Your comment reads like you're regurgitating government propaganda swallowed wholesale.
Your comment reads like you're regurgitating government propaganda swallowed wholesale.
Hey now. A crime fighting dog told me that cocaine is bad. What more evidence do we need?
Replacing cocaine with not only "caffeine", but also "theophylline" and "sildenafil citrate" also works. Only, neither of those has the propensity for "addiction" or "dependence" to the degree that "cocaine" does.
Or perhaps you have done some research that proves otherwise?
"Occasional cocaine use does not typically lead to severe or even minor physical or social problems ... a minority of people start using cocaine or related products, use casually for a short or long period, and suffer little or no negative consequences, even after years of use. ... Use of coca leaves appears to have no negative health effects and has positive, therapeutic, sacred and social functions for indigenous Andean populations."[1]
Also, there is a wealth of research indicating that cocaine is vastly safer than caffeine, especially when it comes to the health and safety of unborn babies.
The current WHO statement is here: http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/cocaine/en/index.ht...
Furthermore, the reference you cite is : "WHO/UNICRI Cocaine Project, 5 March 1995 (unpublished Briefing Kit)."
An "unpublished Briefing Kit", oh come on !!! ??? !!!
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cumen...
If addiction is a disease, then addicts need doctors, not executioners. Even if addiction is a moral weakness, I think you'd have a hard time suggesting that the weak-willed all deserve poison in their vice (lest ye cast the first stone.)