McCAFFREY'S BRAIN ON DRUGS

A Vivisection Of The Drug Warrior In Chief

With regard to the position taken by Mr. Barry R. McCaffrey opposing the
legalization of drugs, there are a few concepts that need clarifying. The
first and foremost is what Mr. Barry R. McCaffrey means by the word
"drugs." It may be assumed from context and inductive reasoning that what
he is referring to are not drugs in general such as aspirin, or even
prescription drugs that enjoy quasi-legal status in that one need only find
a doctor to write a prescription for them. What Mr. Barry R. McCaffrey
means when he says "drugs" are psychotropic substances such as marijuana
and cocaine.

To state that these two drugs should be illegal is even a little misleading
since there is no better bronchodilator known to man than THC, the active
ingredient in marijuana. Cocaine is of value as a topical anesthetic and
was often prescribed by dentists and physicians until recently. Would Mr.
Barry R. McCaffrey object if the child unfortunate enough to have him as a
father was choking to death from asthma and somebody gave the kid a hit of
marijuana? What if the kid was screaming in agony from poison oak or
shingles or bee stings and someone had the presence of mind to whip up a
cocaine poultice and apply it topically to the affected areas? No, I think
not.

What Mr. Barry R. McCaffrey objects to is that someone would give his
unfortunate offspring marijuana or cocaine for the psychotropic effects
these substances have. I assume that this is because his children will need
a lot of psychotropic substances to ease the pain of knowing that their
father is a bigoted jerk who likes to see people suffer for no reason and
that Mr. Barry R. McCaffrey does not want his children hitting him up for
cash all the time in order to try different drugs to see if the emotional
pain and embarrassment will go away.

My dictionary defines "psychoactive" as "influencing the mind or mental
processes." Thorazine, Valium and Viagra are such drugs, but they are
legal. Apparently Mr. Barry R. McCaffrey thinks it's OK to take Viagra and
get happy for having an erection but it's not OK to take marijuana and get
happy whether your member becomes tumescent or not. So I can't see exactly
what Mr. Barry R. McCaffrey means by "drugs," other than things which he
objects to for reasons that are inconsistent with reality and human nature.
Well, so much for trying to make sense out of what Mr. Barry R. McCaffrey
considers to be "drugs."

Let's look at his first paragraph:

The so-called harm-reduction approach to drugs confuses people with
terminology. All drug policies claim to reduce harm. No reasonable person
advocates a position consciously designed to be harmful. The real question
is which policies actually decrease harm and increase good. The approach
advocated by people who say they favor harm reduction would in fact harm
Americans. -- Mr. Barry R. McCaffrey

We can see a glaring need for another definition at this point: It's the
definition of the word "harm." Mr. Barry R. McCaffrey's definition of the
word harm is: "Causing anything I don't approve of." I think a better
definition of the word harm is: "Causing suffering." Like the suffering
caused by the knowledge that your dad is a bigoted jerk and that you can't
even take a puff or a toot or a couple of pills to ease the pain until he
gets out of the public eye and stops bringing disgrace to the family name.
So we immediately see a simple contradiction caused by Mr. Barry R.
McCaffrey's prejudiced view of what constitutes harm. He thinks
psychoactive drugs would harm his children. I think his children should
have an IV installed and try the whole pharmacopoeia until Dad stops being
an jerk. It won't keep Dad from being a jerk but it might make the
emotional distress bearable. Yes, psychoactive drugs are indicated for the
treatment of mental illness and people like Mr. Barry R. McCaffrey make us
sick.

The second paragraph goes on to say:

The theory behind what they call harm reduction is that illegal drugs
cannot be controlled by law enforcement, education and other methods;
therefore, proponents say, harm should be reduced by needle exchange,
decriminalization of drugs, heroin maintenance and other measures. But the
real intent of many harm reduction advocates is the legalization of drugs,
which would be a mistake. -- Mr. Barry R. McCaffrey

To which my reply to this arrogant assertion is: Intelligent people present
the facts and then draw conclusions from those facts. Mr. Barry R.
McCaffrey states a conclusion after citing a series of facts that refutes
his conclusion. What does that say about Mr. Barry R. McCaffrey?

The third paragraph:

Lest anyone question whether harm reductionists favor drug legalization,
let me quote some articles written by supporters of this position. Ethan
Nadelmann, director of the Lindesmith Center, a Manhattan-based drug
research institute, wrote in American Heritage (March, 1993): "Should we
legalize drugs? History answers 'yes.'" in Issues in Science and Technology
(June, 1990), Nadelmann aligns his own opinion with history's supposed
verdict: "Personally, when I talk about legalization, I mean three things:
The first is to make drugs such as marijuana, cocaine and heroin legal.'
With regard to labels, Nadelmann wrote: "I much prefer the term
'decriminalization' or 'normalization.'" -- Mr. Barry R. McCaffrey

If Mr. Barry R. McCaffrey's confusion weren't self-evident from the
previous paragraphs, he goes on to cite highly intelligent and respected
professionals whose position directly contradicts his fantasy world
conclusion. Hey now.

The fourth paragraph:

People who advocate legalization can call themselves anything they like,
but deceptive terms should not obscure a position so that it can't be
debated coherently. Changing the name of a plan doesn't constitute a new
solution or alter the nature of the problem. -- Mr. Barry R. McCaffrey

Hang on, I'm still laughing. OK, OK, no, no, wait, I'm losing it again,
hold on, wait, I need a drink. OK, OK, now I'm better. Well, Barry is still
slinging conclusions without any facts to support them. Can you say
"pedantic semantics" Barry? I bet you can. I guess Aristotle would call
this an inferred ad hominem argument. Kind of imply the other guy's choice
of words are somehow sneaky or deceptive and therefore everything the guy
says is false. Aristotle saw through this sort of stuff two thousand years
ago, while the McCaffreys were just learning to sodomize sheep in the Irish
Highlands.

The Evils Of Drugs

The fifth paragraph:

The plain fact is that drug abuse wrecks lives. It is criminal that more
money is spent on illegal drugs than on art or higher education, that crack
babies are born addicted and in pain and that thousands of adolescents lose
their health and future to drugs. -- Mr. Barry R. McCaffrey

Wow, what a pillar of cogent reasoning. Yup, abuse does wreck lives. That
is the definition of abuse whether it's drug abuse, car abuse, child abuse
or abuse of power, which is a specialty of Mr. Barry R. McCaffrey and his
gang of jack-booted henchmen. Notice how Mr. Barry R. McCaffrey goes from
arguing about drug use to making a rhetorical statement that abuse is bad.
So is logic abuse Barry, and you should be incarcerated for it. But wait,
no kids, we're not done yet. After pretty much saying Bad Bad as a
causative position, Barry goes on to say that it's criminal that people
spend more money on drugs he doesn't approve of than on art or college.

No, Barry, it's not criminal, it's human nature. People have different
values than you and even if you make us all pray in school and all go to
your church, people will still have different opinions as to what is
worthwhile. After seeing the Phish concert last week I can assure you that
drug use is often done to greater appreciate the arts; the fact that drugs
are more valuable to our society than college shows how useless our
academic infrastructure has become now that the government is running so
many schools.

As to Barry's heart-tugging bleatings about crack babies, well, we're back
to that use/abuse dichotomy again and anyway, studies have shown that the
low birthweights and other health problems of crack babies are overcome as
early as 18 months after birth. (Note 1) As to teenagers: oak trees and
cars claim a lot more than do drugs. (Note 2) Is Mr. Barry R. McCaffrey
going to outlaw '57 Chevys and bridge embankments too?

The sixth paragraph states:

Addictive drugs were criminalized because they are harmful; they are not
harmful because they were criminalized. The more a product is available and
legitimized, the greater will be its use. If drugs were legalized in the
U.S., the cost to the individual and society would grow astronomically. In
the Netherlands when coffee shops started selling marijuana in small
quantities, use of this drug doubled between 1984 and 1992. A 1997 study by
Robert MacCoun and Peter Reuter from the University of Maryland notes that
the percentage of Dutch 18-year-olds who tried pot rose from 15% to 34%
from 1984 to 1992, a time when the numbers weren't climbing in other
European nations. By contrast, in 1992 teenage use of marijuana in the
United States was estimated at 10.6%. -- Mr. Barry R. McCaffrey

Here's that pedantic semantic guy again. OK, so maybe I was wrong about Mr.
Barry R. McCaffrey's ancestors sodomizing sheep in the Irish Highlands.
Maybe they were in Salem, Massachusetts unleashing little gems like:
"Witches were criminalized because they are harmful; they are not harmful
because they were criminalized." Then another dose of rhetorical
observation: this time his brilliant assertion is Good Good. Yup Barry,
availability and legitimacy are driven by demand and demand is caused by
people thinking something is good. Then another burst of the good old
semantic pedantic Barry with the bald-faced assertion that drug
legalization will increase costs. Sorry Barry, it's Economics 101. You must
have gone to a government-supported school.

You see, fines and jail are real costs of using the drugs your gang doesn't
approve of. When you remove those costs, net costs go down Barry, not up.
In addition, when you remove the enforcement costs and the price of those
expensive jackboots for you and your cronies, social costs are reduced even
further. And yes, Barry, you are right that use will go up. It's that Econ
thing again. But when you say costs will rise and so will use, you are
violating a fundamental law of economics. Oh well, you are a few sandwiches
short of a picnic, so I guess I can understand. What I really like about
this paragraph is that you trot out some real life, albeit unsupported,
statistics to make a slam dunk case for your idiot position. You seem to
have confused us with Homer Simpson: "Ohhhh! . . . Statistics! . . . This
guy must really know what he's talking about! . . . Pass me a doughnut."
Unfortunately your examples are so pathetic they self-destruct upon the
most cursory inspection. I won't argue legalization won't increase
consumption. This is because drugs are good when used according to valid
medical needs. We need a lot of drugs in a world full of people like you.
What nauseates me is your implication that teen use will skyrocket. Sorry
Barry, I read the examples and I've got a few problems right off the bat.
You compare teen drug use in the U.S. to that of 18-year-olds in the
Netherlands. Well Barry, guess what? The statistics for 18-year-olds and
the statistics for 13 to 18-year-olds are sure to be different no matter
what. And there's a difference between "use" and "just trying." Are you too
stupid to make a valid comparison or are the numbers so close as to be
statistically insignificant? Pass me a doughnut.

Paragraph seven goes on to say:

Many advocates of harm reduction consider drug use a part of the human
condition that will always be with us. While we agree that murder,
pedophilia and child prostitution can never be eliminated entirely, no one
is arguing that we legalize these activities. -- Mr. Barry R. McCaffrey

Back to Aristotle again, but this time its guilt by syntactic association.
If murder, pedophilia and child prostitution are bad, so is anything else
mentioned in the same sentence. Yes, Barry, love, marriage and baseball
cards will always be with us too and guess what? No one is arguing that we
criminalize these activities.

Heroin Maintenance

Oh boy, let's jump right into paragraph eight:

Some measures proposed by activist harm reductionists, like heroin
maintenance, veer toward the absurd. The Lindesmith Center convened a
meeting in June to discuss a multi-city heroin maintenance study, and a
test program for heroin maintenance may be launched in Baltimore. Arnold
Trebach argues for heroin maintenance in his book Legalize It? Debating
American Drug Policy. "Under the legalization plan I propose here,
addicts.., would be able to purchase the heroin and needles they need at
reasonable prices from a nonmedical drugstore.' -- Mr. Barry R. McCaffrey

There you go again Barry, slinging conclusions first and then no facts to
back them up. Who died and made you King, Barry? Which is worse in your
twisted worldview, Barry, veering toward the absurd or slouching toward
Gomorrah or what? If veering toward the absurd is so bad in your book, it's
a good thing you didn't go to The Other Ones concert with us last weekend.
I noticed you didn't mention that individuals such as William F. Buckley
and Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman have come out for legalization, as well
as the refusal of many federal judges to take drug cases because the
mandatory minimum sentencing laws end up destroying lives for no reason,
especially African American and Hispanic lives. (Note 3)

On to paragraph nine:

Why would anyone choose to maintain addicts on heroin as opposed to oral
methadone, which eliminates the injection route associated with HIV and
other diseases? Research from the National Institute for Drug Abuse shows
that untreated addicts die at a rate seven to eight times higher than
similar patients in methadone-based treatment programs. -- Mr. Barry R.
McCaffrey

I'll give you one good reason, you know-it-all, Barry, because kicking
methadone is brutal compared to kicking heroin, and that comes from my pal
Doug, who has the San Quentin degree and the experience to state a simple
fact. There would be no HIV risk from needles if do-gooder slime like you
would mind your own business and let people get a clean rig at the store
without filling out a lot of paperwork.

And I just love your statistics. Statistics used to show that a lot of
people died of tuberculosis in Arizona, so you wouldn't want to take the
advice of your doctor to move there, since figures don't lie. (But liars do
figure, hey Barry?)

Paragraph ten:

Dr. Avram Goldstein, in his book Addiction: From Biology to Drug Policy,
explains that when individuals switch from heroin to methadone, general
health improves and abnormalities of body systems (such as the hormones)
normalize. Unlike heroin maintenance, methadone maintenance has no adverse
effects on cognitive or psychomotor function, performance of skilled tasks
or memory, he said. This research indicates that the choice of heroin
maintenance over methadone maintenance doesn't even meet the criteria of
harm reduction that advocates claim to apply. -- Mr. Barry R. McCaffrey

Ohhh! . . . A Jewish doctor! . . . You must be telling the truth! Pass me a
doughnut. Sorry Barry, Doctor Goldstein is full of it. I can say this with
authority since after Dave's mom died of cancer he gave me one of her
methadone pills. I was nodding so hard I almost knocked myself out against
the wall. This Goldstein is on somebody's payroll, probably the company
that makes methadone. (Note 4) The patents for heroin have expired so there
isn't as much juicy corporate money in peddling it as there is in banning
it. (Note 5)

How We Won/Will Win The Drug War

Oh golly Paw, let's peruse paragraph eleven:

Treatment must differ significantly from the disease it seeks to cure.
Otherwise, the solution resembles the circular reasoning spoofed in
Saint-Exupery's The Little Prince by the character who drinks because he
has a terrible problem, namely, that he is a drunk. Just as alcohol is no
help for alcoholism, heroin is no cure for heroin addiction -- Mr. Barry R.
McCaffrey

And just as circular logic is circular logic so is circular logic circular
logic. Heroin use is not a disease Barry. Mental illness is a disease and
heroin use can help people with mental illness. You say addiction. I say
maintenance. Ohhhh!... Saint Exupery!... Pass me a doughnut.

Let us not ignore paragraph twelve:

As a society, we are successfully addressing drug use and its consequences.
In the past 20 years, drug use in the United States decreased by half and
casual cocaine use by 70%. Drug-related murders and spending on drugs
decreased by more than 30% as the illegal drug market shrunk. -- Mr. Barry
R. McCaffrey

These numbers are patently false, (Note 6) Barry.

Paragraph thirteen:

Still, we are faced with many challenges, including educating a new
generation of children who may have little experience with the negative
consequences of drug abuse, increasing access to treatment for 4 million
addicted Americans and breaking the cycle of drugs and crime that has
caused a massive increase in the number of people incarcerated. We need
prevention programs, treatment and alternatives to incarceration for
nonviolent drug offenders. Drug legalization is not a viable policy
alternative because excusing harmful practices only encourages them. -- Mr.
Barry R. McCaffrey

Yeah, Barry, and I bet if we peons just send you all our money you'll
institute a whole host of programs just as useless as the ones in place
now, but at least all your pals and relatives will have lifetime jobs
pursuing a goal that can never be reached. The new generation is at risk
for drugs because its older brothers and sisters have realized that most of
what you say is a lie. Drugs and crime are a cycle only because your
billions of dollars of criminalization programs raise the cost of drugs to
the point where crime is the only income option for many people. I love
when you want more of my money to try and fix a problem caused by your
stupid policies to begin with.

Why is using some drugs so bad to you Barry, but alcohol and Valium and
Xanax are just A-OK? Why do you insist that casual non-abusive drug use is
harmful? Why must you weave this tissue of fallacies around your unfounded
positions?

Paragraph fourteen:

At best, harm reduction is a half-way measure, a halfhearted approach that
would accept defeat. Increasing help is better than decreasing harm. The
1998 National Drug Control Strategy -- a publication of the Office of
National Drug Control Policy that presents a balanced mix of prevention,
treatment, stiff law enforcement, interdiction and international
cooperation -- is a blueprint for reducing drug abuse and its consequences
by half over the coming decade. With science as our guide and grass-roots
organizations at the forefront, we will succeed in controlling this
problem.-- Mr. Barry R. McCaffrey

Well, Barry, I was getting worried that I would run out of brilliantly
reasoned trenchant analysis, but I can see now my concerns were unfounded.
Actually I still am a little concerned because the second sentence, you
know, the one after the stupid bald-faced assertion that has no basis in
fact, yeah, Barry, that second sentence has struck me speechless. Let's
savor it one more time:

"Increasing help is better than decreasing harm."

So I guess when your spiritual brethren nailed Jesus to the cross you would
be up there dabbing mercurochrome on His palms, right, Barry? I want
everybody to read Barry's second sentence again. Now, again. OK, one more
time. Now say aloud the word "Evil." Thank you, folks. This is it, folks;
there you have it; the crux of the entire government biscuit, as Zappa used
to say. Take our money and harm us. Then get more of our money to help us.
Repeat Until no money. Next chump, please.

But wait, this paragraph goes on to detail how some big important sounding
Office has devised a solution. Ohhhh! ... An Office!... Pass me a doughnut
please. The solution is so good it will be the final solution. Yes, Barry,
it sure will be. The big important sounding Office had such a familiar name
but I just couldn't place it until I scrolled up to the beginning of this
letter and saw that the Office of National Drug Control Policy is the
selfsame office of which you are the Director. Wow Barry, some coincidence
that it was your office that came up with the solution and not Harvard
(Note 7) or Hoover Institute (Note 8) or all those other places that think
legalization is the solution. How about you just let us all keep our money
and let us decide which drugs to do and then when we get addicted we can go
to Betty Ford Center and hang out with all the movie stars and politicians?
Your advocacy of this study wouldn't be a tiny bit self-serving, would it
Barry? Science and grass roots? You pig, how about vengeance and tyranny?
That's what really drives you Barry. May your head be carried on a pike
through the streets while the screams of your loved ones echo from the
burning buildings of your crumbling institutions. You pig. You dirty pig.

The pig's paragraph fifteen:

Pretending that harmful activity will be reduced if we condone it under the
law is foolhardy and irresponsible. -- Mr. Barry R. McCaffrey

Huh? Barry? BARRY? It's the not condoning it that is doing all the harm.
Harming people so you can help them is the sign of a psychopath. You know
Barry, maybe I was all wrong about you. Maybe you're not a pig. Maybe you
are a psychopath. You know, crazy. You know, mentally ill. Maybe you should
take some psychoactive drugs, Barry. They help treat mental illness. It
beats a straitjacket or prison anyday.

(Mr. McCaffrey's remarks Copyright 1998, Los Angeles Times. All Rights
Reserved, although I wouldn't be too proud of them if I was a prestigious
West Coast Daily.)

Notes:

1. "'Crack babies' catch up", by Dana Kennedy, The Associated Press,
12/6/92, http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/cocaine/crackbb.html

2. Traffic crashes are the greatest single cause of death for every age
from five through twenty-seven. Almost half of these crashes are
alcohol-related. (NHTSA, 1996) http://www.madd.org/stats/stat_gen.html

3. By May 1993, 50 senior federal judges, including Jack B. Weinstein and
Whitman Knapp of New York, had exercised their prerogative and refused to
hear drug cases. Federal District Judge Stanley Marshall remarked, "I've
always been considered a fairly harsh sentencer, but it's killing me that
I'm sending so many low-level offenders away for all this time." A Gallup
poll of 350 state and 49 federal judges who belong to the American Bar
Association found 8 percent in favor of and 90 percent opposed to the
federal mandatory minimums for drug offenses,
http://www.famm.org/history9.html

4. A little research shows the doctor to have started the first methadone
program in California, so this also explains his prejudices. A choice
quote: "Consumers of medicines have no expertise to evaluate claims."
http://nytsyn.com/live/Alcohol/ -- AND GET THIS KIDS: For Dr. Goldstein's
views on marijuana refer to: Quotes from the National Institutes of Health
(NIH) Workshop on the Medical Utility of Marijuana -- Roundtable
Discussion, February 20, 1997 Natcher Conference Center -- NIH Campus,
Bethesda, Maryland.

"[I]f someone is seriously ill and is not feeling well, and marijuana makes
them feel better, who is to say that that's a bad thing?" (page 83, Avram
Goldstein, M.D.) "[W]e know that there are no extreme immediate toxicity
issues. It's a very safe drug, and therefore it would be perfectly safe
medically to let the patient determine their own dose by the smoking
route." (p 82) http://www.mpp.org/nihquote.html

5. Another leading authority on drug pharmacology, Dr. E. Leong Way,
comments that -- despite its fearful public image -- "heroin does not have
major effects on the motor and cardiovascular system and hence, the user
can function effectively if access to the drug is not prevented." E. Leong
Way, "Pharmacologic Assessment of Dependence Risks," in Krauss and Lazear.
(p 394) http://www.rahul.net/liberty/liberty/features/53nelson.html

6. "Back to the '70s: The MTV Generation Inhales", by Robert L. Maginnis.
Drug abuse among teenagers has risen significantly in recent years. A
nationwide survey by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) in 1994
found that annual marijuana use among eighth graders rose from 6.2 percent
in 1991 to 13 percent in 1994. The trend is also evident among tenth (16.5
percent to 30.4 percent) and twelfth (36.7 percent to 38.2 percent)
graders. And cocaine, crack, heroin, and LSD use among teenagers is also
rising and may soon rival the high rates of the 1970s. [1]
http://townhall.com/frc/insight/is95b3dr.html

7. Son, Avery, Legalize It: Optimality Conditions Under a Taxed
Legalization Policy, Mimeo, Harvard University (1994)
http://icg.fas.harvard.edu/~ec970/olson.html

8. Stop the War: A Former Police Chief's Plea to Clinton's New Drug Czar,
by Joseph D. McNamara (Hoover Institute)
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/mcn/mcnl.html