hanelyp wrote:A widespread social disdain for vice can in large measure substitute for police enforcement.
More than a substitute for "police enforcement" it is an actually better alternative. Education and yes social censure is far more effective tool in reducing tobacco consumption than punitive laws incarceration would have been. Somehow if one is addicted to nicotine it is a medical problem requiring treatment (nicotine patches etc.); nobody seems to have an issue with that. And without expanding the power and scope of the government and without doing damage to our Constitution & civil liberties and without creating a gulag mentality.
The Polywell Reactor requires electron guns. It requires large magnetic fields. It requires a fuel injection system. It requires a vacuum. It requires a source of very high voltage. It requires a series of things to function properly. Take away or reduce the effectiveness and you will have an amplified impact on the resulting output.
Societies are complex machines. You have to have social censure, you also have to have enforcement for those who won't respond to social censure. You have to have births, you have to have deaths. You have to have foundational principles upon which the large majority agree. You have to deal with natural effects such as weather and external threats. You have to have work for which people can earn a living.
You have to have a large series of interlocking pieces to get a functional resultant.
Optimizing it is difficult because it responds like a plasma, often doing things you didn't expect it to do when you try to tamper with it.
The point is, it is foolish to think that one control does "this" and a different control does "that." No, all the "controls" are interacting feedback mechanisms and diddling with them usually have unintended consequences, and they are usually bad.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
williatw wrote: Or for that matter tobacco; sure we would both agree that nicotine is ferociously addictive. Has the nicotine content for tobacco spiked upward 20X plus fold during the last 40yrs?. Don't actually know but I strongly doubt it.
No, I think you have this wrong. My recollection is that manufactures were at one time doing everything they could to raise the nicotine level. Why wouldn't they? More Nicotine, more addictive. More customers buying their product.This is the positive feedback loop of drug addiction.
Am I? From your link:
Nicotine Manipulation Confirmed
Any doubts that the tobacco industry has surreptitiously raised the nicotine content of cigarettes should be laid to rest by a study from researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health. They confirmed last year’s discovery of the nicotine increase by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and went on to identify how the tobacco companies designed their cigarettes to accomplish this.
These manipulations were discovered because Massachusetts requires manufacturers to use a more realistic test to measure how much nicotine is deliverable to typical smokers and requires companies to report design features of their cigarettes. When Harvard researchers reanalyzed the data they found that the nicotine yield per cigarette rose by an average of 11 percent between 1998 and 2005, a conclusion contested by the industry.
Their continued bad behavior makes it imperative for Congress to grant the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate tobacco products, including the power to reduce nicotine levels and demand extensive data from the companies. The Senate overwhelmingly approved such legislation in 2004, only to have House Republicans block it. With new Democratic majorities in both houses, it is time to rein in this rogue industry.
An 11% increase done "surreptitiously" by legal providers vs 20X times in the case of pot done by illegal providers. Yeah no difference I stand corrected. "everything they could " legally until found out, then what happened? They backed off for fear that the government would step in and regulate them; unlike an illegal provider who isn't subject to legal regulations.
Diogenes wrote:
The point is, it is foolish to think that one control does "this" and a different control does "that." No, all the "controls" are interacting feedback mechanisms and diddling with them usually have unintended consequences, and they are usually bad.
There are very few people in law and politics that truly accept and understand these system concepts.
I'm curious where you are on the Myers-Briggs personality type, if you have ever taken a test for it.
Diogenes wrote:
The point is, it is foolish to think that one control does "this" and a different control does "that." No, all the "controls" are interacting feedback mechanisms and diddling with them usually have unintended consequences, and they are usually bad.
There are very few people in law and politics that truly accept and understand these system concepts.
I'm curious where you are on the Myers-Briggs personality type, if you have ever taken a test for it.
No, i've never been tested. I'm sure one of my personalities will score it one way, and a different one will score it the other way.
But seriously, the most dangerous thing to a society are people who wants to make changes, and who think they know what they are doing.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Gee, is it time to end the war on Drugs as a total defeat now?
It seems genetic engineers are closing in on making yeast that grows Morphine.
Once they are made, no matter where, they will escape. They will find their way to illegal and malign hands. The Morphine will be made. From the morphine, Heroin will be made.
If this is possible with Heroin, it will be possible with almost anything organic. If little Johnny with his Gilbert Junior Gene Splicing Kit can put together fancy new yeast strains that grow fancy new drugs the Great War on the American People by its Government er the War on Drugs is once and for all truly and completely lost.
Genetically Engineered Yeast Makes It Possible To Brew Morphine
Sleep well. We have a wonderful new world in front of us.
{^_^}
From that "flaming liberal lefty" (probably druggy) Jerry Pournelle:
I have long thought the war on drugs lost. We tried an experiment with liquor and the result was disastrous; the drug war seems moreso; and the DEA seems unconstitutional: the states may prohibit drugs, but if liquor required the 18th amendment to make the Volstead Act constitutional, where in the constitution does it allow the feds to prohibit marijuana? Or heroin for that matter. They can be forbidden in interstate commerce, but if grown in the state?
But leaving the constitution aside – which we seem increasingly to do when it comes to federal power – have we not learned that prohibition of self indulgences leads to problems? I can argue that a society without marijuana is a better society, but it is pretty clear that the result of trying to make it so leads to very bad consequences.
From that "flaming liberal lefty" (probably druggy) Jerry Pournelle:
I have long thought the war on drugs lost. We tried an experiment with liquor and the result was disastrous; the drug war seems moreso; and the DEA seems unconstitutional: the states may prohibit drugs, but if liquor required the 18th amendment to make the Volstead Act constitutional, where in the constitution does it allow the feds to prohibit marijuana? Or heroin for that matter. They can be forbidden in interstate commerce, but if grown in the state?
But leaving the constitution aside – which we seem increasingly to do when it comes to federal power – have we not learned that prohibition of self indulgences leads to problems? I can argue that a society without marijuana is a better society, but it is pretty clear that the result of trying to make it so leads to very bad consequences.
Sigh. Everybody always uses an unrealistic and nonsensical measure for success regarding the war on drugs. They think that if it's available at all, the war is a failure, yet they would never apply such a standard to the "War" on Rape, Robbery, or Murder.
The "War on Drugs" is a holding action, not an actual war. Were it an actual "War", we would be seeing a dead drug dealer body count, and dead foreign supplier body counts.
The American people are too squeamish to fight an actual "War" on drugs, so we have this holding action, which in fact has been pretty d@mn successful. As I've pointed out numerous times, the NORMAL PROGRESSION of drugs in a society looks like this:
Some people simply can't grasp the concept of logistical growth.
We have been more or less a flat line since 1900. This is what a "Success" looks like. A Failure looks like that graph up above. We don't have one of those.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Diogenes wrote:As I've pointed out numerous times, the NORMAL PROGRESSION of drugs in a society looks like this:
.
If it is a "NORMAL PROGRESSION " than how about you give us a few more examples other than your fav China? Normal progression implies that there should be many more examples of such; yet neither you or no one else has ever seen fit to show us. If it is a normal progression than by definition history should be replete with examples of where "drugs" were legalized and the society that did so subsequently being "destroyed"; yet you consistently can only sight one, China. A singular example that is itself suspect since it was the result of China being conquered by the British, a hostile foreign power imposing it on them (China) at gun point totally unregulated/controlled.
Diogenes wrote:As I've pointed out numerous times, the NORMAL PROGRESSION of drugs in a society looks like this:
.
If it is a "NORMAL PROGRESSION " than how about you give us a few more examples other than your fav China?
Because there is no other example in human history. No other nation has ever been so stupid as to do what China was forced to do. They really did lose their "War on Drugs."
What about this is difficult for you to understand? This experiment lasted over 70 years. If it was going to turn around and go the other direction, it would have done so.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
williatw wrote:
If it is a "NORMAL PROGRESSION " than how about you give us a few more examples other than your fav China?
Because there is no other example in human history. No other nation has ever been so stupid as to do what China was forced to do. They really did lose their "War on Drugs."
What about this is difficult for you to understand? This experiment lasted over 70 years. If it was going to turn around and go the other direction, it would have done so.
Logically...if you can only produce a single example you can't really argue it as a normal progression. And I am sorry it was legal in the United State, Britain and presumably the rest of Europe at the time; neither experienced your "normal progression". Your stated caveats about lack of knowledge of opiates (suppose they didn't "know about" opiates in Europe either) prior to the Civil War; Conquered China is your singular example of your normal progression; Opium was legal in America, Britain, (I would assume the rest of Europe); and no "normal progression"; you can't make that go away with hand waving about lack of knowledge or different values than today, etc.
williatw wrote:. . .Opium was legal in America, Britain, (I would assume the rest of Europe); and no "normal progression"; you can't make that go away with hand waving about lack of knowledge or different values than today, etc.
That's simply not true. The drugs that are illegal all across the world today, are illegal specifically because we observe this fantastically destructive result on all society. For you to pretend we have arrived at the solution we have, with so many drugs illegal, is just ridiculous on its face.
All of these drugs started off legal. They were made illegal because they have these obvious societal effects. You need to bear in mind that more than 95% of all violent crime is done by illegal drug users, who make up less than 10% of the general populous. We should be incarcerating them, and only fools think otherwise. Your arguments make no sense, fly in the face of simple reason and observation, and you are unreasonable in your demands that those of us with some common sense have to do your research for you. That's nonsense. You've had the facts laid out plain and simple dozens of times and refuse to listen. You are reprobate, and unable to see the hand in front of your face because of your commitment to frick up your brain on drugs. There is no reasonable discourse to be had with such people. You are not rational, and you are quite incapable of rational discourse. Making demands upon your debate opponent to do what he has done time and again for years, is simply not making a real argument. Obviously, you do not have one to make.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
GIThruster wrote:That's simply not true. The drugs that are illegal all across the world today, are illegal specifically because we observe this fantastically destructive result on all society. For you to pretend we have arrived at the solution we have, with so many drugs illegal, is just ridiculous on its face.
Other than China conquered by the British who forced Opium upon them, name one country in history destroyed by intoxicants; for it to be a "normal progression" there should by definition be many examples you can site.
All Britain did was make the drugs available (over the objection of the Chinese government). The Chinese people chose to use those drugs in an exponential growth spiral.
I see 3 ways a society can be saved from a drug taking over:
- The drug is unavailable, being prohibitively expensive to produce or import in significant amounts. We are well past this point with modern chemical technology and transportation.
- Social pressure against the drug, combined with willingness to isolate addicts and let them fail. But that's not politically correct, or consistent with an all encompassing welfare state.
- Legal sanctions against pushers and drug abusers.
As a side note, if I were an amoral depraved individual wanting to clean up the drug problem I might create a drug cheap but generally deadly in short order, like krokadil. Let the druggies kill themselves off with their habit.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.
hanelyp wrote:All Britain did was make the drugs available (over the objection of the Chinese government). The Chinese people chose to use those drugs in an exponential growth spiral.
"All Britain did" was conquer them. A conqueror usually doesn't need to bother getting the subject population hooked on intoxicants because usually when you conquer someone you simply take their stuff; land, gold, slaves, whatever. The British government hit upon the idea of doing the equivalent of that on the sneak; they did far more than make it (opium) available to them they heavily pushed it on the subject population every way they could.
hanelyp wrote:I see 3 ways a society can be saved from a drug taking over:
- The drug is unavailable, being prohibitively expensive to produce or import in significant amounts. We are well past this point with modern chemical technology and transportation.
- Social pressure against the drug, combined with willingness to isolate addicts and let them fail. But that's not politically correct, or consistent with an all encompassing welfare state.
- Legal sanctions against pushers and drug abusers.
Your first and second points were probably true throughout most of history; only the wealthy few had the money to waste on intoxicants to the point of serious addiction death. And people were perfectly willing (outside of maybe close family) to allow users to intoxicate themselves to death; limiting the process. Your point about the modern welfare state is germane; look at the crack epidemic in the United States of the '80's. The gov targets pot as the result of the WOD; led to massive paraquat spraying of pot, causing a huge bump up in price. Than a cheaper version of cocaine (crack) is created to take advantage of the market niche created by government intervention (WOD). And finally the free money of the welfare state (welfare/foodstamps). Seem the whole problem (crack) was created by gov. intervention. They had a welfare state in Europe why wasn't their society "destroyed" by crack? Lack of massive government intervention against pot to enable it perhaps? Your point about legal sanctions against addicts/pushers being effective would be your weakest argument; little data to support the efficacy of that approach.
hanelyp wrote:As a side note, if I were an amoral depraved individual wanting to clean up the drug problem I might create a drug cheap but generally deadly in short order, like krokadil. Let the druggies kill themselves off with their habit.
Which is closer to your 2nd point about societies simply letting them "intoxicate" themselves to death; probably explains the lack of historical examples of countries destroyed by intoxicants; society throughout history was simply to Darwinian for that to happen. If you had a neighbor in medieval Venice who liked the imported Opium too much, there would have been plenty of people who would have watched him disintegrate than happily moved in to collect the spoils after he died.
Last edited by williatw on Sat May 23, 2015 2:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
williatw wrote:
If it is a "NORMAL PROGRESSION " than how about you give us a few more examples other than your fav China?
Because there is no other example in human history. No other nation has ever been so stupid as to do what China was forced to do. They really did lose their "War on Drugs."
What about this is difficult for you to understand? This experiment lasted over 70 years. If it was going to turn around and go the other direction, it would have done so.
Logically...if you can only produce a single example you can't really argue it as a normal progression.
If it were a virus, you would only need one example to demonstrate it's tendency to spread from host to host. Well it *IS* a virus, just not the sort that you are accustomed to seeing.
williatw wrote:
And I am sorry it was legal in the United State, Britain and presumably the rest of Europe at the time; neither experienced your "normal progression". Your stated caveats about lack of knowledge of opiates (suppose they didn't "know about" opiates in Europe either) prior to the Civil War; Conquered China is your singular example of your normal progression; Opium was legal in America, Britain, (I would assume the rest of Europe); and no "normal progression"; you can't make that go away with hand waving about lack of knowledge or different values than today, etc.
Oh My God. Here is this *LIE* being presented to me again. I am fed up with hearing this lie, and I'm not going to answer it again. Stop repeating this f*cking lie.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
