Today we have a Very Special Episode of No Fucking Way, in which we learn that coke is not so terrible for you as long as you're not an idiot about it. Alcohol and nicotine are worse for you, which is bad news for basically every dude I've had a crush on since I was 13 (including Bukowski).
Not that I needed more reasons to love the fantastic decade known as the 1990s, but here's another reason I love the fantastic decade known as the 1990s: in '92 and '93, the World Health Organization conducted what is probably the largest ever study of global cocaine use. They then tried to release a report which summarized their conclusions; this was basically a description, in fancy science researcher language, of how inhumane and outdated and stupid the US's "war on drugs" policy was, with its focus on supply reduction and law enforcement. They also endorsed something called decriminalization, which would result in a huge reduction of persons with dark skin being arrested and then kept in cage-like quarters for many years. (Law enforcement did not care for this; it liked the current system and saw no need for a change at that time.)
I live in a country of haters who don't like their lawmaking skills made fun of, so you're not paying attention if you thought that this glorious report was ever going to get published in this land. The report criticized anti-drug ad campaigns which tried to scare people into not using, and it had this one entertaining part about how casual short- and long-term coke use doesn't really cause any problems. Oh, aaand how “use of coca leaves appears to have no negative health effects and has positive, therapeutic, sacred and social functions for indigenous Andean populations.”
"At the point where mild cocaine use was described in positive tones, the Americans presumably blew some kind of outrage fuse. This report was never published, because just two months after the press briefing was released, at the 48th World Health Assembly, the US representative to WHO threatened to withdraw US funding for all their research projects and interventions unless the organisation “dissociated itself from the conclusions of the study” and cancelled the publication. According to WHO, even today, this document does not exist, (although you can read a leaked copy in full on the website of the drugs policy think tank Transform at www.tdpf.org.uk/WHOleaked.pdf)."
When reached for comment, Scott Storch asked me if I wanted to go have some fun in the bathroom stall, then called me a bitch when I turned him down.
Posts
1 comment:
Not to intrude on anyone's libertarian paradise but "Occasional cocaine use does not typically lead to severe or even minor physical or social problems" - well the same is true of meth, oxycontin and any other drug. The issue is, how addictive is it and what is the like range of results for addiction? "a minority of people start using cocaine or related products, use casually for a short or long period, and suffer little or no negative consequences, even after years of use." (my bold) So the majority don't use casually and eventually graduate to heavier usage? Doesn't seem like a good idea to extrapolate based on what relatively few people are doing.
Look, I tend to be in favor of decriminalization and focusing on treatment over incarcertion but this article is too clever by half. Those in favor of legalization should be honest enough to admit the human cost of addiction and not try to sugar coat it. There's a significant price to it and legalization would almost certainly increase it. It's more a question of what is the best overall policy and trading off between relative goods & evils.
Plus, the pseudo-reportorial tone makes it insufferably earnest. I much prefer the cheerfully antisocial tone of this.
Post a Comment