2010:warmest year ever since records began

[Diogenes]

As a friend of mine pointed out, the South American Indians Chew the coca leaf. The quantities they get from this practice are minuscule and not excessively dangerous. Who would have thought that some blame fool would decide to concentrate this crap and turn it into a deadly addictive poison?

Anyone with an ounce or more of functional brains.
When they made the coca leaf illegal, a more compact, powerful form was bound to follow. It happens every time a mild version of a drug is made illegal. Happened with opium and coca leaf and is happening with MJ too. If coffee is made illegal, folks will be ODing on caffiene pills. Same with tobacco and nicotine patches.

The problem with all these laws and the people that support them is that the people are not following a rational course. They have no understanding. All they have is government fueled hate and fear. The government fuels the hate and reason goes out the door.

A prime example is how whoever got D to believe in a "killer" strain of pot.

Read what I said. I said that I've seen references of concern for such a thing. I made no statement asserting I believe it. I would say the same for "Red Mercury." I've seen references to it, I have made no statements asserting I believe in it.

Isn't accuracy and precision a virtue in engineering?

The facts have been out there for more than 20 years. Freely available since FIDO net days. And certainly in the internet era. And yet faith in the "truth" of government propaganda keeps the believers incurious. Damndest thing I ever saw. And once people join the hater faith you absolutely cannot reason with them. No amount of evidence will change their minds.

I am far less concerned with the "Government" propaganda than I am with the Legalizers propaganda. You aren't talking to someone who's even heard what the government says about drugs, you are talking to someone who has SEEN what narcotics do to people.

If it were a matter of the war between your propaganda and the "Governments" propaganda, you would have won a long time ago, because you have all these nifty charts, and studies, and expert testimony, and statistics, so you put on a really good show. The trouble is, I'm not being swayed by propaganda because I have witnessed first hand what happens to people who use drugs.

I personally knew young mothers who have died and left their children behind, just because they couldn't leave that shit alone. One of them was one of the most evil bitches I have ever met, while the other was quite kind hearted and friendly.


You guys who are quoting your "data" at me, simply don't understand that your data is in conflict with my real world experience. Experiment trumps theory. I don't care how pretty your theory is, if it's wrong, it's not the truth.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck

Very few minds remain supple after age 20 or 25.

This pretty much explains the change in sentiment re: legalization.



People with experience of the drug "culture" do not fear it. But we still have the long tail of people who were influenced in the reefer madness era. When enough of them die off the laws will change.

You mean we birth new generations of "cannon fodder."

Twas ever thus. It takes about 50 years from the introduction of a "new" drug to society until the laws against it change. Probably 10 or 20 years longer these days since we live longer.

And no amount of pointing at the historical record (how alcohol prohibition increased the problems of child alcohol use for instance) changes any minds. Damndest thing I ever saw.

A criminal that will sell an illegal product has no compunction about selling it to children. As I have pointed out before that this is exactly the same mindset that homosexuals have also used regarding children.

[MSimon]

Make crack legal, and it will make Tobacco and Alcohol look like aspirin

Crack was invented because the per dose cost of powder was too high.

And the scare stories haven't panned out. But I will let you do your own research.

When drugs are cheap most people go with lower potency forms.

BTW what kind of DRUG FIEND are you anyway? You are going to buy a pound of crack and smoke it in an afternoon once it is legal? Me neither.

But I'm with you in general. We NEED drug prohibition to make it easier for kids to get illegal drugs than beer. This is the best argument I have for continuing prohibition. How will kids really know how bad drugs are unless they try them? It is why we need the DARE program as well. Kids exposed to it are MORE likely to use illegal drugs.

The very best thing about the government campaign against drugs is that it provides the industry with free advertising so good they couldn't afford to buy it.

===

Now what do you call a program that delivers the OPPOSITE of what it claims to be about?

A government program.

Buh Buh But the computer models say we have a drug free America. I was told in the 90s that Prohibition would deliver that to us by 2000.

There is a reason the Drug War is called the CAGW of the right.

But as I have said repeatedly there are dam few real conservatives (empirical) left. All we have are Progressive Conservatives whose faith in the progressive paradyme (there is no limit to the amount of good you can do by putting a government gun to people's heads) is just as strong as the Liberals.

The war between Liberals and Conservatives is akin to the war between Protestants and Catholics. The liberals think you should pray at the Economic Altar, the Conservatives think you should pray at the Ordering Private Morality altar. Neither questions the essential faith:

there is no limit to the amount of good you can do by putting a government gun to people's heads

And what do we know about Liberals and the Economic order? They wreck it in the name of improvement.

And what do we know about Conservatives and the Moral Order? They wreck it in the name of improvement.

See a pattern?

Hint: Government guns have very little use except fighting wars and dealing with crime in the streets (and by crime I mean harming another). Other uses are counterproductive. Economically and morally.

And I still think you are a sucker for believing what you read in the papers. Who do you think they are working for? You? Or the government? Think of it: when they tout the dangers of LSD say, do they feature Nobel winner Kerry Mullis? Or do they go looking for for some low life street user as an example? Honest citizens who use being unwilling to talk for fear of punishment.

You can spot Liberal shills for government a galaxy away. The Conservative shills under your nose escape your notice. And that is how you get the big government you decry. They have divided and thus conquered you. Very clever them boys.

You label the Liberals economic control freaks. And they label Conservatives as moral control freaks. And the tug of war is on to see who gets control.

If you really wanted smaller government you would opt out of the control game - because it ratchets only one way: more for them, less for you.

Think about it. Are you more in danger from problem crack heads who represent .2% of the population (with stable numbers) or from government which is on the order of 25% and growing?

The government boys are no dummies, they know who the rubes are. They have your mind wrapped around the crackheads while they steal you blind.

Now tell me. If you really wanted to get rid of crack heads would you hand the program over to the government? How is that war on poverty working out for you?

[Diogenes]

Make crack legal, and it will make Tobacco and Alcohol look like aspirin

Crack was invented because the per dose cost of powder was too high.

And the scare stories haven't panned out. But I will let you do your own research.

When drugs are cheap most people go with lower potency forms.

This is completely contrary to what I have seen. Crack addicts want strong stuff, and as much as they can get. They usually go on a three day binge where they neither eat nor sleep. They pass their time looking out the window of their motel, because among other things they become Hyper Paranoid. They are restless, and often perform other meaningless acts, like rewashing dishes, over and over.

After their Three day binge, they crash and sleep for a couple of days, more or less. They wake up ravenously hungry, they eat and recoup for a couple of days, then they try to do another binge.

BTW what kind of DRUG FIEND are you anyway? You are going to buy a pound of crack and smoke it in an afternoon once it is legal? Me neither.

If they get a pound of crack, they will call other addicts that they know, and try to sell it to them for profit. They will hold back enough to last them for a week, and sell the rest, thinking they can buy more with the profits, later. They may offer them free hits, to get them desperate enough to buy, getting the money in whatever way they can.

But I'm with you in general. We NEED drug prohibition to make it easier for kids to get illegal drugs than beer.

Ha ha ha ha... Now you're doing a comedy routine.

This is the best argument I have for continuing prohibition. How will kids really know how bad drugs are unless they try them? It is why we need the DARE program as well. Kids exposed to it are MORE likely to use illegal drugs.

The very best thing about the government campaign against drugs is that it provides the industry with free advertising so good they couldn't afford to buy it.

I'm not going to bother trying to figure out what you are trying to say.

===

Now what do you call a program that delivers the OPPOSITE of what it claims to be about?

A government program.

Buh Buh But the computer models say we have a drug free America. I was told in the 90s that Prohibition would deliver that to us by 2000.

There is a reason the Drug War is called the CAGW of the right.

Yeah, kooky people making up stuff.

But as I have said repeatedly there are dam few real conservatives (empirical) left. All we have are Progressive Conservatives whose faith in the progressive paradyme (there is no limit to the amount of good you can do by putting a government gun to people's heads) is just as strong as the Liberals.

Yeah, we want to reduce the size of government, but not to nothing like you do, and we are the same as liberals. Got it.

The war between Liberals and Conservatives is akin to the war between Protestants and Catholics. The liberals think you should pray at the Economic Altar, the Conservatives think you should pray at the Ordering Private Morality altar. Neither questions the essential faith:

This conservative says that the two are inextricably linked, and the effects of one always leads or lags the other.

This conservative simply wants people to see the connection.

there is no limit to the amount of good you can do by putting a government gun to people's heads

If they are criminals bent on exerting their will on everyone else, then that might be true.

And what do we know about Liberals and the Economic order? They wreck it in the name of improvement.

And what do we know about Conservatives and the Moral Order? They wreck it in the name of improvement.

Excuse me, it wasn't conservatives that wrecked the moral order, it was the consequence of prosperity coupled with human nature. It is cyclic, just like economics, and follows similar principles to economics. Prosperity begets debauchery. Debauchery begets economic collapse. Poverty begets Morality, and Morality begets prosperity.

See a pattern?

Yeah, but not yours.

Hint: Government guns have very little use except fighting wars and dealing with crime in the streets (and by crime I mean harming another). Other uses are counterproductive. Economically and morally.

Absolutely, and drugs represent the most insidious form of harming other people.

And I still think you are a sucker for believing what you read in the papers.

I don't believe what I read in the papers, I believe what I've seen repeatedly with my very own eyes.

Who do you think they are working for? You? Or the government? Think of it: when they tout the dangers of LSD say, do they feature Nobel winner Kerry Mullis? Or do they go looking for for some low life street user as an example? Honest citizens who use being unwilling to talk for fear of punishment.

You can spot Liberal shills for government a galaxy away. The Conservative shills under your nose escape your notice. And that is how you get the big government you decry. They have divided and thus conquered you. Very clever them boys.

You label the Liberals economic control freaks. And they label Conservatives as moral control freaks. And the tug of war is on to see who gets control.

The problem is, Liberals and Libertarians can't see that they are the SAME THING. You can't have long term economic prosperity without a moral underpinning. What we have seen the last 70 years or so is FALSE. It was prosperity built upon borrowing from the future, to pay for the present. (Immoral) Now the piper is demanding his pay, and there is no money to pay him. We will all pay him anyway, but I fear his wages will be for blood.

If you really wanted smaller government you would opt out of the control game - because it ratchets only one way: more for them, less for you.

Think about it. Are you more in danger from problem crack heads who represent .2% of the population (with stable numbers) or from government which is on the order of 25% and growing?

Oh, the Government is by far the greater threat right now, but I prefer to not have any threats, and I want to do something about both threats, but mostly the bigger one. The stability you cite is only the result of interdiction and prosecution. Were that held back, the numbers would explode.

The government boys are no dummies, they know who the rubes are. They have your mind wrapped around the crackheads while they steal you blind.

Now tell me. If you really wanted to get rid of crack heads would you hand the program over to the government? How is that war on poverty working out for you?

The war on poverty CAUSED the war on drugs. This is what I mean, government social engineering caused bigger problems. I'm pretty confident that if the government completely stopped the food stamp program, it would send shock waves through the crack industry, and probably put most of them out of business.

[KitemanSA]

(and by crime I mean harming another involuntarily (ed)).

[hanelyp]

The war on poverty CAUSED the war on drugs. This is what I mean, government social engineering caused bigger problems. I'm pretty confident that if the government completely stopped the food stamp program, it would send shock waves through the crack industry, and probably put most of them out of business.

I like that insight. Without government support for those unwilling or unable to work, habitual drug users would be less able to live outside of family or institution support where they receive pressure to kick the habit, often 'stay clean or move out'.

Yet another way government transfer of wealth causes harm.

[MSimon]

The war on poverty CAUSED the war on drugs. This is what I mean, government social engineering caused bigger problems. I'm pretty confident that if the government completely stopped the food stamp program, it would send shock waves through the crack industry, and probably put most of them out of business.

I like that insight. Without government support for those unwilling or unable to work, habitual drug users would be less able to live outside of family or institution support where they receive pressure to kick the habit, often 'stay clean or move out'.

Yet another way government transfer of wealth causes harm.

About 95% of drug users are employed.

About 95% of drug users are pot smokers. Pot in a legal market for a VERY heavy user would cost under $1 a day (not counting any extra taxes imposed to be sure the black market criminals are supported). About what it would cost to have a tomato habit. And like tomatoes you could grow your own.

But I do like the idea. One bad government program deserves a program to "fix" the bad program. It is the way liberals think and I'm glad to see conservatives get with the program.

Kind of makes my point. We don't have any real conservatives any more. Only Progressive Conservatives.

[Diogenes]

The war on poverty CAUSED the war on drugs. This is what I mean, government social engineering caused bigger problems. I'm pretty confident that if the government completely stopped the food stamp program, it would send shock waves through the crack industry, and probably put most of them out of business.

I like that insight. Without government support for those unwilling or unable to work, habitual drug users would be less able to live outside of family or institution support where they receive pressure to kick the habit, often 'stay clean or move out'.

Yet another way government transfer of wealth causes harm.

About 95% of drug users are employed.

About 95% of drug users are pot smokers. Pot in a legal market for a VERY heavy user would cost under $1 a day (not counting any extra taxes imposed to be sure the black market criminals are supported). About what it would cost to have a tomato habit. And like tomatoes you could grow your own.

But I do like the idea. One bad government program deserves a program to "fix" the bad program. It is the way liberals think and I'm glad to see conservatives get with the program.

Kind of makes my point. We don't have any real conservatives any more. Only Progressive Conservatives.

One bad program Aggravates and perhaps CAUSES another. Would we even have a drug war if the government didn't fund welfare, and actually PROTECTED the border?

If so, it would probably be a lot smaller.

[MSimon]

The government can't protect the border. It is in cahoots with the smugglers. You don't think the drugs could get across without government cooperation do you?

Prohibition corrupts. Every where and always. You think the US is immune? You have never looked at alcohol prohibition.