Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 26, 2008
By: Kevin Drum

KILL 'EM ALL AND LET GOD SORT 'EM OUT....From drug policy expert Mark Kleiman:

The Office of National Drug Control Policy is working hard to make sure that opiate addicts keep dying of overdoses.

I figured Mark was just being snarky and excitable here, but no. That really does seem to be the only reasonable conclusion you can draw from the news article he excerpts. Go take a look.

By the way, Mark is also a professor at UCLA. Today, apparently, is UCLA day here at the Washington Monthly.

Kevin Drum 2:03 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (57)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Indeed. It is, after all, cheaper than incarcerating them indefinitely or repeatedly.
And in spite of the cost effectiveness of treating them, it is still cheaper to let them die.

I mean, what kind of message would we be sending if we tried to help these lawless drug users and abusers?

Posted by: kenga on January 26, 2008 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

On a tangentially related subject - if someone tries to talk to you about the need to aggressively attack known means of terrorist funding, without explicitly stating that our drug policies are among the first things we should change, slap them.

Preferably with some sort of fish. I suggest a good-sized salmon.

At that point, you can safely cease paying attention to the person in question, as they don't have anything useful to say on the subject.

Posted by: kenga on January 26, 2008 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

Not a salmon,carp maybe or catfish.

Posted by: john sherman on January 26, 2008 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

Reminiscent of opposition to birth control for teens. If they know they're not likely to get pregnant, then they'll feel freer to have sex.

Posted by: Swift Loris on January 26, 2008 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

Mark Kleiman, near the end of the cited entry, wrote “I get angry at the people who call themselves the 'drug policy reform movement' for their insistence that we could make more drugs legal without having more addiction.”

I am in favor of 'drug policy reform' and I believe that we could make more drugs legal without necessarily having more addiction.

Posted by: Joe on January 26, 2008 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

But O.J. Mayo being reinstated kind of balances it out, doesn't it Kevin?

Posted by: Me2d on January 26, 2008 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

There is such a wide divide on perspectives here.

Obviously there is a moral argument to be made for not giving up on heroin addicts altogether, which would support measures such as this to prevent OD.

However, in this case the use of the spray does in effect provide support for the continued use of heroin. Its minor, but its still a policy question missing the forest for the trees.

The trouble with drug policy on levels such as this is that you are no longer dealing in realms where usage is completely treatable, nor are the societal effects of use minor. Somewhere along the way heroin picked up a casual drug rep, and that is totally fucking insane. Instead should have a rep as a slow and infantile form of suicide.

Posted by: Condor on January 26, 2008 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

So, druggies are modern day lepers? I guess that is what Jesus would do...

Posted by: elmo on January 26, 2008 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

those good christian values at work, indeed. suffer for your sins, losers. just what the baby jesus demands.

these revolting people can't be run out of washington soon enough to disappear back into the black pits from which they slithered out.

01-20-09.

Posted by: linda on January 26, 2008 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

Being a father who has had personal experience with someone in my family who was an addict, I cringe when I read of the lack of compassion expressed by this twit and others like her. Narcan is not going to encourage heroin as anybody who knows anything about it can tell you. First of all, heroin can do that by itself with little help. Secondly, the problem of addiction is at the root of all whether it be heroin, alchohol, sex etc and nothing can solve that except the person who has to deal with it. Every day you can muster the strength to not take that drink, or smoke that cigarette,pop a pill, shoot up, is a another day of incredible strength and courage.
If this drug can be administered by anyone and will save a life, then I am all for it. One cannot help an addict of the addict is dead.
Personally, I would legalize it all and regulate. Make it hard for new users to get it and easy for those who use to be monitored and help. Hard to do? you bet, but not any harder than it is now and the revenue collected from the taxing of more recreational and less addicitive drugs, marijuanam hashish, will help to finance the program.
But no, lesser minds like those who deny this will just allow the black market to continue and instead of helping, the figure the addicts will die off wondering why, in this fantastic and empty materialistic society, new addicts appear.
It's a damn shame.

Posted by: marcus on January 26, 2008 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

I caught NPR coverage of this decision by the WH Drug Policy people and Dr Madras made then and is quoted here repeating that putting Naloxone in the hands of addicts would enable an addict to have and treat an overdose and NEVER GO TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM.

This shows a serious misunderstanding of Naloxone. Or--possibly--an attempt to mislead people on this issue.

You see, heroin is a very long-acting form of opiate. But Naloxone in a very short-acting antagonist. It's very common to have to give repeated doses of Naloxone to someone having on OD. Giving the drug by aerosol spray makes it even shorter acting because there is no 'reservoir' in the body; it comes on hard and then is used up, leaving opiate receptors open again to the heroin.

Naloxone is a way to keep someone alive without having to do CPR (or at least 'Rescue Breathing') until the EMS arrives.

So as usual, the Repubs--the Christian party--are full of s&*t about not only the facts but about their intentions.

Posted by: JohnMcC on January 26, 2008 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

The elite "drug policy experts" mostly speak and act from a place of ignorance. For one thing, a lot of drugs, including marijuana and LSD, are simply not addictive. Not physically addictive. And don't give me tedious crap about "emotionally addictive."

I was recently trying to search out some obscure childhood book from the 1970s full of magic and derring-do (I still can't figure out what the title was) and accidentally found out on Amazon that there's this big "classic" anti-drug teen novel circa 1969-1973 written by some middle-aged Mormon drug counselor posing as "Anonymous," a poor l'il drug-addicted young woman. (What a poser. "Anonymous"? How totally cheesy. Get a real pseudonym, ya big phoney.)

Anyway, apparently it's a super-big classic of the genre, and Anonymous went on to write other lying, profoundly ignornant anti-drug books based on zero first-hand knowledge.

Ya see, our l'il heroine, the purported "Anonymous," is given a drink laced with an LSD tab and she's immediately hooked on the stuff. "Drugs!! Drugs!! LSD!! Heroin!! GIMME, GIMME, GIMME!!" I think she goes on to be a street whore, all because of that little tab of acid in her cola.

What a big, festering, stinking pile of shit.

And that's what most of our elites think of drugs. I'm sure that's what right-wing jackass Tim Russert thinks of drugs.

For God's sake people, try a fucking tab of acid! Try a fucking 'shroom! Try some cocaine! At least then you'll have some crumb of insight and knowledge.

Be careful, everything in moderation and all that, but these things aer no different than anything you can get in the hospital, and you're not going to enter into some psychotic cartoon world of drooling Bugs Bunnyses and melting faces. You'll feel a little whoozy, or a little amped, or a little calm. Duuuh....

For god's sake, if you go to the hospital, even for minor surgery, you'll likely get a bill with a whole cocktail of "illegal" drugs listed, including cocaine.

It happened to me. They had all sorts of opiates and drugs related to cocaine. In fact, the bill also said, right there, plain as day, "cocaine." (I believe the tiny dose of cocaine was something like $40.00 circa the early 1980s. Typical hospital overcharging.) OH, NOOOO!!! DROOOOGS!!! DROOOOGS!!!! GIMME, GIMME, GIMME!!!!!

Where is the paint for me to huff on?! Where is the highly adulterated crack?! Bring it on!!!

Posted by: Anon on January 26, 2008 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

More depraved indifference from the Bush administration (with the usual veneer of righteousness). I hope that the Republican Party is crushed so completely in the next election that it stays out of power for at least a generation.

Posted by: Aaron Baker on January 26, 2008 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

Condor says: "There is such a wide divide on perspectives here .... in this case the use of the spray does in effect provide support for the continued use of heroin."

Frankly, I think the divide in perspectives is between people who have some experience with the subject and those who don't.

I'm an RN, and I've worked in acute care and community urgent care in areas where I saw plenty of addiction and a fair number of ODs. Junkies do not use heroin because they think it's safe; they use it because it's incredibly physically enjoyable, and because it's an escape, and often because they don't value their lives very highly, and eventually just because it's very hard to stop. When those things are true, people will do all kinds of things that are self-evidently gross, wrong, or fatal. That's what addiction is. Yes, for God's sake, tell the kids all the awful details before they're tempted to start... but it's just plain naivete, or willful ignorance, to suppose that just saying "this can kill you" will prevent everyone from ever trying. And you don't refuse to save a life just because it should've been saved in a better way years ago.

And, more specifically on the idea of "support for use"... ask any addict (or former addict, or anyone who hangs out with them) whether being rescued with Narcan is something they'd ever willingly undergo. From everything I've seen and been told, it is one of the most unpleasant experiences you can have in your life. Imagine the amount of pleasure and relaxation you would get within a few seconds from shooting heroin, now imagine experiencing the exact opposite of that for half an hour. (One reason professionals give it slowly, besides the physical shock, is that people wake up very pissed off; it's helpful to leave them a little bit sedated, just for your own safety.) You might as well say that a teenage boy would be encouraged to have more unprotected sex if you told him "If she gets pregnant, no problem, we can magically fix it... we'll just have to kick you in the nuts fifty times."

People OD because they made a mistake, or because they want to die, or because they just refuse to believe it can happen to them... not because they think "Oh, my friends will just resuscitate me." Save their life and they may well make the same mistake again if they don't get a lot of help - because that's what addiction is - but at least they've got a chance.

Posted by: Hob on January 26, 2008 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK
Mark Kleiman, near the end of the cited entry, wrote “I get angry at the people who call themselves the 'drug policy reform movement' for their insistence that we could make more drugs legal without having more addiction.”

That's kind of a strawman, huh? Or a red herring.

On account of the fact that if more drugs are legal, we have much more money for treatment of addiction and related ills. So we could do a better job of not only treating existing addicts, but any new ones.
I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't accept the framing which you seem to have adopted - it sidesteps a large portion of the issue. I get angry at the boneheads who pretend (or ignorantly assume) that's the entirety of the issue, or even it's most significant element. At the root of most of their anti-drug fervor is a desire to punish people who won't do what they are told.

But beyond that - so fucking what?
No offense, Mark, if you are reading these comments, but there are new addicts every goddamn day - in spite of the prohibition on the substances they are addicted to, and that will continue ad infinitum.
The only way we're going to make any progress is to take the emphasis off of punishment. To do that we have to take the emphasis off of prohibition, which means decriminalization at the very least.
Out and out legalization is better, for among other reasons, the users and abusers aren't marginalized, and they aren't buying, selling, and using in the shadows and on the periphery of our society. IV-transmitted HIV or HepC? Drug-related shootings? Murdered prostitutes? Teen runaways? And you want to focus on an increase in addiction rates that may not(maybe even won't) include increases in the aforementioned? I think that says something about the speaker - I don't think it's positive.
You may have noticed that taxes on alcohol generate substantial revenue for federal, state, and municipal coffers, and some of that is devoted to treatment of alcoholism. I don't know of any proponents of legalization that don't suggest the same would apply to other controlled substances.
Never mind any ancillary benefits that accrue from taking such drugs, for the most part, out of the black market.

Posted by: kenga on January 26, 2008 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

Let me echo what Hob said at 3:30. I've done my time in trauma and emergency services, much of it in the inner city.

I'm sure you have heard of the "bad dope phenomenon." Once or twice a year, we would get alerted to bad dope on the street - junk that kills a high percentage of it's customers, sometimes as soon as the tourniquet is popped.

And instead of running from it - the hard-core junkies will seek it out. If it's that bad-ass, it has to be a righteous high, right? And they are all convinced that only they can ride that tiger.

Addiction is not conducive to a rational mindset.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 26, 2008 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

I am in favor of 'drug policy reform' and I believe that we could make more drugs legal without necessarily having more addiction.

I don't give a shit whether there'd be more addicts. I believe we can make more drugs legal and take away the major source of funding for criminal gangs, make addiction safer and easier to cure, and reduce one of the great American Hypocrisies (drugs for me but not for thee) and an institutionalized oppression of poor people.

Posted by: Boronx on January 26, 2008 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

I also have to disagree that decriminalization would generate much higher rates of addiction. I'm sure there might be a slight increase, but probably not a very significant one, for the simple reason that people who are inclined to do drugs pretty much do them already. The illegality is not a significant deterrent because for all intents and purposes, unless a user is engaging in criminal activity to support their habit, the odds of arrest for simply using are so slim as to make drug use a de facto legal activity.

Beyond that, there is a very good reason why the various 12-step programs do not allow participants to substitute whatever substance they were abusing with another substance...for example, alchoholics in AA have to stay away from pills, pot, etc. while the addict in NA has to avoid alchohol...the reason being is that it's the tendency to addiction that's the root of the problem. IOW, a person with a tendency for addiction will find an addiction (or is much more likely to), whether it be cigarettes, alchohol, or drugs. People who do not have the tendency for addiction will be much less likely to ever experience a problem with any substance. Decriminalization will not alter the number of people in society prone to addiction, though it might be that some who would otherwise become alchoholics will become drug addicts instead. But the overall number of addicts of all substances would be unlikely to change.

Posted by: Jennifer on January 26, 2008 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

The solution would appeal to me... except every drug addict is someone's parent/sibling/child. While I have not personally known someone addicted to drugs (though a relative had a 15 year struggle with alcohol he "won") I can't even imagine the pain that would cause a family to lose someone that way, and I'd hope we can have a policy of trying to avoid that.

Posted by: MNPundit on January 26, 2008 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

This is the same logic that opposes giving the cervical cancer vaccine to girls. The opponents would rather their daughters get cancer than possibly (but probably not likely) being more inclined to have premarital sex.

Posted by: Ekim on January 26, 2008 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

There's a lot of truth in the old adage...

"If hippies didn't exist, Cops would have invented them".

Ditto "The war on drugs"... it's become a self-sustaining, unending campaign designed to insure continued flow of money and power to the para-military wing of the police.

Posted by: Buford on January 26, 2008 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

What Jennifer said, with the caveat that the actual overall addiction rate seems to be underreported insofar as alcohol is concerned.

Posted by: shortstop on January 26, 2008 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

Go Bruins!

Posted by: Stacy on January 26, 2008 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

Dang, this Madras is some sharp lady. I was all set up to shoot up tonight, with my piece of rubber tubing, a nice pointy needle, spoon, candle, and an appointment with a dealer for this evening. But now that I find out I won't get Narcan if I overdose, I've decided to have a pizza instead, check into a treatment program, and I won't ever use again! She sure has me read right, yessir.

Posted by: Michael O'Hare on January 26, 2008 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

Just to play devil's advocate, what evidence does anyone have that would lead one to believe that addiction wouldn't rise if narcotics (not psychotropics like THC or LSD) were legalized? Otherwise it's just uninformed speculation.

Does anyone have any firm evidence that the rate of alcoholism went down once Prohibition was ended? I honestly don't think it did, I'm more certain that it went up, but that's speculation too.

The only evidence that I have now is the fact that a very high percentage of freshmen when they start college binge drink once the move away from their parents into dorms or other campus housing.

Of course it not that simple, but it is a factor that in their previous circumstances their access to alcohol was either limited or entirely prohibited by their parents. And finding people who would buy for them was much more difficult than it is on a college campus.

Bing drinking does not drop at all when college students turn 21, despite the fact that age prohibition is no longer a factor (see here.

The Netherlands still criminalize the trafficking of narcotics (but not "soft drugs") and personally I find their approach to drug use the most rational (although that's changing . So I think that the best policy is the decriminalization of psychotropics and the continued ban on selling narcotics. Hell, if it could be enforced I'd through alcohol and tobacco in there too, but that wouldn't ever fly.

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on January 26, 2008 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK

However, in this case the use of the spray does in effect provide support for the continued use of heroin. Its minor, but its still a policy question missing the forest for the trees.

Hey, letting emergency room doctors revive overdosing heroin users in the hospital also provides continued support for the continued use of heroin, because if we just let them die right there they couldn't use heroin anymore either.....

Seriously, you know what encourages the use of heroin? HEROIN. All else is incidental.

Posted by: Stefan on January 26, 2008 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

"The only evidence that I have now is the fact that a very high percentage of freshmen when they start college binge drink once the move away from their parents into dorms or other campus housing."

How long do they continue their binge drinking? How many of these freshmen become alcoholics?

Posted by: PaulB on January 26, 2008 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK

As evolutionists, the Bush whitehouse is trying to avoid interfering with natural selection.

Posted by: SJRSM on January 26, 2008 at 7:00 PM | PERMALINK

More to the point, Doc Morpheus, you're confusing users with addicts. I'm a user of alcohol; I'm not an addict. There is an enormous difference.

Posted by: PaulB on January 26, 2008 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK

Two wars and the drug [poppy/heroin] trade is growing.

Killing them and letting god sort then out doesnt stop anything, apparently

Posted by: Jet on January 26, 2008 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINK

If only they could ban the drug that keeps donut addicts from dying of overdoses, there would be one less son of Lucianne Goldberg in the world.

Posted by: lampwick on January 26, 2008 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, these guys are "pro-life", can't you tell?

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on January 26, 2008 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

As evolutionists, the Bush whitehouse is trying to avoid interfering with natural selection.

Typical bloodthirst bravado and a misplaced emphasis on law and order from someone who sneers at everything through shit-colored glasses.

What part of "accidental" overdose don't you understand? Isn't it possible that this spray could save people who accidentally ingest an opiate like heroin? You know, like children?

The fact of the matter is, it helps reverse an overdose of several different kinds of opiates, such as oxycontin and morphine. Plenty of people have legitimate prescriptions for them, and it's not outside the realm of possibility that someone would want to have a kit on hand in case of accidental overdose or accidental ingestion.

I guess they're sentenced to die as well.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 26, 2008 at 8:22 PM | PERMALINK

But I thought they were really trying hard to make sure that patients in pain couldn't get enough opiates. Can it be both?

Posted by: Neil B. on January 26, 2008 at 8:52 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin: The Office of National Drug Control Policy is working hard to make sure that opiate addicts keep dying of overdoses.

Madras says the rescue programs might take away the drug user's motivation to get into detoxification and drug treatment.

In the interest of fairness I'd say it's time to start denying pasty, overfed, allergy-prone Republicans access to home defibrillators and emergency bee sting kits.

If they don't experience anaphylactic shock a few times how will they ever learn to stay away from bees?

"Sometimes having an overdose, being in an emergency room, having that contact with a health care professional is enough to make a person snap into the reality of the situation and snap into having someone give them services," Madras says.

Yeah, let 'em go to the emergency room if they're so sick. Sometimes just the embarrassment of having to sign an admittance form is often enough to snap a Bush Ranger out of an "All you can eat buffet"-induced cardiac arrest and reverse the damage to the heart... or whatever passes for it in their species.

As evolutionists, the Bush whitehouse is trying to avoid interfering with natural selection.

THAT explains why they failed to act on all the intelligence prior to 9/11. They were consciously acting out of a weighty sense of responsible Darwinism, and not the criminal ineptitude to which all the evidence otherwise points.

Posted by: trex on January 26, 2008 at 9:09 PM | PERMALINK

Here's a case where a long-time heroin addict that had been jailed was considered an illegal immigrant from the Soviet Union and was ready to be deported to Russia, had his family not been located and intervened. Not only would we be willing to let them die from OD's, we would be willing to kick them out of the country on false illegal immigration charges!

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/25392.html

"FLORENCE, Ariz. — Thomas Warziniack was born in Minnesota and grew up in Georgia, but immigration authorities pronounced him an illegal immigrant from Russia.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement has held Warziniack for weeks in an Arizona detention facility with the aim of deporting him to a country he's never seen. His jailers shrugged off Warziniack's claims that he was an American citizen, even though they could have retrieved his Minnesota birth certificate in minutes and even though a Colorado court had concluded that he was a U.S. citizen a year before it shipped him to Arizona.

On Thursday, Warziniack finally became a free man. Immigration officials released him after his family, who learned about his predicament from McClatchy, produced a birth certificate and after a U.S. senator demanded his release.

"The immigration agents told me they never make mistakes," Warziniack said in an earlier phone interview from jail. "All I know is that somebody dropped the ball."

The story of how immigration officials decided that a small-town drifter with a Southern accent was an illegal Russian immigrant illustrates how the federal government mistakenly detains and sometimes deports American citizens.

After he was arrested in Colorado on a minor drug charge, Warziniack told probation officials there wild stories about being shot seven times, stabbed twice and bombed four times as a Russian army colonel in Afghanistan, according to court records. He also insisted that he swam ashore to America from a Soviet submarine.

Court officials were skeptical. Not only did his story seem preposterous, but the longtime heroin addict also had a Southern accent and didn't speak Russian."

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on January 26, 2008 at 9:21 PM | PERMALINK

That one flew right over my head.
Posted by: Pale Rider

Yep

Posted by: SJRSM on January 26, 2008 at 9:37 PM | PERMALINK

I keep thinking I can do comedy. But everyone keeps saying I suck at it as much as I do at critical thinking, analysis and honesty.
Posted by: SJRSM

Posted by: don't boot me, C.O.! on January 26, 2008 at 10:10 PM | PERMALINK

"Junkies do not use heroin because they think it's safe; they use it because it's incredibly physically enjoyable, and because it's an escape, and often because they don't value their lives very highly, and eventually just because it's very hard to stop. When those things are true, people will do all kinds of things that are self-evidently gross, wrong, or fatal. That's what addiction is."

But . . . addicts can't be so oblivious to their well-being. Otherwise they wouldn't use this Narcan stuff, to prevent an overdose.

I don't see how a thoughtful person (as opposed to a knee-jerker) can really give the Administration a clear condemnation of this attitude.

Posted by: captcrisis on January 27, 2008 at 12:32 AM | PERMALINK

That one flew right over my head.
Posted by: Pale Rider
Yep

This from the war monger and the person who flips out every time someone calls him on his serial dishonesty? If you hadn't had all of those meltdowns, one would think you were simply an idiot.

Your comment, while intended to be "comedy" that ain't fucking funny, is only comedy in your own mind and a continuing annoyance to anyone who knows that your real frame of mind is that of Yosemite Sam with a firecracker and bottle of wood alcohol.

But . . . addicts can't be so oblivious to their well-being. Otherwise they wouldn't use this Narcan stuff, to prevent an overdose.

I don't see how a thoughtful person (as opposed to a knee-jerker) can really give the Administration a clear condemnation of this attitude.

I think there's an admission of the fact that having a loved one with an addiction is a terrible thing, but having a loved one die of an overdose is worse.

What this product could do is help get someone from the addiction stage to the recovery stage, which should ultimately be the goal. I think the point being made is, we CAN condemn the government because they're giving up on people who could be saved by this product--and if they are saved by it, they could go on to recovery. NOT IN EVERY CASE, but again.

Do you want your loved one dead?

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 27, 2008 at 12:55 AM | PERMALINK

Once this lady fixes it so that there are no more waiting lists for drug treatment in America, THEN we can address drug users' "motivation to get into detoxification and drug treatment."

Posted by: Nancy Irving on January 27, 2008 at 3:06 AM | PERMALINK

A curious new development seemingly linked inextricably to Sibel Edmonds' recent revelations of nuclear espionage in the US, assisted and covered up by senior government officials:

Why Bush Wants to Legalize the Nuke Trade with Turkey
Exonerating Neocon Criminals
By Joshua Frank [Dissident Voice]
.

Posted by: Poilu on January 27, 2008 at 7:51 AM | PERMALINK

Remarkably, even the outing of agent Valerie Plame may be partly attributable to this officially shielded US nuclear spy ring:

Tip-Off Thwarted Nuclear Spy Ring Probe
[Times Online]
.
AN investigation into the illicit sale of American nuclear secrets was compromised by a senior official in the State Department, a former FBI employee has claimed.

The official is said to have tipped off a foreign contact about a bogus CIA company used to investigate the sale of nuclear secrets.

The firm, Brewster Jennings & Associates, was a front for Valerie Plame, the former CIA agent. Her public outing two years later in 2003 by White House fficials became a cause clbre. ...

Posted by: Poilu on January 27, 2008 at 8:07 AM | PERMALINK

Do you want your loved one dead?
Posted by: Pale Rider

I've had a loved one (cousin) OD and die. Got to watch him be an addict first.

I'm OK with addicts using Narcan. Costs $9.50 a pop? Sell it to them. I know for a fact that if you had given it to my cousin, and he thought it had any value whatsoever, he would have sold it and bought more drugs with the money.

Thanks for once again showing your black/white, good/evil, with us/against us mindset. You and George Bush are two sides of the same coin.

Posted by: SJRSM on January 27, 2008 at 9:35 AM | PERMALINK

Legalize, Control & Tax... The War on Drugs has never worked. Policy needs to deal with reality rather than indifferent emotions and false assuption.

Posted by: Officious One on January 27, 2008 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks Hob. Want a job as Surgeon General? In the emjayay administration, you've got it. Not only does the illegality of drugs make gangs possible as Boronx stated, it has completely corrupted the law enforcement and governments of poppy etc. producing countries around the world, probably suppports the Taliban and lots of other groups of the far left and right, and so on. Not only would poorer neighborhoods across the US be far better places to live if drugs were legalized (no illegal drugs, pretty much no gangs I think) (and taxed and controlled and propagandized against etc.) but the people of the whole world would be better off. I'm quite sure we will come to our senses on this eventually, but at least in this country it may not be something even my great grandchildren will live to see.

Posted by: emjayay on January 27, 2008 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

Along the same lines: there is a delivery device that would allow nicotine addicts to get the same feeling they get from cigs (unlike the patch or the gum) but without the smoke.

It's illegal.

Congress would rather they die.

Posted by: misterc on January 27, 2008 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

But . . . addicts can't be so oblivious to their well-being.

Yes, they can. Why, for example, do you think people keep smoking cigarettes?

Otherwise they wouldn't use this Narcan stuff, to prevent an overdose.

The fact that someone can be oblivious to their long-term health doesn't contradict the fact that they can want to prevent their immediate death. As with all other human beings, we are willing to take immediate steps (preventing an overdose) that we are not willing to translate into long-term action (giving up drugs).

That's like saying "cigarrette smokers can't be so oblivious to their well-being, otherwise they wouldn't seek out chemotherapy when they develop lung cancer."

Posted by: Stefan on January 27, 2008 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

****I'm off for two weeks sans internets. Enjoy the ideological group hug while I'm gone.

Posted by: SJRSM on January 22, 2008 at 10:41 PM***

how's that going sjrsm?

Posted by: mr. irony on January 27, 2008 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

This is especially distressing news in view of the fact that Mt. Ranier, in Washington State, has just been discovered to be almost entirely composed of black tar heroin, most of which washes down into Tacoma and Yakima, both in Washington State.

Posted by: Mooser on January 27, 2008 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

how's that going sjrsm?
Posted by: mr. irony

Great. They have hi-speed in garrison now. Thanks for caring.

How's your mom's basement?

Posted by: SJRSM on January 27, 2008 at 9:00 PM | PERMALINK

Your garrison has the same IP as your house? What a surprise.

Posted by: The All-Seeing on January 27, 2008 at 9:45 PM | PERMALINK

I live in the heroin capital of the freakin world...and see the activities and endgame for heroin addicts every day.

I'm quite sure that folks who argue that addiction treatment makes way, wayyyyyy more sense than continuing the ill-conceived war on (some) drugs are onto something. In fact...they're right on the money.

That said...ANYBODY who doesn't know that goddamn heroin is a ONE WAY TICKET to an early grave is too fucking stupid to be allowed to exist anyway.

I mean...seriously. I just can't see how you can cry a whole heck of a lot for people who are heroin addicts. Gimme a break--they know EXACTLY what they're doing when they spike a vein.

Posted by: Sebastian-PGP on January 27, 2008 at 10:11 PM | PERMALINK

sjrsm: How's your mom's basement?


don't know....its in another state

Posted by: mr. irony on January 28, 2008 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

That said...ANYBODY who doesn't know that goddamn heroin is a ONE WAY TICKET to an early grave is too fucking stupid to be allowed to exist anyway.

Could you be any stupider? I think Keith Richards, Eric Clapton, Pete Townshend and Graham Greene would have to say that heroin is a drug that sent all of them to a cool, dry, warm place full of sunshine and puppy dogs with toothy smiles and loving looks.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on January 28, 2008 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

Norm:

The only way I could be any stupider would be to be as dumb as you are, for anybody dumb enough to think that pointing to a bunch of wealthy celebrities who survive long term opioid use thanks to the watchful eye of clinicians, friends, and the like is anything but pointing to the exceptions that prove the rule has to be the dumbest fuckface on the planet.

In any event, could you miss the point any more thoroughly than you did? Anybody who knows what heroin does to the average destitute addict who's sleeping under an overpass, not eating anything or getting any kind of treatment or medical supervision, suffering from all sorts of diseases, losing their teeth and their hair, etc (in other words...not doing it on a tour bus or on a private jet) can see what a boob you are. Geezus.

Like pointing to a few rare exceptions negates what the drug does to the overwhelming majority of people who actually use it...

Posted by: Sebastian-PGP on January 30, 2008 at 3:05 AM | PERMALINK

And geeze, it worked out great for Kurt Cobain, Sid Vicious, John Belushi, Lenny Bruce, Billie Holiday, Janis Joplin, GG Allin, Shannon Hoon, Brad Nowell, Hillel Slovak, Layne Staley, Johnny Thunders, Dee Dee Ramone, etc....

Dumbass.

Posted by: Sebastian-PGP on January 30, 2008 at 3:11 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly