Paco - Not just a nickname for Francisco anymore

...it's also a compelling argument for drug legalization.

I first read about paco a few days ago in the International Herald Tribune/New York Times. For those who (like me a few days ago) have no idea what the hell paco is, it's "a cheaper[, smokable] alternative to snortable cocaine" made up of the chemical byproducts of cocaine production mixed with a plethora of goodies, ranging from rat poison to crushed glass.

Now my initial reaction is to doubt the veracity of the second half of that, as both 'ingredients' are a common part of drug war mythology and a pretty surefire way to make sure you don't have repeat customers (because they'll be dead). But the New York Times is reputable, and maybe when you smoke (vs. snort or inject) crushed glass or rat poison you actually don't die (you know, for a week or two at least). I'm willing to accept it, unless or until new information comes to the fore.

But I digress. Whatever exactly is in paco it is evidently bad news, as the growing number of unfortunate addicts in Argentina, as well as their families and the physicians which are treating them, can attest. Apparently it is roughly analogous to crack cocaine. Except, you know, worse.

The kicker? If cocaine was legal, paco wouldn't exist. That was my first thought when I read about paco. It's just as much a byproduct of prohibition as it is a byproduct of cocaine. Why, you ask? Because if cocaine was produced legally, those producers wouldn't be able to cut it with crushed glass and rat poison.

Tim Worstall put it nicely, if a little overstated:

"[T]he harm from paco comes not from the cocaine part of it, but from the cutting part of it: that rat poison for example. If cocaine itself were legal and available in pure form, then no one would be smoking the paco, the sweepings from the laboratory floor.

However, we know that cocaine is not going to be made legal: among other things there are a series of treaties under the auspices of the UN to make sure that no one does indeed do that. So, sadly, paco taking will eventually reduce, but for much the same sad reason that PJ O'Rourke pointed out crack cocaine use would reduce. Because those who smoke it will die." (from here)

If that's not a sad and frightening sentiment for change, then I don't know what is.

Scientific Data/Political Agenda

Not too long ago, Obama said, “It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda, and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”

(Presented out of context, after being originally found here, an article which is worth a read)

But back to Obama. The above is, I hope we can all agree, an admirable sentiment.

As I blogged a few days ago Gil Kerlikowske, the US drug czar, has some strong views on the potential legalization of marijuana. Specifically, he views legalization as having no potential. No chance. Not going to happen.

Among the multitude of no doubt well thought out and carefully reasoned arguments that have lead to and maintain Kerlikowske's beliefs on marijuana legalization, is this little gem, "Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit."

Dangerous? Yes. Sure. In as much as pretty much every drug or pretty much anything you could possibly do (including nothing) has potential dangers, yes marijuana is dangerous. Not as dangerous as, oh, I don't know, let's say... driving a car 2 km. But yeah, okay. Dangerous. I'm willing to accept that.

Has no medical benefit? No. Why not? Because that is an absolute. That is: marijuana has absolutely zero medical benefit. Which is not true. Not at all true. If he'd said little medical benefit or perhaps even redundant medical benefit then we could have talked. But no medical benefit? Untrue. Flat out untrue. And that, sir, is no good.

Especially under an administration which is ostensibly all "about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda".

Now I get it, Gil. You're the drug czar and it's your job to have a stick so far up your ass that it tickles your brain into making hardline statements about being tough on drugs, and just say no and etc., etc., yada, yadda, blah. That is in your job description. Central to it, in fact. It's not your fault. I'm sure working another job, with the stick removed, you'd be far more reasonable about these things.

But Mr. Obama? Where's the scientific data? Where are the scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology? Where's the change? Because all I'm seeing is more of the same.

Excellent campaigner. Just another President.

Please, sir. Prove me wrong.

Vocabulary Pt. 2

Apparently I was late to the scene with that last post (I studied History, not Journalism):

"Kerlikowske added that other words not in his vocabulary include compassion, pain and suffering, the scientific method, and evidence."

Tongue planted firmly in cheek, The Huffington Post's Don Parker "reports".

Vocabulary

On Wednesday Gil Kerlikowske, director of the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy (colloquially the drug czar), informed us that, "Legalization is not in the president's vocabulary, and it's not in mine."

With all due respect, I suggest Kerlikowske and the President pick up some dictionaries.

The Hurt Locker

This is a statement of my intent to review The Hurt Locker, a film which is probably the best film I have seen this year. Drag me to Hell may be my favourite movie. But The Hurt Locker is still probably the best.

Seriously, it's good, it's getting a wide(r) release tomorrow. Watch it.

You will like it. It's just... good. Really good.

Edit: So... this is just going to be the whole review: "It's good. Go watch it." Bam. Career as a film critic, here I come.