Yemen drugs worth over $83 mln go up in smoke

[Nagishkaw 510]

SANAA (AFP) – Yemeni authorities destroyed on Saturday four tonnes of hashish and six million pills of amphetamines with a street value of more than 83 million dollars, incinerating them in a Sanaa field.

The drugs, seized over the past 16 months, were stored for smuggling to Arab countries across the Gulf, especially oil-rich Saudi Arabia, Saeed al-Akel, a representative of the state prosecutor, told reporters.

He described Yemen, an impoverished Arabian peninsula country, as a key transit route for drug trafficking and said the authorities sought regional cooperation to stem the flow of drugs.

Akel said about 75 suspected drug traffickers were tried in connection with the seized drugs and some of them, including foreigners, were handed prison sentences ranging from 25 years to life.

In March, a Yemeni court condemned a Pakistani man to death for drug trafficking and sentenced 14 of his compatriots to 25 years in jail.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090509/wl_mi..._20090509193438

[peejay 327]

I recently had to renew my OSHA certification for work and one of the chapters of the required curriculum involved Drug and Alcohol Awareness. It was stated in the curriculum materials that I had to read that "60% of the world's production of illegal drugs is consumed in the USA". With over 6 billion people in the world and only 300 million people in the USA I find that appalling. Talk about a bunch of self absorbed, self indulgent hedonists!

Here are some more fun facts I read in the course:

The Problem: Substance Abuse in the Workplace

• 60% of the world's production of illegal drugs is consumed in the U.S.

• Nearly 70% of current users of illegal drugs are employed.

• Nearly 1 in 4 employed Americans between the ages of 18-35 have illegally used drugs.

• 1/3 of employees know of the illegal sale of drugs in their workplace.

• 20% of young workers admit using marijuana on the job.

Consider this...

90% of large businesses have drug free workplace programs in place today, while only 5 to 10% of small and medium sized businesses have

implemented similar programs. The irony here is that about 75% of employed Americans work for these small and medium sized businesses.

Workers who want to avoid substance abuse policy at the large companies take their job search to the smaller businesses, and that's where

they are today!

The Cost: Substance Abuse Adversely Affects Your Balance Sheet

Even though many employers choose to ignore the problem, substance abuse in the workplace has a real impact on their bottom line.

Substance abuse drains more than $100 Billion from American businesses every year in:

• WORKERS' COMPENSATION: 38% to 50% of all Workers' Compensation claims are related to substance abuse in the workplace; substance

abusers file three to five times as many Workers' Compensation claims.

• MEDICAL COSTS: Substance abusers incur 300% higher medical costs than non-abusers.

• ABSENTEEISM: Substance abusers are 2.5 times more likely to be absent eight or more days a year.

• LOST PRODUCTIVITY: Substance abusers are 1/3 less productive.

• EMPLOYEE TURNOVER: It costs a business an average of $7,000 to replace a salaried worker.

Companies who have a Drug Free Workplace Program will find that an investment in educations, prevention, and assistance programs pays

dividends for both the employer and the employees.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

I recently had to renew my OSHA certification for work and one of the chapters of the required curriculum involved Drug and Alcohol Awareness. It was stated in the curriculum materials that I had to read that "60% of the world's production of illegal drugs is consumed in the USA". With over 6 billion people in the world and only 300 million people in the USA I find that appalling. Talk about a bunch of self absorbed, self indulgent hedonists!

Here are some more fun facts I read in the course:

The Problem: Substance Abuse in the Workplace

• 60% of the world's production of illegal drugs is consumed in the U.S.

• Nearly 70% of current users of illegal drugs are employed.

• Nearly 1 in 4 employed Americans between the ages of 18-35 have illegally used drugs.

• 1/3 of employees know of the illegal sale of drugs in their workplace.

• 20% of young workers admit using marijuana on the job.

Consider this...

90% of large businesses have drug free workplace programs in place today, while only 5 to 10% of small and medium sized businesses have

implemented similar programs. The irony here is that about 75% of employed Americans work for these small and medium sized businesses.

Workers who want to avoid substance abuse policy at the large companies take their job search to the smaller businesses, and that's where

they are today!

The Cost: Substance Abuse Adversely Affects Your Balance Sheet

Even though many employers choose to ignore the problem, substance abuse in the workplace has a real impact on their bottom line.

Substance abuse drains more than $100 Billion from American businesses every year in:

• WORKERS' COMPENSATION: 38% to 50% of all Workers' Compensation claims are related to substance abuse in the workplace; substance

abusers file three to five times as many Workers' Compensation claims.

• MEDICAL COSTS: Substance abusers incur 300% higher medical costs than non-abusers.

• ABSENTEEISM: Substance abusers are 2.5 times more likely to be absent eight or more days a year.

• LOST PRODUCTIVITY: Substance abusers are 1/3 less productive.

• EMPLOYEE TURNOVER: It costs a business an average of $7,000 to replace a salaried worker.

Companies who have a Drug Free Workplace Program will find that an investment in educations, prevention, and assistance programs pays

dividends for both the employer and the employees.

but hey, let's legalize it all and race faster to the bottom!

[peejay 327]

I recently had to renew my OSHA certification for work and one of the chapters of the required curriculum involved Drug and Alcohol Awareness. It was stated in the curriculum materials that I had to read that "60% of the world's production of illegal drugs is consumed in the USA". With over 6 billion people in the world and only 300 million people in the USA I find that appalling. Talk about a bunch of self absorbed, self indulgent hedonists!

Here are some more fun facts I read in the course:

The Problem: Substance Abuse in the Workplace

• 60% of the world's production of illegal drugs is consumed in the U.S.

• Nearly 70% of current users of illegal drugs are employed.

• Nearly 1 in 4 employed Americans between the ages of 18-35 have illegally used drugs.

• 1/3 of employees know of the illegal sale of drugs in their workplace.

• 20% of young workers admit using marijuana on the job.

Consider this...

90% of large businesses have drug free workplace programs in place today, while only 5 to 10% of small and medium sized businesses have

implemented similar programs. The irony here is that about 75% of employed Americans work for these small and medium sized businesses.

Workers who want to avoid substance abuse policy at the large companies take their job search to the smaller businesses, and that's where

they are today!

The Cost: Substance Abuse Adversely Affects Your Balance Sheet

Even though many employers choose to ignore the problem, substance abuse in the workplace has a real impact on their bottom line.

Substance abuse drains more than $100 Billion from American businesses every year in:

• WORKERS' COMPENSATION: 38% to 50% of all Workers' Compensation claims are related to substance abuse in the workplace; substance

abusers file three to five times as many Workers' Compensation claims.

• MEDICAL COSTS: Substance abusers incur 300% higher medical costs than non-abusers.

• ABSENTEEISM: Substance abusers are 2.5 times more likely to be absent eight or more days a year.

• LOST PRODUCTIVITY: Substance abusers are 1/3 less productive.

• EMPLOYEE TURNOVER: It costs a business an average of $7,000 to replace a salaried worker.

Companies who have a Drug Free Workplace Program will find that an investment in educations, prevention, and assistance programs pays

dividends for both the employer and the employees.

but hey, let's legalize it all and race faster to the bottom!

It's true. There seems to be a revival of the 1960's and 1970's "if it feels good...do it" mentality of the "me" generation. This stuff is not entirely benign. There is a societal price to be paid for hedonism.

[SaadBell 0]

Know your facts before you start making general statements that are not correct. If you know the facts alcohol is a number one killer, gun violence is off the charts, but your worried about drugs, what drugs are you most worried about? Another fact is that prescription drugs are highly additive and are abused way more than any illegal drugs, what should we do with that problem? Same old propaganda that is responsible for all the drug wars, just like when they tried to outlaw alcohol, which kills everyday in this country, but yet you can go down to the store and get you a six pack of fun.

• The media makes it seem like all drugs are bad. Whether this is true or not is largely irrelevant in their eyes.
• Why were the laws against drugs passed in the first place?
• How many people are actually killed by drugs?
• Which drug causes the greatest burden on our medical facilities?
• Do illegal drugs cause violent crime?
• What does it cost to put a single drug dealer in jail?
• Have countries that have decriminalized drugs self-destructed?
• What should we do about drugs?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why were the laws against drugs passed in the first place?

The first American anti-drug law was an 1875 San Francisco ordinance which outlawed the smoking of opium in opium dens. It was passed because of the fear that Chinese men were luring white women to their "ruin" in opium dens. "Ruin" was defined as associating with Chinese men. It was followed by other similar laws, including Federal laws in which trafficking in opium was forbidden to anyone of Chinese origin, and restrictions on the importation of smoking opium. The laws did not have anything really to do with the importation of opium as a drug, because the importation and use of opium in other forms -- such as in the common medication laudunum -- were not affected. The laws were directed at smoking opium because it was perceived that the smoking of opium was a peculiarly Chinese custom. In short, it was a way of legally targeting the Chinese.

Cocaine was outlawed because of fears that superhuman "Negro Cocaine Fiends" or "Cocainized Niggers" (actual terms used by newspapers in the early 1900's) take large amounts of cocaine which would make them go on a violent sexual rampage and rape white women. There is little evidence that any black men actually did this, if only because it would have been certain death. The United States set a record in 1905 with 105 recorded lynchings of black men. At the same time, police nationwide switched from .32 caliber pistols to .38 caliber pistols because it was believed that the superhuman "Negro Cocaine Fiend" could not be killed with the smaller gun.

Dr. Hamilton Wright is sometimes referred to as the "Father of American Drug Laws". Dr. Wright was the Opium Commissioner at the time and had previously become famous because he had "scientifically proved" that beri-beri was a communicable disease. Beri-beri is a vitamin deficiency.

The Harrison Act which "outlawed" these drugs was, on its face, a simple licensing law which simply required sellers to get a license if they were going to handle the opiates and cocaine. As the Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs has said, it is doubtful that very many members of Congress would have thought that they were passing what would later be regarded as a general drug prohibition. The law even contained a provision that nothing in the law would prohibit doctors from prescribing these drugs in the legitimate practice of medicine.

In fact, even the people who wrote the Harrison Act and the Marijuana Tax Act in 1937 agreed that a general prohibition on what people could put into their own bodies was plainly an unconstitutional infringement on personal liberties. For comparison, see the history of the constitutional amendment which was required to prohibit alcohol. There is no fundamental reason why a constitutional amendment should be required to prohibit one chemical and not another.

The trick was that the bureaucrats who were authorized to issue licenses never did so, and there was a heavy penalty for not having the license. This heavy penalty required that the enforcing bureaucrats needed more staff and, therefore, more power, which, in turn required tougher laws. Over the years, through a series of court rulings, they gradually got the courts to change what had been well-established constitutional law. Specifically, they got the courts to accept the notion that it really was a tax violation when people got arrested for drugs, and that the fact that the government would not issue any licenses was not a defense. They also got the courts to bypass the old issue of whether the Federal Government had the right to control what an individual puts into their own bodies by creating the fiction that whatever the person puts into their bodies must have come as a result of some form of interstate commerce, which is regulated by the Federal Government in the form of taxes and licenses and, therefore, since the Federal Government is allowed to levy a tax it is -- by rather indirect logic -- allowed to regulate what anyone may put into their own bodies.

Marijuana was outlawed in 1937 as a repressive measure against Mexican workers who crossed the border seeking jobs during the Depression. The specific reason given for the outlawing of the hemp plant was its supposed violent "effect on the degenerate races." (Testimony of Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner Harry J. Anslinger, in testimony before Congress in hearings on the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937). The American Medical Association specifically testified that they were opposed to the law. When the supporters of the law were asked about the AMA's view on the law on the floor of Congress, they lied and said that the AMA was in favor of the law because they knew the law would never pass without the AMA's endorsement. The law passed, and the AMA later protested, but the law was never repealed.

In both cases, newspapers across the country carried lurid stories of the awful things that these drugs did to racial minorities, and of the horrors that people of racial minorities inflicted on innocent white people while they were under the influence of these drugs. Later research has shown that not a single one of the stories used to promote these laws could be substantiated.

There never was any scholarly evidence that the laws were necessary, or even beneficial, to public health and safety and none was presented when the laws were passed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How many people are actually killed by drugs?

The number of drug deaths in the US in a typical year is as follows:

• Tobacco kills about 390,000.
• Alcohol kills about 80,000.
• Sidestream smoke from tobacco kills about 50,000.
• Cocaine kills about 2,200.
• Heroin kills about 2,000.
• Aspirin kills about 2,000.
• Marijuana kills 0. There has never been a recorded death due to marijuana at any time in US history.
• All illegal drugs combined kill about 4,500 people per year, or about one percent of the number killed by alcohol and tobacco. Tobacco kills more people each year than all of the people killed by all of the illegal drugs in the last century.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which drug causes the greatest burden on our medical facilities?

Alcohol and tobacco are the clear leaders. Some authorities have estimated that up to forty percent of all hospital care in the United States is for conditions related to alcohol.

As a medical hazard, few drugs can compete with alcohol or tobacco on any scale. A study at Rockefeller University in 1967 concluded that "Tobacco is unquestionably more hazardous to the health than heroin."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do illegal drugs cause violent crime?

All major authorities agree that the vast majority of drug-related violent crime is caused by the prohibition against drugs, rather than the drugs themselves. This was the same situation which was true during alcohol Prohibition. Alcohol Prohibition gave rise to a violent criminal organization. Violent crime dropped 65 percent in the year Prohibition was repealed.

There are about 25,000 homicides in the United States each year. A study of 414 homicides in New York City at the height of the crack epidemic showed that only three murders, less than one percent, could be attributed to the behavioral effects of cocaine or crack.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does it cost to put a single drug dealer in jail?

The cost to put a single drug dealer in jail is about $450,000, composed of the following:

The cost for arrest and conviction is about $150,000.

The cost for an additional prison bed is about $50,000 to $150,000, depending upon the jurisdiction.

It costs about $30,000 per year to house a prisoner. With an average sentence of 5 years, that adds up to another $150,000.

The same $450,000 can provide treatment or education for about 200 people. In addition, putting a person in prison produces about fifteen dollars in related welfare costs, for every dollar spent on incarceration. Every dollar spent on treatment and education saves about five dollars in related welfare costs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have countries that have decriminalized drugs self-destructed?

In New York, heroin and cocaine addicts suffer from tremendous medical problems. In Liverpool, England, most heroin and cocaine addicts suffer few medical problems.

In New York, most drug addicts are unemployed criminals. In Liverpool, most drug addicts are gainfully employed taxpayers.

In New York, crime committed by drug addicts is a major problem. In Liverpool, it is a very minor problem.

In New York, drug addicts often have their children taken away and live under miserable conditions. In Liverpool, most addicts live with their families in stable homes and manage to raise healthy, well-adjusted children.

In New York, thousands of babies are permanently damaged every year by their mother's drug use. In Liverpool, health authorities report no cases of harm to infants as a result of their mother's drug use.

In New York, sixty percent of all intravenous drug users are infected with AIDS, and they are a major cause of the spread of AIDS. In Liverpool, only one percent of the intravenous drug users are infected with AIDS and they are a very minor source of infection for the rest of the population.

In the United States, drug use is illegal and the police hunt down drug users to throw them in prison. Four thousand people died from illegal drugs in the US last year and we now have more than 600,000 people in prison on drug charges.

In Liverpool, England, the police do not arrest drug users any more. Instead, health care workers seek them out and encourage them to come in for counseling and medical treatment. Both counseling and medical treatment are provided on demand. The medical treatment often includes maintenance doses of narcotics under the management of a physician.

Clearly, the answer is no.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What should we do about drugs?

The overwhelming weight of the scholarly evidence on drug policy supports decriminalization. Every major study of drug policy in history has recommended a non-criminal approach. This is irrefutable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More information

Here are the facts: (from http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/basicfax.htm)

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I recently had to renew my OSHA certification for work and one of the chapters of the required curriculum involved Drug and Alcohol Awareness. It was stated in the curriculum materials that I had to read that "60% of the world's production of illegal drugs is consumed in the USA". With over 6 billion people in the world and only 300 million people in the USA I find that appalling. Talk about a bunch of self absorbed, self indulgent hedonists!

Here are some more fun facts I read in the course:

The Problem: Substance Abuse in the Workplace

• 60% of the world's production of illegal drugs is consumed in the U.S.

• Nearly 70% of current users of illegal drugs are employed.

• Nearly 1 in 4 employed Americans between the ages of 18-35 have illegally used drugs.

• 1/3 of employees know of the illegal sale of drugs in their workplace.

• 20% of young workers admit using marijuana on the job.

Consider this...

90% of large businesses have drug free workplace programs in place today, while only 5 to 10% of small and medium sized businesses have

implemented similar programs. The irony here is that about 75% of employed Americans work for these small and medium sized businesses.

Workers who want to avoid substance abuse policy at the large companies take their job search to the smaller businesses, and that's where

they are today!

The Cost: Substance Abuse Adversely Affects Your Balance Sheet

Even though many employers choose to ignore the problem, substance abuse in the workplace has a real impact on their bottom line.

Substance abuse drains more than $100 Billion from American businesses every year in:

• WORKERS' COMPENSATION: 38% to 50% of all Workers' Compensation claims are related to substance abuse in the workplace; substance

abusers file three to five times as many Workers' Compensation claims.

• MEDICAL COSTS: Substance abusers incur 300% higher medical costs than non-abusers.

• ABSENTEEISM: Substance abusers are 2.5 times more likely to be absent eight or more days a year.

• LOST PRODUCTIVITY: Substance abusers are 1/3 less productive.

• EMPLOYEE TURNOVER: It costs a business an average of $7,000 to replace a salaried worker.

Companies who have a Drug Free Workplace Program will find that an investment in educations, prevention, and assistance programs pays

dividends for both the employer and the employees.

Yet alcohol and tobacco kill more. Keep drinking you functional alcoholics.

Different drugs for different strokes. And relax.... I'm on a random drug testing program through work. But I believe in free choice. I choose to stay drug-free and work.