Contrary to Senator McCain’s “legalizing methamphetamine” question to the police officer in the clip, McCain should know that methamphetamine is a Schedule II substance and that it is legal to use with a prescription.

As a former fighter pilot shot down over Viet Nam, McCain should also have some first hand knowledge of methamphetamine.  Note the following government report:

"Following Desert Storm an anonymous survey of deployed fighter pilots was completed. 464 surveys were returned (43%). For Desert Storm: 57% used stimulants [methamphetamine] at some time (17% routinely, 58% occasionally, 25% only once). Within individual units, usage varied from 3% to 96%, with higher usage in units tasked for sustained combat patrol (CAP) missions. Sixty-one-percent of those who used stimulants reported them essential to mission accomplishment."

Source: "Performance Maintenance During Continuous Flight Operations: A Guide For Flight Surgeons," NAVMED P-6410, Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center, Jan. 1, 2000, p. 11.

A drug war topic for Senator McCain might concern the pep pills he undoubtedly carried and probably consumed as a Viet Nam era pilot.  And if he used drugs such as methamphetamine during the course of his wartime combat, then by his own declaration on the clip, he is too brain-addled to be president.

If McCain is right, then methamphetamine-addlement might also explain the sordid career flops of former fighter pilots such as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, nut-case Rep. “B-1” Bob Dornan, (R-CA), and convicted bribe-taker Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-CA).  There is definitely a trend here.

Giordano

The reform movement does need to focus more on specific solutions -- and not just the baby steps that are politically viable. The idea of mere "legalization" paints kind of an ugly picture in the minds of those who aren't familiar with successful means of regulation, such as the Swiss heroin clinics.

And where does this "They tried it in Europe and it was a disaster" keep coming from? Are they talking about Needle Park?

Anyway, it's nice to see at least a little bit of dialog, even if it didn't really go anywhere.

Next time this comes up, just point to this blog post by Mark Kleiman:

Is alcohol a "drug"? Why the question matters

- daksya

Drug War Abolitionist New Hampshire state police officer Bradley Jardis confronted Republican Arizona U.S. senator and presidential candidate John McCain about the failed war on drugs that McCain supports. The Huffington Post 'Off The Bus' column reported this week.

McCain and Jardis bantered a dozen different issues ranging from first time offender addicts, crime, children's access to drugs, border security and drug cartel violence that Jardis and McCain ably debated. McCain was able to latch onto one aspect of one concern he raised ignoring Jardis black market response.

Legalization of Meth-amphetamine.

McCain asked Officer Jardis if he would legalize meth. Jardis half punted the question with the important point about how the meth dealers would not exist without the economy created by prohibition.

I would like to focus on the question of Meth-amphetamine regulation with a definite yes. All intoxicant substances need to be legally regulated...... Squeezing John McCain's Monster Balloon posted at my blog, ALeftIndependent

McCain has made this argument.

This entire video is pretty painful, but déjà vu begins at about the 1:15 mark.

I do, and I'm a recreational user myself of several different drugs BUT you can't just STOP fighting drug flows. Lets say for arguements sake 1 in 3 people that smoke cannabis and are affected mentally, now consider if just 30 million (roughly 10% of the US population) were smoking cannabis, that gives you millions that have developed mental problems from slight paranoia to full blown schizophrenia, is that good?!

These figures are best guesses but even if the percentage is less, say half that you're still left with millions of people who could potentially act negatively because they smoke cannabis. Of course you then need to consider all the other drugs.

I guess what I'm saying in a rambling way is the US should definitely ease up on the drugs policies for individual users but you just CANNOT stop fighting it.

The "war on drugs" does not catch the particularly affluent.

I would bet a year's salary that there are plenty of senators like McCain that use drugs of some type, even if it is a prescribed heroin or cocain.

The difference is that the users in his class are exempt from the laws created to "catpure" the "cartels". Heck, I would bet that several of those cartels also have Lobbies that will funnel money into McCains re-election coffers. Everybody has heard the "do you know who i am?" when they get pulled over, and THAT WORKS.

(ok, McCain is broke, so maybe not his coffers, but others...)

right?

I went this summer and the city was EXTREMELY safe.

First let me say drug usage should be placed in the hands of trained medical professionals. If smoking a little weed can improve the quality of life for a cancer or glaucoma sufferer, how is that any different than giving a methamphetamine (methaphenidate ie ritalen) to a child with ADHD so that they can function in school? While I do believe that the abuse of any drug, legal or otherwise is wrong, I also think is wrong to arbitrarily prohibit the use of substances under all circumstances when a proven medical benefit is known.

The reason we have a "war" on drugs, is that by declaring war, it gives the government legal powers it would not otherwise possess. Check out the "war powers" the constitution grants and you will see that this is more than just a catch phrase, it is a constitutional power grab.

Now let me play devil's advocate a bit.... THC and nicotine both act on the brain far more directly than alcohol. They more easily cross the blood-brain barrier and have specific neural transmitters that are sensitive to them, hence the "high" attraction to abuse them and their addictive qualities (and yes pot can be as addictive as alcohol or cigarettes to the right individuals under the right circumstances). THC also has the added complication, in that it is not immediately metabolized by the body, rather it can be stored for two weeks or more in fat cells. That is why you can come up positive on a drug test long after you have used it.

I do not believe we should be at "war" with drugs. You cannot have a war with an object. Why not have a war against ignorance or cancer, it would be far more productive. The government should only be able to declare a war against a living breathing, thinking opponent....you can have a war against drug dealers, not drugs; you can have a war against terrorists, not terror. Unfortunately in order to declare a war against individuals you have to know who they are, by using broad and ambiguous labels the federal government can cast their nets far and wide, justify invading our privacy and suspending our constitutionally granted rights.

The fact is the majority of americans think exactly the way mccain does, and they're proud to say so. Alcohol is legal, so it MUST be safer than pot (or the blanket term "drugs"- meaning all illegal substances). They may be drunk off their asses and need a stomach pump because of ALCOHOL POISONING, but hey- they're not breaking the law. This sort of garbage talk makes me want to puke and then cry. There is truly no hope for america or humanity for that matter. Were doomed to be enslaved by ignorance.

John Mccain needs to come see how I function after drinking 2 oz of liquor compared to ingesting 4 cg of pharmaceutical grade THC. Within a minute after that drink I can't walk or think clearly. When the THC takes effect I can walk normally, think clearly enough to play high-level poker and play chess rather well. I can probably drive too, but I don't take such risks with any psychoactive substance.

Why else is the plutocracy so nonchalantly confident and scapegoating towards illegal drugs? Answer: their illegal market profit margins would crash.

dahszil