2010:warmest year ever since records began

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Skipjack
Posts: 6051
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

How do you explain the relative lack of an alcohol black market after the end of alcohol prohibition in America? An unfathomable mystery to be sure.
No, not at all.
First of all, there is plenty of alcohol made accessible to minors. Plenty of pubs loose their liquor license every year because of that.
It just is not such a big deal with alcohol, since it does not get you hooked emmediately. It can not get you addicted the first time you drink it (unless there is something wrong with you). So we dont really hear that much about it. Also alcohol is cheap and easy to make. Plenty of moonshine brewed everywhere, mostly by kids for fun you know...

Also, again, you are missing the point. Just because your legalize drugs, the criminals that are now behind the drugs, wont just go away. Their personality is not going to change. They will just move on to different illegal ventures. As I said, in Austria the pimps did not stop pimping, they just resorted to kidnapping women and selling them on the black market like cattle in order to make a criminal living.
It is their lifestyle. Just making their crimes legal, wont make them good citizens.
So even if there were no more problems with drugs and all the drug dealers would stop doing criminal things.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

MSimon wrote:
No one is calling for that. That would be worse than the disease. I say give em a fair trial, and if found guilty, THEN execute them!
We rack up 100,000 drug dealers a year - minimum. We execute about 100 people a year (roughly). One every 3 1/2 days. You are going to have to ramp that up to about 275 a day (1,000X). Good way to get rid of your enemies though. Just tell the police they are drug dealers and let the murder factory take its course. That also will strain our courts. Which is going to cost you. How much strain? How do you complete 275 murder trials a day? Do you realize how much expensive lawyer labor that will take to give each and every one a fair trial? And bailiffs. And court reporters. etc. Did I mention all the jails that will have to be built to house all the dealers awaiting trial? And how about prisons for all those awaiting execution or who are appealing their cases. It is going to cost you.

If we are going down that road, the idea is completely unworkable, and the problem is unsolvable. A better approach would be to throw out all of the Liberal influence on the legal system since Woodrow Wilson, and apply the law as it was originally applied.

If appeals were limited to "For Cause" (meaning there is a question of actual innocence rather than procedure) then we would not be having such a legal mess. The possibility that we might have to conduct 275 trials per day is the result of the system being so f*cked up for so long as a result of the Liberal judges appointed mostly by the Roosevelt Truman Administration, and likewise their effect on the law schools.

We find ourselves drowning in such high numbers as a result of not having dealt with this problem earlier so as to preclude the numbers getting this high.

The Chinese had the same problem when they started wiping out their opium addicts. They would not have had so many of them to deal with had they not put up with it for so long. Apparently a nation must be overrun with addicts before many people finally realize that an action must be taken.

MSimon wrote: And just wait until word gets out about the few who were condemned on flimsy evidence. There will be an uproar and your grand scheme will be over.

Of course the most likely outcome is that the dealers will rat out each other to gain market share. That will put the murder rate up (it is all about market share - no rules). And we should see a corresponding increase in innocents murdered in the cross fire.

There are consequences for letting a problem fester. They will not lessen through inaction, they will only accrue. If the cost is too high today, how much less will it be tomorrow?

In any case, I am not suggesting that we give someone the death penalty on flimsy evidence. I have always advocated that for a death penalty the evidence must be strong and compelling. Someones "say so" , in the absence of proof, ought not be good enough. There is a lot of evidence that I don't put much credibility into, such as carpet fiber and witness testimony.

MSimon wrote: Let me tell you how it worked in my town of 150,000. The DEA, FBI, and the locals put down a whole gang. As predicted by the FBI in the local paper the murder rate went up and some kid was killed in the crossfire. It made headlines. For weeks. There have been no other major raids in our town since - for 25 years.

Might just be a case of "post hoc ergo propter hoc." Perhaps they have bigger fish to fry.

MSimon wrote: Think about that one: the cops know who the dealers are and don't go after them. More malfeasance.

My town is known for its Christian Conservatism. If you can't sell vigorous prosecution of the drug war here I doubt if you can sell it anywhere. Getting children killed to attempt to stem the flow of drugs is not a trade off most of the Christians in this town are willing to make. Which is another nemesis: public sentiment is turning against you.
Ah, but the one thing does not equal the other, except for it's propaganda value. You had one experiment where the result was "X". You haven't established that the result will always be "X". It only takes one experiment where the result is "Y" to demonstrate that "X" was a random and inconsistent effect. I hear that children also get killed in the crossfire between rival gang members. I hear there are raids where children DON'T get killed.

MSimon wrote: Malfeasance, Murders, Mothers, Money. All working against you. Right now mothers are not the biggest factor. When they do become fully engaged the war will be over. Mothers ended alcohol prohibition.

Aren't you glad that the progressive Anti Saloon League pushed for their right to vote? :)

MSimon wrote: Now since your fantasies of mass murder are unlikely to be realized do you have a plan B?

Yeah, wait for the system's collapse, and try to ingratiate myself with the regional warlord. :)

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Diogenes wrote: On a related note, the Germans invented Methamphetamines in the thinking that it would help their soldiers overcome fatigue, and be able to fight harder when the need was great. Unfortunately, Hitler got into the stash, and really screwed up the world. How much differently would the world have been had that one addict not been exposed to the stuff?

Think about it.
Yup, we might all be goose-stepping around, well all but MSimon who would be Auschwitz fodder. Sig Heil!

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

KitemanSA wrote:
Diogenes wrote: On a related note, the Germans invented Methamphetamines in the thinking that it would help their soldiers overcome fatigue, and be able to fight harder when the need was great. Unfortunately, Hitler got into the stash, and really screwed up the world. How much differently would the world have been had that one addict not been exposed to the stuff?

Think about it.
Yup, we might all be goose-stepping around, well all but MSimon who would be Auschwitz fodder. Sig Heil!
I'm a bit confused trying to follow you here. Are you asserting that had Hitler not used narcotics, he would have started his various wars anyway, but would have won them?

I was suggesting that had Hitler not been using Meth, he might not have started the wars in the first place. If I recall correctly from the program I saw entitled "High Hitler", I think he started using meth in the early thirties.

http://entiredocumentaries.blogspot.com ... itler.html

I suppose either way you look at it, it was really bad for Hitler to be using Meth.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Diogenes wrote:

MSimon wrote: I'm a bit more American though.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson

Evidently you are not Constitutionally capable of Liberty. You are not alone. It scares the pants off most modern Americans. Especially conservatives. They live in fear of Liberty because some one might make a mistake.

MSimon wrote: I also like this one:
A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have - Thomas Jefferson


I'm also pretty sure that his notions of Liberty and yours are not exactly the same thing.


Boy did I nail THAT one. I just ran across this today. I had heretofore not been aware of it.


Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least. - Bill Number 64, authored by Jefferson and "Reported by the Committee of Advisors, 18 June 1779"

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/gaynor/060605

IntLibber
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm

Post by IntLibber »

Skipjack wrote:
How do you explain the relative lack of an alcohol black market after the end of alcohol prohibition in America? An unfathomable mystery to be sure.
No, not at all.
First of all, there is plenty of alcohol made accessible to minors. Plenty of pubs loose their liquor license every year because of that.
It just is not such a big deal with alcohol, since it does not get you hooked emmediately. It can not get you addicted the first time you drink it (unless there is something wrong with you).
Nor does using other drugs. In fact, on the scale of addictability, alcohol and nicotine rank higher than pot, LSD, and ecstasy. I've used lots of drugs and the only issue on quitting any of them was that alcohol is so commonly used that there is immense social pressure to keep using it, and there is the popular myth of it not being a "dangerous" drug, even though alcohol is one of the easiest drugs to overdose and die from.

In Health Magazine of November/December 1990 a panel of experts were asked to rate the addictiveness of commonly used drugs and substances, taking into consideration two key questions:

* How easy is it become addicted these substances?
* How hard is it to overcome the addiction?

The panel cited various individual traits that might affect the person's vulnerability to substance addiction, including their physiology, psychology and social and economic pressures, but excluded those from the rankings, rating the substances only on the potential inherent in the drug.

I have added some data from more recent research into other drugs such Ritalin (used to combat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in children) and SSRI (selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor) anti-depressants, by the World Health Organisation and the Uppsala monitoring centre in Sweden – these items were not commonly prescribed in 1990, and therefore were not included original survey.

The list below is ranked from highest addictiveness level to lowest.
Very highly addictive (experts rated chance of addiction above 85%):

* Nicotine
* Methamphetamine smoked – (Ice, Glass)
* Crack
* Methamphetamine injected – (Crystal Meth)
* Paroxetine (Paxil/Seroxat)
* Venlafaxine (Effexor)
* Sertraline (Zoloft/Lustral)
* Fluoxetine (Prozac)
* Diazepam (Valium)

Highly addictive (experts rated chance of addiction between 75 and 84%):

* Methaqualone – (Quaalude)
* Secobarbital – (Seconal)
* Alcohol
* Heroin
* Amphetamine inhaled through the nose - Crank

Reasonably addictive (experts rated chance of addiction between 50 and 74%):

* Ritalin
* Cocaine
* Caffeine
* Phencyclidine (PCP)

Not particularly addictive (experts rated chance of addiction below 25%):

* Marijuana
* MDMA (Ecstasy)
* Psilocybin Mushrooms
* LSD
* Mescaline

Since alcohol is so great, why don't we just legalize everything up to that point on this list? Oops, nicotine is at the top, what shall we do?

IntLibber
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm

Post by IntLibber »

Diogenes wrote: Boy did I nail THAT one. I just ran across this today. I had heretofore not been aware of it.


Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least. - Bill Number 64, authored by Jefferson and "Reported by the Committee of Advisors, 18 June 1779"

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/gaynor/060605
I would say that these punishments fell out of favor only because it underestimated the tendency of those they punished to enjoy such blandishments...

"TAKE THEM TO THE IRON MAIDEN!!!"

Bill and Ted exclaim, "Awesome!!!" [guitar riff]

WizWom
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 1:00 pm
Location: St Joseph, MO
Contact:

Post by WizWom »

IntLibber wrote:The list below is ranked from highest addictiveness level to lowest.
Very highly addictive (experts rated chance of addiction above 85%):

* Nicotine
* Methamphetamine smoked – (Ice, Glass)
* Crack
* Methamphetamine injected – (Crystal Meth)
* Paroxetine (Paxil/Seroxat)
* Venlafaxine (Effexor)
* Sertraline (Zoloft/Lustral)
* Fluoxetine (Prozac)
* Diazepam (Valium)
OK, so far, we see their "chance to become addicted" is whacked out.
IntLibber wrote:Highly addictive (experts rated chance of addiction between 75 and 84%):

* Methaqualone – (Quaalude)
* Secobarbital – (Seconal)
* Alcohol
* Heroin
* Amphetamine inhaled through the nose - Crank
Now we see they are incredibly insane. Alcohol gets an 80% chance for addiction? I suppose the 99% of drinkers who go days and days without drinking are just "slightly" addicted or something?
IntLibber wrote:Reasonably addictive (experts rated chance of addiction between 50 and 74%):

* Ritalin
* Cocaine
* Caffeine
* Phencyclidine (PCP)
Caffeine? Are they serious? What do they think the withdrawal symptoms are from that? Getting tired?
IntLibber wrote:Not particularly addictive (experts rated chance of addiction below 25%):

* Marijuana
* MDMA (Ecstasy)
* Psilocybin Mushrooms
* LSD
* Mescaline

Since alcohol is so great, why don't we just legalize everything up to that point on this list? Oops, nicotine is at the top, what shall we do?
No, I think it tells us your experts on addiction are lunatics, and that's it.
Wandering Kernel of Happiness

hanelyp
Posts: 2255
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Post by hanelyp »

IntLibber, how do those drugs rank in relative mental impairment as typically used?

taniwha
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:51 am

Post by taniwha »

WizCom wrote:Caffeine? Are they serious? What do they think the withdrawal symptoms are from that? Getting tired?
Nasty headaches, irritability, and yes, unusual levels of tiredness. And that's from personal experience (the only way I could stop the headache was to drink coffee).

IntLibber
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm

Post by IntLibber »

WizWom wrote:
IntLibber wrote:The list below is ranked from highest addictiveness level to lowest.
Very highly addictive (experts rated chance of addiction above 85%):

* Nicotine
* Methamphetamine smoked – (Ice, Glass)
* Crack
* Methamphetamine injected – (Crystal Meth)
* Paroxetine (Paxil/Seroxat)
* Venlafaxine (Effexor)
* Sertraline (Zoloft/Lustral)
* Fluoxetine (Prozac)
* Diazepam (Valium)
OK, so far, we see their "chance to become addicted" is whacked out.
IntLibber wrote:Highly addictive (experts rated chance of addiction between 75 and 84%):

* Methaqualone – (Quaalude)
* Secobarbital – (Seconal)
* Alcohol
* Heroin
* Amphetamine inhaled through the nose - Crank
Now we see they are incredibly insane. Alcohol gets an 80% chance for addiction? I suppose the 99% of drinkers who go days and days without drinking are just "slightly" addicted or something?
IntLibber wrote:Reasonably addictive (experts rated chance of addiction between 50 and 74%):

* Ritalin
* Cocaine
* Caffeine
* Phencyclidine (PCP)
Caffeine? Are they serious? What do they think the withdrawal symptoms are from that? Getting tired?
IntLibber wrote:Not particularly addictive (experts rated chance of addiction below 25%):

* Marijuana
* MDMA (Ecstasy)
* Psilocybin Mushrooms
* LSD
* Mescaline

Since alcohol is so great, why don't we just legalize everything up to that point on this list? Oops, nicotine is at the top, what shall we do?
No, I think it tells us your experts on addiction are lunatics, and that's it.
This is not just the ease of becoming addicted, but also the difficulty in quitting.

IntLibber
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm

Post by IntLibber »

hanelyp wrote:IntLibber, how do those drugs rank in relative mental impairment as typically used?
That is always a function of dosage and the individuals tolerance.

Today, one Long Island Iced Tea makes you legally impaired.

If I take two puffs on a cigarette I am too buzzed to drive, and not in a fun way. Cigarette addicts, however, can smoke two packs a day without accomplishing much beyond keeping out of withdrawal symptoms (though if they took a box of nicotine patches and put them all on their body at once, they would likely die of a heart attack). The tobacco companies highly regulate the dosage of nicotine per cigarette. Note the number of people who drive high on nicotine. There are no tests manufactured to chemically measure an individuals level of nicotine impairment, and studies show that it, as an upper, has performance enhancing properties, much like amphetamines.

With marijuana, this all depends on the levels of THC in the herb. Normal outdoors varieties of a few decades ago ranged from 1-6% THC. Today, specially bred hydroponic grown pot can be as high as 35% THC. If pot were legalized, farmed and sold like tobacco is, we would likely see commercial pot recede to a mean of maybe 8-10% THC, and tolerance of a single dose would vary based on usage history.

LSD in my experience is completely nonaddictive. It's particular behavior actually lends it to use to help eliminate addictions and bad habits.

choff
Posts: 2434
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Post by choff »

I've heard of LSD being used to cure heroin addiction.
CHoff

Skipjack
Posts: 6051
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

The Chinese had the same problem when they started wiping out their opium addicts. They would not have had so many of them to deal with had they not put up with it for so long. Apparently a nation must be overrun with addicts before many people finally realize that an action must be taken.
Exactly! China was paralyzed by opium addicts.
Now we see they are incredibly insane. Alcohol gets an 80% chance for addiction? I suppose the 99% of drinkers who go days and days without drinking are just "slightly" addicted or something?
Austria has an alcohol drinking culture. About 90% of all grown ups drink alcohol at least once a week. Many have a beer with their lunch or dinner, every day! Construction workers here are known to drink many bottles of beer a day. Yet, while we do have some alcoholics, the numbers are comparably small.
Sorry, I just can not believe those numbers.
Maybe this is per xxx amount of the drug, or something. I dont know.
I have said this before. No one who drinks one beer is drunk. In fact, you should feel close to nothing from one beer. So the effect on your body is comparably small. You take a "normal" shot of heroin and you are out cold. When I was in the hospital for my heart attack they gave me a small shot of morphine for the pain on the first day (also to help with the fear, I was scared for my life). Anyway, even this low dose emmediately knocked me out completely!
Nobody can work while being on heroin! Sorry I dont believe that.
I also dont believe for a minute that alcohol is as addictive as heroin when both are consumed in common dosages.
Of course if you get drunk every day like a heroin user shoots up every day and compare those two things then you will most likely find both equally addictive. The problem with that is, that most alcohol drinkers dont get drunk every day. A heroin user get high totally high every time he uses it. It is like comparing apples to oranges!

Also, stop putting your straw man "pot" out whenever you want to downplay the dangers of drugs. Pot is the least dangerous drug, by far. Yet you are talking about legalizing all drugs and then bring pot as an example. It is stupid to do that. Pot and opiates have nothing in common!

Skipjack
Posts: 6051
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »


Post Reply