It was called the Harrison Tax Act. You know, the drafters of the Harrison Act said very clearly on the floor of Congress what it was they wanted to achieve. They had two goals. They wanted to regulate the medical use of these drugs and they wanted to criminalize the non-medical use of these drugs. They had one problem. Look at the date -- 1914. 1914 was probably the high water mark of the constitutional doctrine we today call "states' rights" and, therefore, it was widely thought Congress did not have the power, number one, to regulate a particular profession, and number two, that Congress did not have the power to pass what was, and is still known, as a general criminal law. That's why there were so few Federal Crimes until very recently.
In the face of possible Constitutional opposition to what they wanted to do, the people in Congress who supported the Harrison Act came up with a novel idea. That is, they would masquerade this whole thing as though it were a tax. To show you how it worked, can I use some hypothetical figures to show you how this alleged tax worked?
There were two taxes. The first (and again, these figures aren't accurate but they will do to show the idea) tax was paid by doctors. It was a dollar a year and the doctors, in exchange for paying that one dollar tax, got a stamp from the Government that allowed them to prescribe these drugs for their patients so long as they followed the regulations in the statute. Do you see that by the payment of that one dollar tax, we have the doctors regulated? The doctors have to follow the regulations in the statute.
And there was a second tax. (and again, these are hypothetical figures but they will show you how it worked.) was a tax of a thousand dollars of every single non-medical exchange of every one of these drugs. Well, since nobody was going to pay a thousand dollars in tax to exchange something which, in 1914, even in large quantities was worth about five dollars, the second tax wasn't a tax either, it was a criminal prohibition. Now just to be sure you guys understand this, and I am sure you do, but just to make sure, let's say that in 1915 somebody was found, let's say, in possession of an ounce of cocaine out here on the street. What would be the Federal crime? Not possession of cocaine, or possession of a controlled substance. What was the crime? Tax evasion.
Addiction Is A Brain Disease
From the Drug War History Link:
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Genetics. Seems to be associated with schizophrenia. (look up "nicotine schizophrenia")Diogenes wrote:MSimon wrote:Skipjack,
The error in your thinking is fundamental. The corrective:
Drugs Do NOT Cause Addiction.
If drugs do not case addiction making them freely available will change nothing except the criminal status of users.
I thought about this this weekend.
What about nicotine?
Evidently we also have a large population of mild schizophrenics. Understandable since we got the people who didn't fit in at the places they came from - mostly.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
So what causes addiction (or most of it). We know the answer:
Which is what I have been saying all along. You really want to do something about addiction? Start with child abuse.The inner city drug addicts I work with are amongst the most abused and rejected people amongst us, but instead of compassion our society treats them with contempt. Instead of understanding and acceptance, we give them punishment and moral disapproval. In doing so, we fail to recognize our own deeply rooted problems and thereby forego an opportunity for healing not only for them, the extreme addicts, but also for ourselves as individuals and as a culture.
Gabor Mate M.D.
In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
And who are the first to step up to beat up on addicts (at least in America)? Other than those with a financial interest in Prohibition their chief cultural determinate is.......
Well you know who you are. A wink is as good as a nod.....
Well you know who you are. A wink is as good as a nod.....
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
MSimon wrote:Genetics. Seems to be associated with schizophrenia. (look up "nicotine schizophrenia")Diogenes wrote:MSimon wrote:Skipjack,
The error in your thinking is fundamental. The corrective:
Drugs Do NOT Cause Addiction.
If drugs do not case addiction making them freely available will change nothing except the criminal status of users.
I thought about this this weekend.
What about nicotine?
Evidently we also have a large population of mild schizophrenics. Understandable since we got the people who didn't fit in at the places they came from - mostly.
Are you saying nicotine is NOT addictive?
There is a lot of confusion about this term:Are you saying nicotine is NOT addictive?
1. Habituation - the body incorporates the drug as part of its metabolism. We see this in opiates. If you take a lot of opiates the body builds a lot more endorphin (opiate) receptors. Then when you cut back you don't feel so good. This can last from a few days - opiates to months - barbiturates. We have regimes that can undo habituation.
2. Addiction - the use of drugs to ease some type of psychological condition - PTSD and similar. Thus chronic use. We have nothing for this.
Now tobacco is a mild anti-depressant. Schizophrenics especially seem to like it. Pot is also a mild anti-depressant which is much less habituating. It also seems to have anti-tumor properties. Thus you don't find many pot only smokers in the cancer ward. But for some reason we have laws against it.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Hence the general confusion. The first definition is how everyone else I know defines addiction. If you are going to use a term differently that the majority, you must define it repeatedly, YOUR way, so that some semblance of communication can be engaged in. I say "repeatedly" because if you have defined it this way before it was in a post I did not read. I suspect that is a reasonably common occurence.MSimon wrote: 1. Habituation - the body incorporates the drug as part of its metabolism. We see this in opiates. If you take a lot of opiates the body builds a lot more endorphin (opiate) receptors. Then when you cut back you don't feel so good. This can last from a few days - opiates to months - barbiturates. We have regimes that can undo habituation.
I'm using the common scientific definition of addiction. Evidently science is not very popular around here. Pity.KitemanSA wrote:Hence the general confusion. The first definition is how everyone else I know defines addiction. If you are going to use a term differently that the majority, you must define it repeatedly, YOUR way, so that some semblance of communication can be engaged in. I say "repeatedly" because if you have defined it this way before it was in a post I did not read. I suspect that is a reasonably common occurence.MSimon wrote: 1. Habituation - the body incorporates the drug as part of its metabolism. We see this in opiates. If you take a lot of opiates the body builds a lot more endorphin (opiate) receptors. Then when you cut back you don't feel so good. This can last from a few days - opiates to months - barbiturates. We have regimes that can undo habituation.
Or should I say in more impolite terms: people love giving opinions on subjects they know nothing about. And of course they have the one true attribute of ignorance. Absolute certainty.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
MSimon wrote:There is a lot of confusion about this term:Are you saying nicotine is NOT addictive?
1. Habituation - the body incorporates the drug as part of its metabolism. We see this in opiates. If you take a lot of opiates the body builds a lot more endorphin (opiate) receptors. Then when you cut back you don't feel so good. This can last from a few days - opiates to months - barbiturates. We have regimes that can undo habituation.
2. Addiction - the use of drugs to ease some type of psychological condition - PTSD and similar. Thus chronic use. We have nothing for this.
Now tobacco is a mild anti-depressant. Schizophrenics especially seem to like it. Pot is also a mild anti-depressant which is much less habituating. It also seems to have anti-tumor properties. Thus you don't find many pot only smokers in the cancer ward. But for some reason we have laws against it.
I'm sorry, is that a Yes or a No?
If that is not enough to answer your question I'd say some more research on your part is in order.Diogenes wrote:I'm sorry, is that a Yes or a No?MSimon wrote:There is a lot of confusion about this term:Are you saying nicotine is NOT addictive?
1. Habituation - the body incorporates the drug as part of its metabolism. We see this in opiates. If you take a lot of opiates the body builds a lot more endorphin (opiate) receptors. Then when you cut back you don't feel so good. This can last from a few days - opiates to months - barbiturates. We have regimes that can undo habituation.
2. Addiction - the use of drugs to ease some type of psychological condition - PTSD and similar. Thus chronic use. We have nothing for this.
Now tobacco is a mild anti-depressant. Schizophrenics especially seem to like it. Pot is also a mild anti-depressant which is much less habituating. It also seems to have anti-tumor properties. Thus you don't find many pot only smokers in the cancer ward. But for some reason we have laws against it.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
MSimon wrote: I'm using the common scientific definition of addiction. Evidently science is not very popular around here. Pity.
Or should I say in more impolite terms: people love giving opinions on subjects they know nothing about. And of course they have the one true attribute of ignorance. Absolute certainty.
Wikipedia wrote:The American Society of Addiction Medicine has this definition for Addiction[citation needed]: Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations. This is reflected in the individual pursuing reward and/or relief by substance use and other behaviors. The addiction is characterized by impairment in behavioral control, craving, inability to consistently abstain, and diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships. Like other chronic diseases, addiction involves cycles of relapse and remission. Without treatment or engagement in recovery activities, addiction is progressive and can result in disability or premature death.
Neither seems to match either of which you quote, tho both relate to each.Wikipedia wrote: According to the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), substance dependence is defined as:
"When an individual persists in use of alcohol or other drugs despite problems related to use of the substance, substance dependence may be diagnosed. Compulsive and repetitive use may result in tolerance to the effect of the drug and withdrawal symptoms when use is reduced or stopped. This, along with Substance Abuse are considered Substance Use Disorders...." [6]
As I stated, common understanding. If you use a term "scientifically" which is different than the common understanding, it is incumbant upon YOU to state so and define it repeatedly in order to assure communication. Otherwise, you are just being "holier than thou"!
You are making statements that seem to require us to do a bunch of research to understand and then slap us when we don't do the research YOU want us to do. Some of us don't care that much. If you want to communicate with us, write to US, not you. the stuff you write is interesting and often worth reading, but not all important. It would be more interesting and informing if you would write to us, not you.
And the users of a language still have a say. Just because the astronomers decided to change their definition of "planet" doesn't mean i have to accept their change. Pluto fit the old definition just fine and is a planet still!
