War Facts at www.drugwarfacts.org.

    Questions concerning these or other facts concerning drug policy can be e-mailed to [email protected]

  • Drug Policy - Law Enforcement & Prisons - Question of the Week

    How large is the U.S. prison population?

    Drug Policy Question of the Week – 11-9-10

    As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 11-9-10. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3138

    Question of the Week: How large is the U.S. prison population?

    According to an April 2010 study from the Pew Center on the States,

    “Survey data … indicate that as of January 1, 2010, there were 1,404,053 persons under the jurisdiction of state prison authorities, 4,777 (0.3 percent) fewer than there were on December 31, 2008. This marks the first year-to-year drop in the state prison population since 1972.”

    However, the report goes on to say,

    “In this period, however, the nation’s total prison population increased by 2,061 people because of a jump in the number of inmates under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The federal count rose by 6,838 prisoners, or 3.4 percent in 2009, to an all-time high of 208,118.”

    Added together, total state and federal prisoners now equal 1.6 million.

    The Pew Center then added local jail inmates to state and federal prisoners to conclude,

    “the overall incarcerated population [has] reached an all-time high, with 1 in 100 adults in the United States living behind bars.”

    A 2007 report from the International Center for Prison Studies compared prison ratios by country. It found that, excluding the U.S., countries with the highest incarceration rates included Russia (629 per 100,000), Rwanda (604 per 100,000), and Cuba (531 per 100,000).

    That report goes on to read,

    “The world population in 2008 is estimated at 6,750 million; set against a world prison population of 9.8 million this produces a world prison population rate of 145 per 100,000.”

    Recall that the comparative U.S. imprisonment rate is now 1,000 per 100,000.

    These facts and others like them can be found in the Prisons, Jails & Probation chapter of Drug War Facts at www.drugwarfacts.org.

    Questions concerning these or other facts concerning drug policy can be e-mailed to [email protected]

  • Letter of the Week

    Letter Of The Week

    DRUG ADDLED

    Re “Knocking down the kingpins,” Editorial, Dec. 5

    Killing the heads of drug cartels has an effect similar to cutting
    off the top of a weed. It will grow back stronger than ever.

    The only way to get rid of any weed is to kill the root – and the
    root of our problem is prohibition.

    Law enforcement didn’t get rid of the alcohol cartels in 1933;
    re-legalizing alcohol did.

    Kirk Muse

    Mesa, Ariz.

    Pubdate: Wed, 8 Dec 2010

    Source: Los Angeles Times

    Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10/n1005/a04.html

  • Cannabis & Hemp - Hot Off The 'Net - International

    Mexico marijuana growers learn new tricks from U.S.

    Tue, Dec 14 2010

    By Mica Rosenberg

    AMATA, Mexico (Reuters) – Farmers growing marijuana in remote Mexican mountains are adopting techniques pioneered in the United States to produce more potent pot and boost profits from the cash crop that is fueling a deadly drug war.

    In the fertile valleys of Sinaloa in northwestern Mexico, soldiers this year found 60 acres of covered greenhouses equipped with sophisticated irrigation and fertilization systems growing seemingly endless rows of marijuana plants. In another part of Sinaloa, the cradle of Mexican drug trafficking, the army recently busted a marijuana lab with potted plants heated day and night by lamps, a change from traditional outdoor cultivation of the crop and a sign drug cartels are using more savvy production methods.

    “This is new. They now have technology so the plant will grow faster; we think the techniques are coming from (the United States),” said a soldier commanding a battalion ripping up 5-foot (1.5-meter)-high marijuana plants growing along a river bank near the dusty town of Amata, Sinaloa.

    While estimates vary, law enforcement officials on both sides of the border say Mexican drug gangs earn the bulk of their cash from cheap-to-produce marijuana, using revenues to sustain wars against rivals and the government that have killed more than 33,000 people across Mexico in the past four years.

    Even as hundreds of troops fan out across Sinaloa ripping up marijuana fields by hand, cartels are one step ahead of the government’s efforts, helping to stifle President Felipe Calderon’s army-led battle against the cartels.

    “It’s a cycle,” said another soldier in Amata as he stood by 20,000 pungent marijuana plants doused with diesel and set on fire in a billowing cloud of white smoke. “We come and destroy the fields and move onto another area and they come back and start preparing the land to plant again.”

    The new greenhouses are harder for the army to detect with fly-overs since they resemble tomato plots common in Sinaloa.

    Contines:  http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BE0CC20101215

  • Cannabis & Hemp - Hot Off The 'Net - International

    Government of Canada Investment to Help Hemp Farmers and Processors Reach Full Potential

    Dec 13, 2010 15:26 ET

    WINNIPEG, MANITOBA–(Marketwire – Dec. 13, 2010) – The Government of Canada is injecting more than $728,000 to help the hemp industry increase production capacity and make new inroads into the U.S. market. The Honourable Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety, made the announcement today on behalf of Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz.

    “Canadian farmers and processors are finding tremendous success with hemp thanks to its many nutritional benefits and wide range of uses in pasta, salad dressings and frozen desserts,” said Minister Toews. “This Government is proud to invest in this growing industry so that farmers can continue to expand their markets and develop more products.”

    The Government of Canada investment will support three groups:

    A $410,000 repayable contribution through the AgriProcessing Initiative for Fresh Hemp Foods to purchase and install new dehulling, oil pressing, and packaging equipment in its new 20,000 square foot state-of-the-art facility.

    A $300,000 repayable contribution through the AgriProcessing Initiative for Hemp Oil Canada to purchase and install new air classification milling and cold press oil expeller technology.

    A $18,625 investment through the AgriMarketing program for the Canadian Hemp Trade Alliance to enhance its website, hold a strategic planning meeting of its board of directors and take the first steps toward achieving Generally Regarded as Safe status in the U.S.

    In 2009, exports of hemp seed and hemp products were valued at more than $8 million, with most exports going to the U.S.

    The AgriProcessing Initiative, funded under the Agricultural Flexibility fund as part of Canada’s Economic Action Plan, provides support to existing processing companies for agri-processing projects that involve the adoption of innovative and new-to-company manufacturing technologies and processes that are essential to sustaining and improving the sector’s position in today’s global marketplace. For more information, visit www.agr.gc.ca/api.

    The AgriMarketing program helps producers and processors implement long-term international strategies which include activities such as international market development, consumer awareness and branding and industry-to-industry trade advocacy. To find out more about this program, visit: www.agr.gc.ca/agrimarketing.

    For more information, please contact

    Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

    Ottawa, Ontario

    Media Relations

    613-773-7972

    1-866-345-7972

    or

    Office of the Honourable Gerry Ritz

    Meagan Murdoch

    Press Secretary

    613-773-1059

  • Drug Policy - Hot Off The 'Net

    Northern Illinois U. Finally Recognizes Students for Sensible Drug Policy

    DEKALB, Ill., Dec. 10, 2010—Northern Illinois University (NIU) has finally given full recognition to NIU Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) after the Student Association Senate twice denied the group any recognition, which had prevented SSDP from meeting or posting flyers on campus. But Senate policy still denies funding to all “political” and “religious” student organizations. This arbitrary standard classifies Christian, Muslim, and Jewish organizations as “religious” and therefore ineligible for funding, while the campus Baha’i Club is funded as a “cultural” group. Similarly, groups such as Model United Nations are considered “political” while many “social justice” or “advocacy” groups—including student pro-life, pro-choice, antiwar, women’s rights, vegetarian, and victims’ rights groups—are fully recognized. SSDP came to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help.