Modernization Hub

Modernization and Improvement
Drugs and Human Behavior Lecture 3

Drugs and Human Behavior Lecture 3

>>Okay. Here we are. We’re ready. Welcome to chapter three. Today we’re talking about drug policy. Let me see if I can get this
to go to full screen here. Hang with me. I want to show from the beginning,
that’s what we want. Okay. Do that. Okay fantastic. Good, good. All right. So today, like I said, we’re
talking about drug policy. What’s really interesting to me about
this is that this is one of the chapters that even though the information
generally stays the same, the actual policies change dramatically
year by year, month by month. Right now is a huge time for
changing of drug policies. A lot of research is being
done on different drugs that are technically controlled substances
currently or schedule one’s substances. We’re going to get there within this chapter. But if you think about the videos that I had you
watch at the beginning, you can see the changes that have happened over the years that I have
been teaching this class, very big differences in how they report on a drug like marijuana. So let’s get going. There we go. Okay. So when we, let me see if I can, I’ve
got something on my screen I need to move. Okay. So when we talk about drugs, we talk
about two different classes of drug laws. Okay. We have our regulation of “legal” drugs. Okay. Now, because a drug is legal it
does not actually make it safe or allowed for recreational use, but
they’re technically legal drugs. So when we talk about the regulation, we’re
going to talk about pharmaceutical companies, we talk about pharmacists, we talk about
rules and regulations for physicians, and of course everybody else who
manufactures and dispenses these legal drugs. Legal drugs are a huge money-making
market, right. There are many lobbyists, even if
we have research that says maybe one of these legal drugs is not that
great for the general public. Those companies have lobbyists. They have a lot of money to defend their drug, and it’s already legal, so
it gives them some leeway. Legalizing drugs that are currently illegal
is difficult, and you see that happening now, and it is happening in some
states with some certain drugs. Okay. So the other class of drug laws
pertains to criminalization of certain drugs. So criminalization of use, of
possession, of sales, and over time, you have different laws about different things. So, for example, you can purchase,
what kind of example do I want to use, so you can purchase spores of certain types
of mushrooms that would be hallucinogenic, and you are legally allowed to
purchase them in some states. However, is illegal to then
grow them and use them as a mind-altering substance, so as a “drug.” In some places it’s okay to
possess, but it’s not okay to sell. There’s a lot, a lot, a lot, and each
state, each sometimes county, is different. Okay. Let’s start from the beginning here. And this is the beginnings of regulation,
issues that led to legislation. So originally the ideas were just
simply, look, these are drugs. People can choose to do what they want to do. There were no regulations. So first we had fraud and
specifically about patent medicines. In the next slides we’re going to go
into these things more specifically. So I’ll just go through. We’re going to talk about fraud. We’re going to talk about morality and racism. We’re going to talk about three pieces
of legislation, and I will warn you know that these legislation pieces here will come up in almost every chapter
for the rest of the semester. I would highly recommend you know
what these three things are now. If you’re a notecard person, these
are things you put on notecards. We’re going to talk about
the Pure Food and Drug Acts. We’re going to talk about the Harrison Act,
and we’re going to talk about prohibition. All right. So let’s talk about fraud. Like I said, originally everything cool,
everything great, people were allowed to sell “medicines” to people and not
exactly tell them the truth about it. All right. So, for example, I love this. Cocaine tooth drops, the
instantaneous cure, right. So, yes, putting cocaine on your gums and
teeth are going to help them not feel so bad. It’s going to help with the pain. People sold things with cocaine in it
for weight loss, for this, for that. Cocaine was in a lot of stuff, and
to tell you the truth, sure it works. However, people were making these kind of giant
false therapeutic claims and not mentioning that it’s intensely addictive or habit forming. So, once people started to realize that
these companies are taking advantage of the general public, they’re not letting
people know the truth about things. It made it, it made it so that
there had to be some legislation, there had to be some laws
around what people can do. Okay. So that’s one of the reasons
to protect the general public. Okay. Other things, so here we go, so other
things are what people feel is more and immoral and also how people feel about certain groups
of people who are using specific types of drugs. Okay. So for some reason people have sort of
this gut reaction about certain drugs, right. So people have this gut reaction that heroin
is bad but that morphine maybe is okay. Right. They’re generally the same drug, it’s
just that often now because one is illegal and one is not it is used in different
settings, different types of people use it, it is maybe injected in unsafe ways
when we’re talking about heroin injected in hospital settings when
we talk about morphine. Okay. So there are those sort of just
like gut reactions that people have. And people feel very strongly, right, about do
I think marijuana should be legal or illegal. People have often a pretty strong gut reaction
to that based on maybe the way they were raised, based on maybe their own experiences,
so there’s that “morality piece.” Now, the other part of it is the idea that there
are specific groups of people at certain points of history who specifically use, I’ll
say it again, specific drugs, okay. So when we talk about that, the
example that often is brought is opium. So opium smoking brought to
the U.S. by Chinese workers. Okay. So the idea is that Chinese workers
came to the U.S., and they were smoking opium. And then it turned into this big thing of
oh my gosh, these guys have these opium dens and they are luring our, you know, women into
them, and they’re taking advantage of them, and they’re getting them addicted to opium,
and there’s all this drama around it. Were there opium dens? Yeah. However, people made it into this
big, big thing that it kind of wasn’t. In order to then make something illegal
that these particular people were using, and therefore if it’s illegal,
you can arrest these people. You can kind of get rid of them, right. However, interesting the U.S. was actually
involved in international drug trade. So, some complications there. If you’re interested more in that story, do
go to your book, read a bit more about that. Laws have been passed against importation,
against manufacturing, and against the use of opium, and the role is
generally racism there. I mean we similarly have for a while, you know,
marijuana was associated with a certain group. Different drugs have been associated with
different groups, and then they become illegal. All right. So, other issues leading to legislation. Going back to cocaine, cocaine was present in
so many products, so many patent medicines. Coca Cola, for example, Coca Wine, very popular. And it as viewed as this
cause of increasing crime. Specifically, it was, there was this
big article that was put out that talked about African American men
using cocaine and then all of a sudden becoming these super human people
who were overturning cars and getting guns and, you know, raping women and all this stuff
that was not true, absolutely not true. I mean people just can’t lift a car, but
there was not only just talk about it, but it was actually, there was
an article published saying that these things were facts, which is crazy. However, at the time you
didn’t have the internet, you couldn’t go and check for something else. This was the only information that you got. So you had to believe that it was true. Not had to. Some people probably didn’t, but a lot of
people did, and so because of that regulations, legislation was put in place
to make cocaine illegal. Okay. Let’s talk about the
1906 Pure Food and Drug Act. So, the purpose of the legislation,
it prohibited interstate commerce in misbranded and adulterated food and drugs. Okay. Now, at the time in
1906, misbranding, that word, referred only to labeling and
not to actually advertising. So it really only said that
on the label of the “drug that you have” you have to
tell the truth about it. However, when you go out and you’re trying to
advertise and you’re like, hey, we’ve got this, you know, hair growing tonic and it’s
going to do this and it’s going to do that or whatever it is, you’re
allowed to just lie about it. And of course, you know, nothing said yes you’re
allowed to, but it didn’t say you couldn’t, and if you don’t tell people
you can’t, they will. There were later amendments to this, so the
Pure Food and Drug Act is something that changed over time, and then after that
the amendments came in for testing for safety and testing for effectiveness. Right. So you had to make sure to prove that
it was not going to kill people, safety, and that it was effective, meaning that it
actually did what you say it’s going to do. I find it pretty crazy to think that for a
long period of time, and not that long ago, preterm people were allowed
to just sell anything without showing this was safe or effective. We still have a lot of problems with that
now, but before there was no regulation on it. Moving on. We’ve got our Harrison Act of 1914. So, the purpose of this legislation, this was
now required for those who “produce, import, manufacture, compound, deal in,
dispense, or give away certain drugs to register and pay a special tax.” So this one’s about taxing. This is about regulation through taxation. It was initially intended to
control opium and cocaine. However, it later expanded to include
all other federal controlled substances. Okay. Now, we have these two different types
of regulation, and you do want to notice that these are under different departments. So the Food and Drug Act was under
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the goal was that drugs
be pure and honestly labeled. The Harrison Act was under
the U.S. Treasury Department. The goal there, taxation of drugs to
restrict commerce and opiate or opioids, we use those words interchangeably sometimes,
and cocaine to authorize physicians, pharmacists, and whatever
legitimate manufacturers made. But this is more, this is taxing. Okay. Now, a big issue here is purity. So when we start to regulate pharmaceuticals,
somebody has to be in charge of checking and seeing that things are accurate. So again that 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act said
the product contents must be accurately listed on the label. Initially the FDA came out and said,
we’d really like you to do that. Okay. In 1912, we have something called
the Sherley Amendment, and this just flat out outlawed false and fraudulent
therapeutic claims. Okay, so a bit more strongly worded here. Now safety, with that Pure Food and
Drug Act, there was no legal requirement that medications be safe [inaudible]. In 1938, we then have something called
the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Okay. And with this, the FDA
became the gatekeeper of drugs, and the FDA expanded greatly at this time. All of a sudden it required a lot of
premarket testing for safety or for toxicity, which would be the opposite of safety, right? So all of a sudden you have all
of these rules and regulations. If you want to come up with a new drug
that you’re going to put out there, you have to submit an NDA
or a new drug application. You have to do a lot of premarket testing. You have to show and demonstrate
and prove to the FDA that it is safe before being
allowed to be put on the market. Very different than before. It also means that you have to put a lot of
money and time into getting a new drug approved. So, they also said that directions
must be included. There were instructions for consumers
or saying that the drug can only be used with physician prescription, so meaning
that then the physician would need to give adequate instructions to the consumer. So over-the-counter instructions have
to be real clear, drugs that are given with physician prescription, the
physician is then in charge within that. Okay. Moving on here. Now we’re talking about effectiveness. Okay. There’s, you know, effectiveness is
a tricky one, so let’s go through this. So, again, our Food and Drug and Cosmetic Act, there was actually no requirement
the medications be effective. That was just about it being safe. So that makes sense, like first
let’s make sure it won’t kill people, and then let’s start talking about
whether or not it’s effective. So 1962, we have our Kefauver-Harris
amendments, 1962. So preapproval is now required
before human testing, which means that before 1962 you could do
human testing without being approved by anyone. Okay. Advertising for prescription drugs must
include information about adverse reactions. Every new drug must be demonstrated
to be effective for the illness mentioned on the label. Okay. Now remember, this is stuff that
we’re talking about that is FDA regulated. So this is what we’re talking about drugs. Supplements don’t fall under this. We’ll get there. So all of a sudden, the process for
introducing a new drug becomes extensive. The companies submit this notice of Claimed
Investigational Exemption for a New Drug (IND). You do want to know what an IND is. There’s a chance it’ll be on the midterm or
the first exam, whatever we want to call that. Okay. Clinical research and development. We have three phases here. First, how is the drug absorbed,
how is it excreted. You’re going to test low doses on like 20 to 80
healthy human volunteers, healthy volunteers. So we’re not talking about people who have
the actual issue with this drug is going to be used on, but completely
healthy volunteers. You just want to know how is it
absorbed, how does it get out of the body. Phase two, now we’re talking about
initial effectiveness testing. So now we’re looking at a few
hundred patients who could benefit. So people that do have the issue
that that drug is supposed to help. All right. Now phase three is going to be our broader
effectiveness testing, and this is now going to be, you know, 1000 to 5000
patients to show that it is safe and that it is effective,
statistically effective. Now, after this we have continued
additional FDA legislation. We have the Orphan Drug Act of 1983. In this we’re developing
drugs for rare disorders. There are sort of tax and
financial incentives for this. You can read more about this one. It’s unlikely that I’ll ask
you about this one on the exam. Prescription drug marketing act of 1988. This is the regulation of
free samples to physicians. So for a long time you could just keep giving
samples to physicians, and then they’re going to give those to their patients, and
then the patients will take those things and then think they continue
to need that specific thing, so it’s a little bit manipulative,
or it’s good marketing. I don’t know what you want to call it. And for a long time, I mean samples have still
been around, and some samples are still allowed in physicians’ offices, but
there’s regulation on it now. Okay. In 1997, there was something
called the FDA Modernizing Act. Okay. So the Modernizing Act
gave guidelines for things like post-marketing reporting
of adverse effects. So that is after the drug is out
there, still letting people know if there’s been reports of negative effects. Okay. It also gives guidelines for
distribution of information on off-label uses. So you have a drug that’s out there that
has gone through all of this testing and is now used for a certain issue. Okay, let’s say it’s used,
let’s go mental health. So let’s say it’s used for depression,
but psychiatrists start to notice that even though they’re giving
it to somebody for depression, somebody’s eating disorder symptoms
also seem to be getting better. We might then say, well, gosh,
it might really be helpful for people with eating disorders also. However, it was approved for depression,
and in order to get approved to be used for eating disorders, you’re going to have
to go through all those, that process again. A little bit different but it’s a big process. So if a physician gives that medication
to somebody for an eating disorder, but it’s technically approved for
depression, we call that an off-label use. Okay. So, and that’s usually
decided by a physician to use it even though it’s
technically off label. All right, drug reps or pharmaceutical
reps, sales people, can let physicians know what
other physicians are using it, what off label purposes they’re using it for, but they can’t technically
sell it for those things. So, again, everybody can kind of bend the
rules a little bit, but there are rules now. All right, however, and let me tell
you, we’re going to have a whole chapter on dietary supplements later,
so I won’t soapbox this, but dietary supplements are
not regulated in the same way. Now, we did eventually have the 1994
Dietary Supplement Health and Marketing Act that says that labels must be accurate. Products cannot make unsubstantiated
direct claims. Products can though make general health claims. So that’s why often on your
dietary supplement you’ll see things like improves overall well-being,
what does that mean? Improves overall well-being. That sounds amazing, let’s do that. You can see on this bottle
right here on the picture of St. John’s Wort is says
support for positive mood balance. What– [ Background Noise ] But it makes us feel good, we like
what it says, and it’s natural. That’s questionable. Some supplements are wonderful and great
and created by well-intentioned good people, and some supplements are
created by people that just want to make a quick buck, and it’s just crap. Again, we have a whole chapter
on this later, I’ll move on. Products can be marketed without proving safety. Again, products can be marketed
without first proving safety. You need to do your own research on
dietary supplements, if you take them. Okay. So now we talk about
legislation of controlled substances. All right. So– [ Background Noise ] First, we have early enforcement. So the 1914 Harrison Act, this is the– I’m tripping over some of
my words, I always do that. You’ll get used to it. Narcotics divisions’ interpretation of this
act led to criminalization of drug use, meaning you use the drug, you
get arrested and go to jail. Now, physicians and pharmacists were
getting arrested, which means that we needed to do a little bit of tweaking on this. However, not too much tweaking. The 18th amendment also was one
of our early enforcement things, and that was alcohol prohibition. And that happened in 1918. We will talk more about that when we get to our
alcohol section, our alcohol chapter that is. Okay, and then we have the
Jones-Miller Act of 1922. This doubled the penalties
for dealing in illegal drugs. Now, with these things that are illegal,
if you get caught using them, selling them, growing them, dealing in whatever it is, you
may go to prison or you may be sent to rehab. Now a lot of people go to prison, and that
is still kind of the standard thing here. Interesting, at one point Congress
actually deemed punishment ineffective. However, that is still the most
likely thing that we do, right? You get busted for having marijuana,
and you go to prison even though we know that that’s not going to
help, but that’s what we do. In 1935, they established these things
that they called narcotic farms for rehab, and some of those were effected, so
that is that people got rehabilitation so that they were no longer
addicted to certain substances. Some people of course have relapses because
some people are just going to relapse, and also, you know, some people are not going to
get adequate treatment after they get out of these particular rehab facilities. So they have great treatment
there, and then they get out and they have nothing, so relapse is likely. But it does help more people than prison does. Some, just a note, some prisons do
have fantastic programs within them. Not enough people get to use them, not enough
people work there, not enough people, it’s not, it’s not what it needs to
be, in my opinion, okay. Now we have the bureau of narcotics. Okay, this was formed in the 1930’s
and it’s in the treasury department. We have our first like drug czar that was, you should read about them,
real interesting [inaudible]. Check them out in your book. I’ll leave it at that, and also the Bureau
of Narcotics was really instrumental in passing this marijuana tax act in 1937. I mean that didn’t last because obviously
then marijuana became just completely illegal, and now we’re sort of back to
taxing marijuana and places like Colorado making a lot of money off it. In 1956, we have our Narcotic Drug
Control Act, and that really kind of brought down these toughest penalties. Some of those have been lessened. The Narcotic Drug Control Act was really
only for certain places in the country. It wasn’t everywhere. The Drug Abuse Control Act Amendments
of 1965 then added new classes of drugs. Continuing on here, we have our Comprehensive
Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. This one replaced or updated
all of the previous laws. Drugs controlled by the act
are under federal jurisdiction. This is where it gets confusing, right? Because under federal jurisdiction,
they have decided what is illegal. However, in some cases the state laws
and federal laws conflict, right. So our Colorado versus our
federal law conflicts. Our Washington, DC, versus
our federal law conflict. That is confusing to me. I mean not really confusing, I see how
it works, however it’s interesting. Let’s go with interesting. So there’s all those kinds of things, and also,
I mean, if we look at what’s going on right now, the Obama administration has said that
they will not put any effort into arresting or charging individuals who
operate within state laws. So they’ve kind of said, look, we get
that it’s illegal, but we’re not going to waste our time busting people who are
selling marijuana in states that it’s legal. We’re probably not even going
to enforce these federal laws. Okay. Now, we also had this increased
funding for prevention and treatment. And that’s under the department
of health and human services. And this now we’re talking about prevention as
far as like school information that’s getting out there, treatment for people that have
been addicted to drugs, all of those things. That really more information on prevention and
treatment comes within the different chapters that we’ll discuss as well as the
last two chapters of the book. Now, we have our direct control of drugs,
and that’s through Drug Enforcement Agency. We’ve got a lot of different,
you know, groups here. Drug Enforcement Agency, and now
taxation was no longer the strategy. It was really controlling drugs, controlling
the importation of drugs, controlling, you know, arresting people for using drugs
and all of that rather than taxing. Interestingly, enforcement of making sure that people are not using certain drugs was
really separated from scientific evidence and separated from medical decisions. So even if data continues, continued, and
continues to show benefits of certain drugs that have been put on the schedule one
list, we have people that just like I said at the beginning feel, something in them
just makes it feel like these drugs are bad and dangerous, and so no matter how much
data you put in front of somebody who feels so strongly, they just can’t hear it. They literally can’t, which is sad. And some of those people are
sort of being pushed out, and new people that understand
science are coming in. I say this as meaning I just
want people to hear data. I just want people to take the time to
really see what’s going on research wise and how we can most likely
benefit humans in general. I am not, and never will, you know,
advocate for drug use, recreational drug use, but I’m also not saying that I’m against it. I’m not for it. I’m not against it. I just like science. Is that fair? Okay. Let’s talk about this. So, for some of you, you may feel
like that you look at this list and you think, yep, that looks about right. For others, you may look at this
list and be like, [inaudible] what? So, this is how we break down
the schedule of substances. Schedule one is high potential for abuse, no excepted medical use, and
lack of acceptance safety. Heroin is on here. Marijuana is on here. Ecstasy is on here. Not on this chart, but also our like
classic hallucinogens, so psilocybin, LSD, all of those things to, you know,
[inaudible] things like that. All of that stuff is going to be on there. If you read the article that I asked
you to, you may notice some differences of how this list is laid
out versus what data shows. Okay. Schedule two, high potential for
abuse, currently accepted medical use, abuse mainly to severe dependence. Okay, morphine, cocaine, methamphetamines. Schedule three, you can read this. This is one of the times that being in an online
class is awesome because you can pause this. You can pause it for as long as you want and
look at it and think about it and read it. You can go back to your book,
you can go back to the article. Soak it in, and then you can start me back up
again when you are ready, and I can move on. All right. I’m going to move on. So, legislation of controlled substances. Amendments to the Comprehensive Drug
Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. We had in 1986 there was stiffened
possession in selling penalties. There was also a big difference
all of a sudden in sentencing for crack cocaine versus powder cocaine. So a lot of research came out on saying
that crack cocaine was so much worse than powder cocaine and saying
that it was so much more addictive and it was so much worse for you. This may or may not be true. What we know to be true is that when
the sentencing became much stricter for crack cocaine versus powder
cocaine, we saw a huge difference in low income African Americans
being sentenced to long prison terms and our higher socioeconomic status white men
who use powder cocaine basically getting off with a hand slap or nothing
or not being busted at all. Okay. This is a problem, right. The data sometimes indicates that
crack cocaine is worse; however, we really see that the situations that people
live in who are using crack cocaine tend to be worse than people that
are using powder cocaine. So you have to take all of
those things into consideration. We call them, you know, our mediators or our
moderators when we’re looking at statistics. Confounding variables if you’re a stats person. Okay. Now, in 1988, people started to control
drug precursors, control drug paraphernalia, and they established the Office
of National Drug Control policy. If you look, so this picture, the first time
I looked at this picture I thought it was, like I just looked really quickly and I thought
it was a janitorial kind of person sweeping, and then I looked again and
realized this is a large bong. So, for those of you who are unfamiliar,
this is something where at the bottom of it, if you see that little piece that sticks
out, you would put some marijuana in it, and there would be some water at the bottom
of that, and then you would put your mouth on the top of it and suck up the
smoke and inhale it and get high. And those of you who are familiar with
it, we’re in Alabama, don’t admit that. Okay. State and local regulations. And this, I already kind of
talked about a little bit. The penalties different from state to state. Federal law technically overrides state law. Every once in a while you have, you know,
well not now, but it used to be every once in a while you have, you know, the
federal government go into, you know, Mendocino County in California
and bust everybody. They’re not really focused on that
anymore, but every once in a while. Significant growth in numbers of
Americans in prison, increased awareness of high incarceration rate has recently
led to a decline in prison population, so basically people saying, oh, my gosh, we
have so many people in jail for like carrying around a small amount of marijuana and then
therefore saying maybe that’s not the way to go, and that actually has led to a
slight decline in prison population. However, the U.S. itself has the
greatest proportion of citizens in prison compared to other countries. Okay. You can look at this chart. These things are also in your book. Okay. Federal support for drug screening. So federally as well as just different
companies of course do drug testing, and the point of doing it is to make
sure that people are safe in their jobs, that they are providing safe services to others,
and to let people know the employees know that the company or the government does
not approve of your use of illegal drugs, so basically saying this is not okay. We’re going to show you that it’s
not okay but letting you know that we may randomly drug test you. Military and federal employees
sign things that say I am okay with you randomly drug testing
me at any time without notice. Transportation workers, employees of private
companies, and public school employees. Okay. Testing method issues. The different tests have different results, and
that is if we’re doing blood tests, hair tests, you know, a mouth swab, a urine
test, pee test, a urine test. We’re going to have different results, different kinds of tests have
different levels of sensitivity. We have different detection ability. In practice I see a fair number of adolescents,
and some of their parents do drug test. Adolescents are really smart, and they know
which tests will show which things and then which drugs they can get away with. Also, sometimes parents purchase
the cheaper test, and then it’s sensitivity
levels are not very good. But, you know, there’s a lot of issues
with the testing methods; however, companies do want to do this, and part
of it is just to kind of let people know, like I said again, let people
know that they’re against it, they’re not okay with you using certain drugs. Now, a lot of times we think about like, you
know, the illegal drugs, marijuana, cocaine, things like that, now there’s new
regulations and even here at UAB, where if you work in the hospital you cannot
be a person who uses tobacco products. That is new hires cannot use tobacco
products, and they will test you for it. There’s a lot of reasons for that. We’ll go into that in the tobacco section. Okay. So, oh my gosh, so much
money is spent on drug enforcement. In 1980, $1 billion, in 2013, $25.6 billion
dollars was the budget for drug enforcement. That includes a lot of things. That includes the things that they do to
control substances coming into our country, to control substances that are grown or created
in our country, to control the selling of drugs, the use of drugs, the, you know, a
lot of different things here as well as prison and treatment services. So there’s a lot of things. However, 25.6 billion is a lot of money. The DEA has agents in over 40 countries. Uruguay recently legalized marijuana. United Nations has criticized
government for treaty violation. So basically countries that are starting
to legalize things are having trouble with the United Nations and
their particular things. If this is an interest of yours, please
go to the book and learn more about this. It’s something that I think is interesting, but I don’t know as much
about it as I would like to. So, I often will tell you to go to your
book if there’s something that I think, I bet you can get better
information from another source. I don’t pretend to know everything
about everyone. Other federal agencies that are
involved in this, Homeland Security, Federal Aviation Administration,
the National Park Service. Other costs are maintaining prisons, caring
for prisoners, crimes that are committed to purchase drugs, corruption
in law enforcement, conflicting international policy goals, the cost
of loss of individual freedom, which, you know, you can kind of argue different ways on that. $26.5 billion. To be clear drug use has
not been eliminated at all. Not even close. So we have to start to kind of question, like
this is a lot of money going to something, and it’s not actually working that well. You sort of have your supply
and demand issues here, right? Supply and demand being if there’s
a demand, there will be a supply. You can take out the suppliers,
and if there’s still a demand, somebody else is going to supply it. So I am not a legislator. I am glad I don’t have to make these
decisions because it seems extremely difficult if not impossible, but I would think that maybe
if we worked on having people less demanding of these substances the supply would go
down and the suppliers would drop off. They’d probably find other things
to sell, but maybe other things that they sold would be less harmful to people. So there’s something to think about. Approximately 10 to 15 percent of illegal
drug supplies seized each year, 10 to 15. When supplies are restricted, prices go up. Higher prices increase difficulty
in obtaining drugs. May deter some users. So, for example, and this is not about illegal
drugs, but when the price of cigarettes goes up, there are people who will stop using. There are people who will say it’s just
too much money, I’m not going to do this, it’s not worth it, I’ll just quit. There are other people that
will absolutely still do it. As far as let’s say alcohol, bars, when people
are not doing as well, when unemployment is up, when a recession is happening,
alcohol sales are still up. Bars are doing great, interestingly. Even if people have less money,
they’re still willing to, if not more willing to, use certain substances. But, like I said, when prices
go up, some people stop using. Other people will steal to use. Other people will trade sexual favors for using. Other people will, you know, do more
risky and more “illegal” things in order to get their hands on the drugs they want. Again, if we made people not
feel like they needed that drug so much, you know, you get my point. Okay. Going back. So that’s our last slide. That’s all the information I’m going
to share with you about drug policy. If you have questions about certain
things that I want over, go to your book. I do say that you can go to the internet. There are good sources. However, you need to be a good consumer of
data, meaning you need to think critically. You need to see what source you’re looking
at, who is in charge of that website, what is their agenda, is their
agenda actually just giving data. It their agenda, you know, something specific, and then read the information
that they provide based on that. All right. I’m going to leave you with that, and I
will see you next time in chapter four. [ Background Noise ]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *