I know, I know, I was supposed to tackle Alternative Medicine in one go, and leave it at that, but I just can´t help myself from attacking the practice of Homeopathy, because it is probably the largest and, if you ask me, the most pathetic of them all. So I thought it deserved, on those credentials, to have a blog dedicated to itself.
So, what is Homeopathy?
Well, it is a system of dosing up on a dilute solution of.... WATER! Yup, you read it correctly, WATER. H2O. Its central tenet, founded in the late 18th century (before science discovered that germs and bacterias cause diseases!) by Samuel Hahneman, is the notion of "Like cures like". What this basically means is that what causes a certain symptom can cure those symptoms. For example, dilute poison ivy can cure skin rash, because undiluted it causes that rash. You might now start to think that I´m caricaturing, oversimplifying or ridiculing, but I assure you that these all are the actual principles of homeopathy! But wait, it gets more bizarre!
According to homeopathy, the more you dilute an active ingredient in water, the stronger it becomes. If you pick up a homeopathic remedy, you´re likely to see "30C" on the bottle. This means one part medicine to a hundred to the power of thirty parts water. Let me write it again, so there are no misunderstandings:
ONE PART MEDICINE TO A HUNDRED TO THE POWER OF THIRTY PARTS WATER.
To give you, my dear reader, an imaginable idea of how much this is, I will put it like this:
In order to get one molecule of the active substance, you need to imbibe ALL THE ATOMS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM!!! Imagine one grain of sand in the Sahara desert, divide it by a billion, and you´re starting to get an idea of what we´re talking about.
Maybe this is why homeopaths themselves acknowledge that there isn´t a single molecule of the active substance in the bottle they sell. So, when you think you´re buying a remedy that contains diluted molecules of, say, onion (for streaming eyes), ask the homeopath if the substance actually has a single molecule of onion in it. If they are honest, they will say that it does not.
But homeopaths aren´t too concerned about this. Because they claim that the remedies work because (and this is absolutely true!) water is supposed to have a memory! So, when you initially start diluting the water with the substance, you´re supposedly changing the structure of the water, and when you´re taking remedies, this "new form of water" (should I pause for you to stop laughing?) provokes your immune system to battle against whatever it is you´re struggling with...
Interestingly enough, there has never, EVER, been a scientific test that shows that water has any such abilities. But let us say it has. Wouldn´t then the water we drink in our daily life be subject to the same procedure? The water we drink every day has been in contact with urine, excrement, poison, blood, billions of different viruses and bacteria. Why aren´t we dropping down dead or, better still, why haven´t we evolved an uncrackable immune system??? Homeopaths claim that the reason why their water works this way is because it is distilled, and almost pure. Well, first of all, you can never get 100% pure water, even if you kept distilling it for twenty years. But that doesn´t make any difference, because the water we drink today has, at one point or another, been very pure.
Homeopathy is not regulated by the government. What this means is that ANYONE can call themselves a homeopath, without any form of education, degree or even insurance, and start prescribing these remedies. One might ask: "Well, what´s the harm? They´re only dashing out water anyway!". Well, the harm of this is that people who might need REAL, SCIENTIFIC medicine will turn to uneducated, self-proclaimed "doctors" and think they are being helped, while their condition worsens, and in the worst possible scenario lead to death. There have been many instances where people who were in need of proper medicine and a proper doctor, turned to a homeopathic charlatan, which resulted in their demise. Simon Singh, the great scientific writer, conducted an experiment where his subjects visited thirty homeopathic shops and asked for a protection for malaria, because they were going to be in a heavily infested area on holiday. EVERY SINGLE ONE of those shops offered a remedy for the protection of malaria.... This is not harmless, this is dangerous, wicked and cruel.
My movement teacher and I had a debate about homeopathy once. She, being a fierce supporter, said something that I never picked up on at the time, but that has stuck with me ever since. She said that when she or any member of her family feels ill, she doesn´t need to visit a doctor anymore, she just goes to her homeopathic book, looks up the symptoms, and finds the cure for it... Think about this for a while... How extremely disrespectful (although unintentionally) this is to our doctors. Doctors, who study day and night for a minimum of 5 years, in what is one of the hardest academical branches there is, and then carry on studying in the hospitals where they work, people who have dedicated their lives to help others, who have sacrificed blood, sweat and tears to deserve one of the most prestigious titles in society today... My movement teacher claims to be on par with these people, because she has a book... One book... She doesn´t need these people anymore... Yet, I was the one being called arrogant after the debate...
This is the other problem with homeopathy. It makes people who are uneducated in the field of medicine believe they can be hobby doctors. People with no understanding of the vertebrate immune system, of the causation of different conditions, of the biology of our organs, the evolution of our specie and how that relates to medicine, think that they can study homeopathy and provide answers...
Homeopathy does not work. You, my dear reader, have surely met at least one, probably many, who swear by homeopathy and its effects, or you might be one yourself. Let me ask you one question: If I was the person who decided on whether or not homeopathy is to be introduced in every single NHS clinic in Britain, would you want me to rely on your and everyone else´s anecdotes, or would you want me to test the claims of homeopathy by using the scientific method? I hope your answer is the second option. Well, it has been tested.
In 2005, the medical journal THE LANCET surveyed all the meta-analysis (basically the analysis of the analysis) and failed to find "reliable effect of homeopathy". I will end this post with a summary of their findings, but before I do so, I have to recommend some videos for you to watch! So here they are my friends:
"The homeopathic test":
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Ozfio_e1Xj0 (part 1)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bMDV-4KGWi8&feature=related (part 2)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5SMegB9-QUk&feature=related (part 3)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bxnaSNkKOvo&feature=related (part 4)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QPOK3f1OoBg&feature=related (part 5)
Also interesting:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4720837385783230047&ei=QZiISvrjHovM-Abwsq2uCg&q=enemies+of+reason
This one is quite horrendous:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEDYsI7lBd8
This is very funny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0
And here´s the summary from the LANCET test:
The Lancet, Volume 366, Issue 9487, Pages 726 - 732, 27 August 2005
Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy
Aijing Shang MD a, Karin Huwiler-Müntener MD a, Linda Nartey MD a, Peter Jüni MD a b, Stephan Dörig a c, Jonathan AC Sterne PhD b, Daniel Pewsner MD a d, Prof Matthias Egger MD a b
Summary
Background
Homoeopathy is widely used, but specific effects of homoeopathic remedies seem implausible. Bias in the conduct and reporting of trials is a possible explanation for positive findings of trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. We analysed trials of homoeopathy and conventional medicine and estimated treatment effects in trials least likely to be affected by bias.
Methods
Placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy were identified by a comprehensive literature search, which covered 19 electronic databases, reference lists of relevant papers, and contacts with experts. Trials in conventional medicine matched to homoeopathy trials for disorder and type of outcome were randomly selected from the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (issue 1, 2003). Data were extracted in duplicate and outcomes coded so that odds ratios below 1 indicated benefit. Trials described as double-blind, with adequate randomisation, were assumed to be of higher methodological quality. Bias effects were examined in funnel plots and meta-regression models.
Findings
110 homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials were analysed. The median study size was 65 participants (range ten to 1573). 21 homoeopathy trials (19%) and nine (8%) conventional-medicine trials were of higher quality. In both groups, smaller trials and those of lower quality showed more beneficial treatment effects than larger and higher-quality trials. When the analysis was restricted to large trials of higher quality, the odds ratio was 0·88 (95% CI 0·65—1·19) for homoeopathy (eight trials) and 0·58 (0·39—0·85) for conventional medicine (six trials).
Interpretation
Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.
All the best!
Sunday 16 August 2009
Friday 14 August 2009
Alternative Medicine
Today I will try to explore the multi-million dollar industry that is Alternative Medicine.
What is Alternative Medicine? Well, there are so many different kinds of Alternative Medicine, that to try to box all of them in one category is quite impossible. There are:
* Herbal Treatments
* Homeopathy
* Acupuncture
* Eastern Medicine
* Massage Therapy
* Chiropractic
and so forth.
First question to ask is: Why are these called ALTERNATIVE medicine? Well, they are alternative as oppose to SCIENTIFIC TESTED MEDICINE. That is the main difference. In the traditional, scientific world of medicine, the simplest medicine can take over ten years from the day it is produced to the day it hits the markets. Rigorous testing, publishing in scientific journals, fierce examination and testing by unbiased experts are all requirements for a substance to be approved as medicine. Alternative Medicine has no such process. Whenever the proponents of Alternative Medicine have been approached to publish their claims in peer-reviewed journals, they have either refused or been debunked by scientific tests.
The supporters of Alternative Medicine always have anecdotal stories about how a relative or themselves were helped by choosing the nontraditional cure. Well, this is just not good enough, and it actually has a very simple explanation.
Say for example that you have a cold. You don´t want to go to a doctor, because you expect the cold to last for couple of days, and then pass. But after a few days, your cold is worse, and you visit your doctor who assures you that it will be better soon, and that you don´t need any medication. On your way home from this disappointing experience you pass a Alternative Health Shop that advertises remedies for anything from cold to cancer. You, in your desperation, walk in and the store clerk recommends a substance that the Chinese have been using for centuries. You feel hopeful, take out your cash and start using the medicine. Couple of days later, you start feeling perfectly well. The alternative medicine worked! Well, not really... Your bodies immune system worked, just as the doctor you had visited told you it will. But since you started taking the alternative medication on the PEAK of your illness, just as it was about to start declining, you credit your well-being to the cure you bought.
Most of the deceases we encounter in our daily life are self cured. Our bodies immune system is something extraordinary, and it will fight most germs and bacterias by itself. And we rarely seek a doctor the instant we start feeling ill, we usually wait until we can´t stand it anymore, which is when whatever it is we are struggling with is at its peak, right before it starts loosing the battle against our white blood cells. Taking Alternative Medication and claiming it was what defended our bodies is just not good enough.
Don´t you want the medicine you put in to your body to be a product that has undergone years of meticulous, punctilious examination? Is this not a requirement we should DEMAND of those claiming to sell us products that will help us improve our health? Is this not the logical path to take? I don´t mind people shunning traditional western medicine, but I truly hope that on this point we agree!
One of the favorite claims of the Alternative Medicine Industry is a version of the following:
"The Chinese have been using this substance for centuries!"
Aaah, the Chinese! Yes, include "Oriental" or "Chinese" in your sales pitch and you can´t go wrong! Because we rarely think about the average age of the Chinese just a few decades ago was approximately 40, and their health standards are, according to the WHO much lower than us in the affluent world. But there is something mysterious and fascinating about the worlds fourth largest country, an idea that has been fed to us through media over decades. Truth of the matter is that the Chinese are crying out for westernized medicine. Just compare Hong Kong, with their modernized health care system, and China, with its primitive dito. Where do you think you find the healthiest people? On average?
I could go on and on attacking the Alternative Medicine movement, especially Homeopathy (which I claim is run by charlatans), and dissect one after the other, but I feel that it would be better to recommend these wonderful sources that confronts it much more eloquently than I ever could:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7218293233140975017&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4720837385783230047&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9178913674543933493&ei=6naFSuafAsaA-Aamg8nGCQ&q=the+skeptoid&hl=en
For further reading, look up Simon Singhs fantastic book on the subject "Trick or Treatment".
All the best!
What is Alternative Medicine? Well, there are so many different kinds of Alternative Medicine, that to try to box all of them in one category is quite impossible. There are:
* Herbal Treatments
* Homeopathy
* Acupuncture
* Eastern Medicine
* Massage Therapy
* Chiropractic
and so forth.
First question to ask is: Why are these called ALTERNATIVE medicine? Well, they are alternative as oppose to SCIENTIFIC TESTED MEDICINE. That is the main difference. In the traditional, scientific world of medicine, the simplest medicine can take over ten years from the day it is produced to the day it hits the markets. Rigorous testing, publishing in scientific journals, fierce examination and testing by unbiased experts are all requirements for a substance to be approved as medicine. Alternative Medicine has no such process. Whenever the proponents of Alternative Medicine have been approached to publish their claims in peer-reviewed journals, they have either refused or been debunked by scientific tests.
The supporters of Alternative Medicine always have anecdotal stories about how a relative or themselves were helped by choosing the nontraditional cure. Well, this is just not good enough, and it actually has a very simple explanation.
Say for example that you have a cold. You don´t want to go to a doctor, because you expect the cold to last for couple of days, and then pass. But after a few days, your cold is worse, and you visit your doctor who assures you that it will be better soon, and that you don´t need any medication. On your way home from this disappointing experience you pass a Alternative Health Shop that advertises remedies for anything from cold to cancer. You, in your desperation, walk in and the store clerk recommends a substance that the Chinese have been using for centuries. You feel hopeful, take out your cash and start using the medicine. Couple of days later, you start feeling perfectly well. The alternative medicine worked! Well, not really... Your bodies immune system worked, just as the doctor you had visited told you it will. But since you started taking the alternative medication on the PEAK of your illness, just as it was about to start declining, you credit your well-being to the cure you bought.
Most of the deceases we encounter in our daily life are self cured. Our bodies immune system is something extraordinary, and it will fight most germs and bacterias by itself. And we rarely seek a doctor the instant we start feeling ill, we usually wait until we can´t stand it anymore, which is when whatever it is we are struggling with is at its peak, right before it starts loosing the battle against our white blood cells. Taking Alternative Medication and claiming it was what defended our bodies is just not good enough.
Don´t you want the medicine you put in to your body to be a product that has undergone years of meticulous, punctilious examination? Is this not a requirement we should DEMAND of those claiming to sell us products that will help us improve our health? Is this not the logical path to take? I don´t mind people shunning traditional western medicine, but I truly hope that on this point we agree!
One of the favorite claims of the Alternative Medicine Industry is a version of the following:
"The Chinese have been using this substance for centuries!"
Aaah, the Chinese! Yes, include "Oriental" or "Chinese" in your sales pitch and you can´t go wrong! Because we rarely think about the average age of the Chinese just a few decades ago was approximately 40, and their health standards are, according to the WHO much lower than us in the affluent world. But there is something mysterious and fascinating about the worlds fourth largest country, an idea that has been fed to us through media over decades. Truth of the matter is that the Chinese are crying out for westernized medicine. Just compare Hong Kong, with their modernized health care system, and China, with its primitive dito. Where do you think you find the healthiest people? On average?
I could go on and on attacking the Alternative Medicine movement, especially Homeopathy (which I claim is run by charlatans), and dissect one after the other, but I feel that it would be better to recommend these wonderful sources that confronts it much more eloquently than I ever could:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7218293233140975017&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4720837385783230047&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9178913674543933493&ei=6naFSuafAsaA-Aamg8nGCQ&q=the+skeptoid&hl=en
For further reading, look up Simon Singhs fantastic book on the subject "Trick or Treatment".
All the best!
Wednesday 5 August 2009
Are markets moral?
Well, of course they are! Why? Because WE are moral beings. It´s actually as simple as that. Anti-capitalists and socialists always talk about the greed of capitalism. Well, this "greed" is actually better described as self-interest. Capitalism is the best available platform where an individual can most efficiently pursue his or her happiness.
You might now be thinking that this leads to a society build on selfishness and not caring for our fellow human being, but this is not the case! Because through evolution, our best self interest is almost always dependent on the best possible outcome for others, mainly those in our closest circle.
Many of us have imagined, at one point or another, what it would be like to win the lottery. We start fantasizing what we would do with the money. Now, ask yourself, has your imaginary actions with that money been strictly self-centered, so much that it excludes anyone else? Of course not. You might imagine that you will buy a home for your mother, or that you´ll take your girlfriend on a cruise, or that you will build a amusement center for kids. Few of us, if any, would ever imagine to do things by ourselves, like an old Scrooge. Me being happy is dependent on those around me being happy.
This principle works in capitalism as well. For Bill Gates to gain the most possible wealth, Microsoft has to deliver the best possible software at the least possible cost for the consumers. Thanks to a competitive market, he is forced to do so, since the people who would provide him with the wealth could otherwise turn to his competitors. It is by keeping the consumers, you and me, happy by providing the best product at the least possible cost, that Bill Gates can be as wealthy as he is. His self-interest is therefore dependent on our happiness.
It is when this principle of FREE market is abolished that we don´t see this outcome. When bureaucratic interference with the market allows companies to work around this fundamental principle of capitalism, things start to go wrong. When businesses receive subsidies from the government, they are protected from competition, and those who suffer are the consumers, i.e you and me. An example of this was when Reagan, that supposed hero of free market capitalism, saw that Harley Davidson, a domestic company, could not provide the average American worker with the best motorcycles to the lowest price when confronted with competition from Japanese manufacturers, and therefore raised the tariffs on import of motorcycles from 4.4% to a staggering 49.4%. Who suffered? The American consumers who were no longer able to buy foreign motorcycles cheaper. This is one of millions of examples that can be given where governmental interference in the market hurts the people when trying to protect the companies.
Maybe the most recent example of this is the current recession. When politicians start promising the voters that they will all be able to afford new houses, as if this was somehow the right of everyone, we should not be cheering, we should be suspicious. Because the housing market, like any other market, should be of no business of bureaucrats who know nothing of its system. So when the government started forcing banks to lower their cred-criteria, and lending money to people who couldn´t afford to pay it back, the market could not function and the bubble exploded, leaving us in this current mess.
What will happen if the market is allowed to function without the government trying to control it, then? Well, look at Hong Kong. The market has flourished and the people can take advantage of massive improvements in technology, health care, education and so forth. But why would we ever want politicians trying to control the market??? Ask yourself this:
You´re going to fly with an Airline. Who would you want to control whether or not it is safe to fly with that specific airline, a government bureaucrat who, if he makes mistakes might loose his job, or the people working for that Airline, who if they make a mistake will loose their lives, their loved ones and the reputations of that Airline? Who has most to gain or loose? This is how the market works, it is self-regulatory. Because companies are driven by self-interest, they are very sensitive to the interest of their customers, you and me. And that is how the market is moral!
All the best
You might now be thinking that this leads to a society build on selfishness and not caring for our fellow human being, but this is not the case! Because through evolution, our best self interest is almost always dependent on the best possible outcome for others, mainly those in our closest circle.
Many of us have imagined, at one point or another, what it would be like to win the lottery. We start fantasizing what we would do with the money. Now, ask yourself, has your imaginary actions with that money been strictly self-centered, so much that it excludes anyone else? Of course not. You might imagine that you will buy a home for your mother, or that you´ll take your girlfriend on a cruise, or that you will build a amusement center for kids. Few of us, if any, would ever imagine to do things by ourselves, like an old Scrooge. Me being happy is dependent on those around me being happy.
This principle works in capitalism as well. For Bill Gates to gain the most possible wealth, Microsoft has to deliver the best possible software at the least possible cost for the consumers. Thanks to a competitive market, he is forced to do so, since the people who would provide him with the wealth could otherwise turn to his competitors. It is by keeping the consumers, you and me, happy by providing the best product at the least possible cost, that Bill Gates can be as wealthy as he is. His self-interest is therefore dependent on our happiness.
It is when this principle of FREE market is abolished that we don´t see this outcome. When bureaucratic interference with the market allows companies to work around this fundamental principle of capitalism, things start to go wrong. When businesses receive subsidies from the government, they are protected from competition, and those who suffer are the consumers, i.e you and me. An example of this was when Reagan, that supposed hero of free market capitalism, saw that Harley Davidson, a domestic company, could not provide the average American worker with the best motorcycles to the lowest price when confronted with competition from Japanese manufacturers, and therefore raised the tariffs on import of motorcycles from 4.4% to a staggering 49.4%. Who suffered? The American consumers who were no longer able to buy foreign motorcycles cheaper. This is one of millions of examples that can be given where governmental interference in the market hurts the people when trying to protect the companies.
Maybe the most recent example of this is the current recession. When politicians start promising the voters that they will all be able to afford new houses, as if this was somehow the right of everyone, we should not be cheering, we should be suspicious. Because the housing market, like any other market, should be of no business of bureaucrats who know nothing of its system. So when the government started forcing banks to lower their cred-criteria, and lending money to people who couldn´t afford to pay it back, the market could not function and the bubble exploded, leaving us in this current mess.
What will happen if the market is allowed to function without the government trying to control it, then? Well, look at Hong Kong. The market has flourished and the people can take advantage of massive improvements in technology, health care, education and so forth. But why would we ever want politicians trying to control the market??? Ask yourself this:
You´re going to fly with an Airline. Who would you want to control whether or not it is safe to fly with that specific airline, a government bureaucrat who, if he makes mistakes might loose his job, or the people working for that Airline, who if they make a mistake will loose their lives, their loved ones and the reputations of that Airline? Who has most to gain or loose? This is how the market works, it is self-regulatory. Because companies are driven by self-interest, they are very sensitive to the interest of their customers, you and me. And that is how the market is moral!
All the best
Monday 3 August 2009
Legalize all drugs!
Well, the title should have some people scratching their head whilst they curse me behind their computer screens. But since you are here, please listen to what I have to say, and then make your judgment.
I do believe all drugs should be legalized. The reason for this is quite simple, really: It is not a crime to hurt your own body. But that is not the best part of it! You might be a religious person who thinks that the body belongs to God and should be sacred, or you might just not want drugs flowing in the streets for kids to buy, and you´re afraid that legalization means enhanced availability to drugs.
If you belong to the first category, I am afraid that it is not good enough. Your religion should not dictate what others should be allowed to do. And if you truly believe that the body is Gods sacred temple, you should be against tobacco, alcohol, McDonald's, Caffeine, sweets etc. And by against, I mean you should be fighting for the prohibition of it. But the second category is much more authoritative, if somewhat deranged. Because today, children have much easier access to drugs then they have to alcohol (drug dealers rarely ask for ID). The availability of illegal drugs is, whether we like to admit it or not, massive.
By legalizing it, we can control it. We remove the profit from the black market, and we regulate it. We have strict license-laws on those who sell it, and we tax it.
Prohibition has never worked. It didn´t work for alcohol in the 1920´s, and it hasn´t worked for drugs. Illegal substances have become cheaper, more available, usage has gone up, new and more dangerous forms of drugs have entered the market, and the drugs today are much purer than they were couple of decades ago. The "War against drugs" has burdened the tax payers in America with more than $200 BILLION since it was first announced by Richard Nixon. Yet, there has never been a step forward. Maybe time for another strategy?
We can help our citizens instead of locking them in to prisons. Rehabilitation for an addict costs on average 1/7 of the cost of putting them in to prisons. We can eliminate the number one reason for death amongst heroin junkies: HIV and AIDS. The Netherlands, with their system of having the heroine junkie receiving their fix by a nurse, with a clean needle, under controlled circumstances, has less than 50% of HIV and AIDS cases than SWEDEN, even though they have almost 50% more population.
The people who don´t want drugs legalized are the criminals who make millions from the black market profits. Why let them control this market? Surely we can do a better job? By controlling and regulating the use of drugs, we can hurt the criminal underworld by landing a massive blow to their arguably greatest source of income. We remove the drugs from the streets and the hands of irresponsible, money-hungry snakes, and take control of the distribution of it.
The medical benefits of marijuana are too many to mention. This is one of the main reasons it is not legal in the US. Because the most profitable of all the lobbies in America is the pharmaceutical companies. They would loose billions if a plant you can grow yourself, that would help relieve so much pain and distress amongst suffering people, were legalized. Make no mistake about it, this is the main reason. There has never, in 10 000 years of documented usage, been a death due to usage of marijuana.
The GATEWAY theory.
To say that marijuana is a gateway drug is like saying that milk leads to alcohol. This is absolute nonsense. It is not the substance that causes people to start using heavier drugs, it is the fact that is illegal!! Because people who smoke marijuana have to get it from dealers who almost always deal with heavier drugs. So, they will one day offer something like Cocaine or XTC to their client, and having had someone take the first step in doing something illegal, the next step isn´t too far away.
We have alcohol and tobacco legalized in almost every country in the world. In America, 440 000 people die annually from tobacco, and over 100 000 from alcohol. Again, no one has ever died from smoking marijuana! Ever...
But this is not the point! The point is that it should be legalized, because it is not a crime to inject poison in to your own body. We do it constantly, by smoking, drinking, eating fast food, drinking coffee... By legalizing drugs, we can have a much stronger overview on our citizens who take these substances and help them quit. Today, all we have done, with prohibition, is to wipe the problem under the carpet.
There is an agency in America called LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition). It consists of over 10 000 narcotic officers, lawyers and judges who want an end to this war. United States has 5% of the worlds population, but 25% of the worlds inmates. Over 700 000 people are arrested each year for smoking marijuana! For smoking a plant... 700 000 NON-VIOLENT PEOPLE!!! And the punishment is often worse than murder or rape!!! When did things go so wrong???
There is not a SINGLE scientific research, and by scientific I mean unbiased, that is not performed by governmental agencies, but by impartial institutions, that show that marijuana is any more dangerous than a cup of coffee. There has been HUNDREDS of studies that show that marijuana has extreme medical benefits, though.
Those who use drugs (and I have personally never used an illegal drug) are not bad people. They are maybe weak, but that is not a crime. Why not create a system that will help them, and at the same time make money out of it, that we can put in to health care, education, research for alternative fuel, fight global warming etc.? Why not use those $100 billion that is used annually to fight against our own citizens in a war we can never win, to try to find a cure for HIV and Cancer?
Why send non-violent people to prison, charged with an artificial crime, where they learn to be real criminals or often end up dead whilst locked in?
I could go on for days arguing the benefits of legalization, but I would ask you, if you are skeptical, to have a look at your own society, where drugs are illegal. Is it working? Are there no children in your city that have used or are using drugs? Has the police never caught anyone in your town for possession or distribution of drugs? Is drug usage decreasing anywhere in the world? Is the criminal underground diminishing? Are your tax dollars or yens or crowns or pesetas put in to good use?
I hope I have at least given you food for thought, my goal is not to convince you that I´m right, I just hope you have an open mind and you´re willing to find out more about it.
Why not start with this brilliant documentary;
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007
All the best!
I do believe all drugs should be legalized. The reason for this is quite simple, really: It is not a crime to hurt your own body. But that is not the best part of it! You might be a religious person who thinks that the body belongs to God and should be sacred, or you might just not want drugs flowing in the streets for kids to buy, and you´re afraid that legalization means enhanced availability to drugs.
If you belong to the first category, I am afraid that it is not good enough. Your religion should not dictate what others should be allowed to do. And if you truly believe that the body is Gods sacred temple, you should be against tobacco, alcohol, McDonald's, Caffeine, sweets etc. And by against, I mean you should be fighting for the prohibition of it. But the second category is much more authoritative, if somewhat deranged. Because today, children have much easier access to drugs then they have to alcohol (drug dealers rarely ask for ID). The availability of illegal drugs is, whether we like to admit it or not, massive.
By legalizing it, we can control it. We remove the profit from the black market, and we regulate it. We have strict license-laws on those who sell it, and we tax it.
Prohibition has never worked. It didn´t work for alcohol in the 1920´s, and it hasn´t worked for drugs. Illegal substances have become cheaper, more available, usage has gone up, new and more dangerous forms of drugs have entered the market, and the drugs today are much purer than they were couple of decades ago. The "War against drugs" has burdened the tax payers in America with more than $200 BILLION since it was first announced by Richard Nixon. Yet, there has never been a step forward. Maybe time for another strategy?
We can help our citizens instead of locking them in to prisons. Rehabilitation for an addict costs on average 1/7 of the cost of putting them in to prisons. We can eliminate the number one reason for death amongst heroin junkies: HIV and AIDS. The Netherlands, with their system of having the heroine junkie receiving their fix by a nurse, with a clean needle, under controlled circumstances, has less than 50% of HIV and AIDS cases than SWEDEN, even though they have almost 50% more population.
The people who don´t want drugs legalized are the criminals who make millions from the black market profits. Why let them control this market? Surely we can do a better job? By controlling and regulating the use of drugs, we can hurt the criminal underworld by landing a massive blow to their arguably greatest source of income. We remove the drugs from the streets and the hands of irresponsible, money-hungry snakes, and take control of the distribution of it.
The medical benefits of marijuana are too many to mention. This is one of the main reasons it is not legal in the US. Because the most profitable of all the lobbies in America is the pharmaceutical companies. They would loose billions if a plant you can grow yourself, that would help relieve so much pain and distress amongst suffering people, were legalized. Make no mistake about it, this is the main reason. There has never, in 10 000 years of documented usage, been a death due to usage of marijuana.
The GATEWAY theory.
To say that marijuana is a gateway drug is like saying that milk leads to alcohol. This is absolute nonsense. It is not the substance that causes people to start using heavier drugs, it is the fact that is illegal!! Because people who smoke marijuana have to get it from dealers who almost always deal with heavier drugs. So, they will one day offer something like Cocaine or XTC to their client, and having had someone take the first step in doing something illegal, the next step isn´t too far away.
We have alcohol and tobacco legalized in almost every country in the world. In America, 440 000 people die annually from tobacco, and over 100 000 from alcohol. Again, no one has ever died from smoking marijuana! Ever...
But this is not the point! The point is that it should be legalized, because it is not a crime to inject poison in to your own body. We do it constantly, by smoking, drinking, eating fast food, drinking coffee... By legalizing drugs, we can have a much stronger overview on our citizens who take these substances and help them quit. Today, all we have done, with prohibition, is to wipe the problem under the carpet.
There is an agency in America called LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition). It consists of over 10 000 narcotic officers, lawyers and judges who want an end to this war. United States has 5% of the worlds population, but 25% of the worlds inmates. Over 700 000 people are arrested each year for smoking marijuana! For smoking a plant... 700 000 NON-VIOLENT PEOPLE!!! And the punishment is often worse than murder or rape!!! When did things go so wrong???
There is not a SINGLE scientific research, and by scientific I mean unbiased, that is not performed by governmental agencies, but by impartial institutions, that show that marijuana is any more dangerous than a cup of coffee. There has been HUNDREDS of studies that show that marijuana has extreme medical benefits, though.
Those who use drugs (and I have personally never used an illegal drug) are not bad people. They are maybe weak, but that is not a crime. Why not create a system that will help them, and at the same time make money out of it, that we can put in to health care, education, research for alternative fuel, fight global warming etc.? Why not use those $100 billion that is used annually to fight against our own citizens in a war we can never win, to try to find a cure for HIV and Cancer?
Why send non-violent people to prison, charged with an artificial crime, where they learn to be real criminals or often end up dead whilst locked in?
I could go on for days arguing the benefits of legalization, but I would ask you, if you are skeptical, to have a look at your own society, where drugs are illegal. Is it working? Are there no children in your city that have used or are using drugs? Has the police never caught anyone in your town for possession or distribution of drugs? Is drug usage decreasing anywhere in the world? Is the criminal underground diminishing? Are your tax dollars or yens or crowns or pesetas put in to good use?
I hope I have at least given you food for thought, my goal is not to convince you that I´m right, I just hope you have an open mind and you´re willing to find out more about it.
Why not start with this brilliant documentary;
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007
All the best!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
