Reason vs. Emotion.

[choff]

If you make all illegal drugs legal, by claiming hardly anybody gets killed by them, you create a whole new legal can of worms. The law of unintended consequences will run amock. Remember how feminists fought to legalize abortion, only now poor countries use abortion as a gender selection tool for son's over daughters, and in a few more years those sons won't have wives.

If addictive drugs are made legal, with the proviso you must be at least 18 and pay tax on it, medications will no longer require prescription to be sold legally, after all, the drug companies can say there product is no more dangerous than legally available heroin, crack and PCP, therefore, why would you need prescriptions.

Who needs ethics debates in genetics research anyway, now that we can all by hard drugs over the counter.

But it gets even better, statistically hardly anybody has been killed by thermonuclear weapons, even when compared to current legally available tobacco. Therefore, why not allow everybody over the age of 18 to purchase thermonuclear weapons, so long as they have a disclaimer on the side and they pay sales tax.

Then there's mob hitmen, ever know anybody killed by one. Hardly a threat to public health, why not make them legal, have to purchase licenses and pass state exams, pay taxes for services rendered.

[zDarby]

I reckon there's three types of people: Those who can count, and those that can't.

There are 10 kinds of people, those who know binary and those who don't.
-------

You mean THC is not a cannabinoid? Dr. Mechoulam will sure be interested in the news. You must contact him at once as this contradicts his life work. You know - the first guy to synthesize THC and also discover the CB1 receptor.

Trying not to step in the sarcasm so I needn't scrape it off my shoes later....

Yes. Of course THC is a cannabinoid. And, yes, it binds to CB1 & 2, just like CBD, other cannabinoids and mammalian endocannabinoids.

Marijuana buds are exceedingly high in THC anymore because more recent strains of marijuana have been bread for it: THC is what makes you high. Getting high is why people buy it. So, more THC means more expensive (more or less) and what the seller/buyer wants.

Conversely, CBD has been bread out because it mitigates the high of THC. If you want a more balanced dosage of cannabinoids --IE, if you're trying to cure yourself of whatever-- use a tincture or cream rendered from leaves instead of buds.

No, you're right, my post wasn't structured like the above and was easily misunderstood. But it also was a fun little side-note, not a dissertation.
-------

Where do you go for your misinformation? Why do I ask? So I can avoid the location and its denizens.

Again, stepping over the personal attacks:
Science News, Scientific American, Nature Magazine, mostly.
I also get this and that from here and there.

I don't pretend to be a biochemist and I don't pretend to be right all the time. (See earlier post.)
------

I have an addictive personality

That whole theory was discredited about a decade ago. [...]

Actually, I don't know anything about a theory where personality types are more or less addiction-prone. Never heard of it. Whenever I've heard people talk about genetic addictive tendencies, I've heard the term "addictive personality". I thought the two memes were the same thing. Thank you for setting me straight.

If you read my earlier posts, though, you'll notice it's my opinion addiction is a genetic tendency. Furthermore, I have that genetic tendency as demonstrated by three previous generations of alcoholics. (And observations of my own reactions to drugs.)
-------

Actually on the 'net z there are two kinds of people: those who are familiar with the subject they comment on and those who aren't.

You are going to have a rough time among this gang of engineers (I'd give you a week around here at most) if you continue to pass misinformation.
[...]
Keep up my man. Or people here will think you are blowing smoke.

BTW what kind of engineering do you practice?

What's with the personal attacks? I've been lurking here for months and I don't recall you getting this riled up this badly over anything. What's up?

For me, this thread is about one's philosophy. I already said I don't expect anyone to agree with me or to change any minds. I've not attacked anyone's believes or person... Well, I did take a couple swipes at Diogenes, but they were in fun. (One of which I'm going to have to apologize for and explain a little.)

To answer your question of my engineering background directly: I do not and don't pretend to. I went to Uni for aerospace engineering but had to quit in my third year for personal reasons. I was learning from my father how to build traditional wooden boats but he died of cancer before I completed my training. So I have a little training in the art of engineering but no where near enough to call myself an engineer. So I don't.
-------

Whether it's true or not misses the point. The REASON drugs work is because they resemble NATURALLY occurring edocrinal secretions. They were evolved to resemble natural hormones etc. for the purpose of interfering with the biology of plant predators. Organic drugs work BECAUSE they resemble naturally occurring chemicals.

Yes. True. But I think you're missing MSimon's point, which was, (IMHO) that there's some kind of narcotic EVERYWHERE!! In the given example of breastmilk, just purify it for the endocannabinoids and, BOOM, street-sellable hallucinogen. Oops! Now you gotta outlaw breastmilk.
-------

What you say about pecking order is true... To those who're still laboring under the personal zietgiest of highschool. ::razzberry::

What, after high school people stop being human? Seriously, the social status pecking order is just as important in adult relationships as it is at any time during a person's life. It is an innate characteristic of humans. It is a natural instinct, not an attitude.
[...]
"Diss" means disrespect. It means saying or doing things which are intended to cause a loss of respect for someone, such as insults or snide comments and gestures. I think what you mean is that you will shake off attempts to disrespect you like water on a duck's back. (or penis. Smile )
That is the way mature people deal with it. (up to a point.)

The second statement shows that the first statement, while true, is imperfect. In order for there to be a "mature response", the person responding must change the way they respond from the unstated but assumed "immature response". So, while in High School, it is possible to be have an immature response that you grow out of after you exit high school.... However, it was a snide comment. Thus, the razzberry.

Oh... And yes. That is what I meant: Your disrespect will flow off me like water off a duck's penis!
-----

2) Makes me think you're a troll and I shouldn't feed you.

I thought my second message made it obvious that it was an attempt to provoke an emotional reaction out of you. Most people read and respond after they read. I expected you to respond with emotion to my original message, and therefore demonstrate my point. You didn't follow the usual methodology of read and reply, so the trick didn't work. It was worth a shot.

Well, first of all, I can't take credit for not falling into the trap. You're goading couldn't have worked because you didn't wait long enough between your first and second posts. I posted my post, then went away for the day. By the time I came back to read responses, you had posted both replies. And yes, your second post made it obvious you weren't trolling. Sorry I didn't outright say that. Had I thought you were a troll, I wouldn't have replied. I try not to feed trolls.

Nice try, though.
------

You still responded with some emotion, though it is subtle. Saying "I don't care" is a characteristic described in the book I suggested (the Lucifer Principle) commonly used by an entity (the book describes the behavior of animals as well as people) to feign unconcern towards a challenger that they are unsure they can beat. Suggesting I might be a troll is also a defensive mechanism, and an attempt to push me down socially, and thereby make you rise socially as the aggressor.

Sometimes a person denies something because it genuinely isn't true, Lucifer Principal or no. You asked me how I felt from your statement. After I realized you weren't a troll, I gave you a direct answer... Again, I don't expect to change your mind, just express my opinion.
--------

In a nutshell, your statement is: " You have no right to stop XXXX, unless it conflicts with YYYYY. "

My argument is, "It conflicts with YYYY".

I conqur. This is where we disagree the most.
-------

And your evidence of someone being infected with a disease they were never exposed to is?

Anecdotal evidence: I, personally, was inoculated by the "drug disease" by being exposed to it. This, even though I have a genetic propensity for addiction.

All I'm saying is that humans ain't that simple.
---------

Why would you think I said "protect people from themselves"?

This is the whole problem. People mucking about with their biology and claiming that they have a right to f*ck themselves up!

What did I miss?
--------

A vast accusation. It might be true, but it is a fact not yet in evidence.
...
You are arguing that people in positions of power become dictatorial and abuse their positions of power? Sure, that's pretty obvious.

Your words speak for me.

Since you excerpted the sentences from their context, they no longer speak for me.

Correct. The rearranged words were not speaking for you, they were speaking for me. People in positions of power have a tendency to abuse it. It's not an absolute law but there is a tendency.

If you pay crap wages to someone with a job of even a little power, and then put them in a situation where they can earn big $$ from even one dishonesty, the likelihood for abuse goes up considerably.

No. Not all law enforcement is corrupt. Far from it, I suspect. But the above situation is a constant for all law enforcement. And it's factors more for drug enforcement. Add to that the belief that anyone connected with drugs is evil / worthless / bad --and, yes, this is a wide-spread belief-- plus the "them vs us" mentality prevalent in law enforcement and you have a huge temptation for abuse.
-----

Is it harder to like me than agree with me, or is it harder to agree with me than like me? Smile

I like the cut of your Jib, sailor. I just can't stand some of your politics.

That's all I have time for, folks.
See you next time.
Live long and prosper. Nyuk, nyuk.

[GIThruster]

If you make all illegal drugs legal, by claiming hardly anybody gets killed by them, you create a whole new legal can of worms. The law of unintended consequences will run amock. Remember how feminists fought to legalize abortion, only now poor countries use abortion as a gender selection tool for son's over daughters, and in a few more years those sons won't have wives.

I know someone who spent 8 years in China and just returned 2 years ago. She says that the Chinese are an entire nation of angry men, angry because most of them know they'll never have a wife. There are just too few to go around.

So much for social engineering.

[Diogenes]

-------

Whether it's true or not misses the point. The REASON drugs work is because they resemble NATURALLY occurring edocrinal secretions. They were evolved to resemble natural hormones etc. for the purpose of interfering with the biology of plant predators. Organic drugs work BECAUSE they resemble naturally occurring chemicals.

Yes. True. But I think you're missing MSimon's point, which was, (IMHO) that there's some kind of narcotic EVERYWHERE!! In the given example of breastmilk, just purify it for the endocannabinoids and, BOOM, street-sellable hallucinogen. Oops! Now you gotta outlaw breastmilk.

Granted. Given natural occurrences of drugs in the foods you consume, you aren't altering your perception or stimulating your pleasure button. You aren't doing anything that might turn into an addiction. With the purified concentrated stuff, you are, and that is where the danger lies. As I've said before, if you just chew on Coca leaves (like the native Indians do) you aren't abusing the drug.

-------

What you say about pecking order is true... To those who're still laboring under the personal zietgiest of highschool. ::razzberry::

What, after high school people stop being human? Seriously, the social status pecking order is just as important in adult relationships as it is at any time during a person's life. It is an innate characteristic of humans. It is a natural instinct, not an attitude.
[...]
"Diss" means disrespect. It means saying or doing things which are intended to cause a loss of respect for someone, such as insults or snide comments and gestures. I think what you mean is that you will shake off attempts to disrespect you like water on a duck's back. (or penis. Smile )
That is the way mature people deal with it. (up to a point.)

The second statement shows that the first statement, while true, is imperfect. In order for there to be a "mature response", the person responding must change the way they respond from the unstated but assumed "immature response". So, while in High School, it is possible to be have an immature response that you grow out of after you exit high school.... However, it was a snide comment. Thus, the razzberry.

Responding maturely requires a suppression of the natural instinct which most people can't manage. Hence, my contention that the pecking order and social status rules will apply in virtually every situation regardless of who tries to ignore them.

Oh... And yes. That is what I meant: Your disrespect will flow off me like water off a duck's penis!

We should all be so slippery as a duck penis!

-----

2) Makes me think you're a troll and I shouldn't feed you.

I thought my second message made it obvious that it was an attempt to provoke an emotional reaction out of you. Most people read and respond after they read. I expected you to respond with emotion to my original message, and therefore demonstrate my point. You didn't follow the usual methodology of read and reply, so the trick didn't work. It was worth a shot.

Well, first of all, I can't take credit for not falling into the trap. You're goading couldn't have worked because you didn't wait long enough between your first and second posts.

I had actually considered waiting several posts and seeing if I could get a page rollover, but I thought the likely hood of you noticing the second before you responded to the first was small. I had some concerns of being interrupted before I could write the second one, and I thought it was important to get it out before I was prevented from doing so.

I posted my post, then went away for the day. By the time I came back to read responses, you had posted both replies. And yes, your second post made it obvious you weren't trolling. Sorry I didn't outright say that. Had I thought you were a troll, I wouldn't have replied. I try not to feed trolls.

Nice try, though.

Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you.

------

You still responded with some emotion, though it is subtle. Saying "I don't care" is a characteristic described in the book I suggested (the Lucifer Principle) commonly used by an entity (the book describes the behavior of animals as well as people) to feign unconcern towards a challenger that they are unsure they can beat. Suggesting I might be a troll is also a defensive mechanism, and an attempt to push me down socially, and thereby make you rise socially as the aggressor.

Sometimes a person denies something because it genuinely isn't true, Lucifer Principal or no. You asked me how I felt from your statement. After I realized you weren't a troll, I gave you a direct answer... Again, I don't expect to change your mind, just express my opinion.

Ah, but would your answer have been the same if you hadn't seen that second message? I think you mentioned that if you thought I was a troll, you wouldn't have responded at all, and it was the second message that convinced you I wasn't a troll. My experiment may have been successful after all! bwaa ha ha ha ha. (evil laugh)

--------

In a nutshell, your statement is: " You have no right to stop XXXX, unless it conflicts with YYYYY. "

My argument is, "It conflicts with YYYY".

I conqur. This is where we disagree the most.

I contend that the disagreement is the result of those who advocate legalized drugs not giving due consideration and realistic thinking to the long term consequences of their beliefs. In other words, a failure to accurately see the long term (big) picture.

-------

And your evidence of someone being infected with a disease they were never exposed to is?

Anecdotal evidence: I, personally, was inoculated by the "drug disease" by being exposed to it. This, even though I have a genetic propensity for addiction.

All I'm saying is that humans ain't that simple.

Even using your analogy, why would you need to be "inoculated" from a disease if it were impossible to be exposed to it? That is my point. Eradicate the disease, and people cannot catch it, nor do they need to be inoculated from it. The manner of controlling other diseases would work for this disease too, if we would just implement it.

---------

Why would you think I said "protect people from themselves"?

This is the whole problem. People mucking about with their biology and claiming that they have a right to f*ck themselves up!

What did I miss?

You're equating my contention that people are "claiming that they have a right to f*ck themselves up" as being equivalent to protecting people from themselves. It is not the same thing. Firstly, just because you claim something doesn't make it true, and secondly, the assertion ignores the fact that spreading their drug usage to new people is causing an injury to the new people they have spread it to.

--------

Your words speak for me.

Since you excerpted the sentences from their context, they no longer speak for me.

Correct. The rearranged words were not speaking for you, they were speaking for me. People in positions of power have a tendency to abuse it. It's not an absolute law but there is a tendency.

If you pay crap wages to someone with a job of even a little power, and then put them in a situation where they can earn big $$ from even one dishonesty, the likelihood for abuse goes up considerably.

No. Not all law enforcement is corrupt. Far from it, I suspect. But the above situation is a constant for all law enforcement. And it's factors more for drug enforcement. Add to that the belief that anyone connected with drugs is evil / worthless / bad --and, yes, this is a wide-spread belief-- plus the "them vs us" mentality prevalent in law enforcement and you have a huge temptation for abuse.

I think my point was that accusing ALL law enforcement of being corrupt was simply not provable, even if the tendency is in that direction. It was an overshoot.

-----

Is it harder to like me than agree with me, or is it harder to agree with me than like me? Smile

I like the cut of your Jib, sailor. I just can't stand some of your politics.

That's all I have time for, folks.
See you next time.
Live long and prosper. Nyuk, nyuk.

Given enough time and enough thinking, you might find you like my politics better than me, but that's just the chance I'll have to take.

[Diogenes]

If you make all illegal drugs legal, by claiming hardly anybody gets killed by them, you create a whole new legal can of worms. The law of unintended consequences will run amock. Remember how feminists fought to legalize abortion, only now poor countries use abortion as a gender selection tool for son's over daughters, and in a few more years those sons won't have wives.

I know someone who spent 8 years in China and just returned 2 years ago. She says that the Chinese are an entire nation of angry men, angry because most of them know they'll never have a wife. There are just too few to go around.

So much for social engineering.

I worry that a nation full of angry men might be more dangerous than one which is not. I've thought about this idea for decades. What do you do when you have several million surplus young men who can't find wives?

Just another example of the perverse nature of Leftest thinking. Communism and Abortion uniting to create an army of destruction. Death ever seems to be the consequences of leftism.

[Diogenes]

I thought other people might be interested in this (and other) essay(s) by NightJack, an award winning blogger who was a British Police detective that shared his insight on various issues he dealt with in his daily life. After he was publicly identified, He had to shut down his blog and was disciplined by his police department, but due to the magic of the internet, his archives have been resurrected.

This one is related to drugs.


http://nightjack2.wordpress.com/2008/04 ... e-ceiling/

[choff]

Unless drug dealers can get to young people under age 25 the whole of the illicit trade would probably collapse, they have to get them while they're young and susecptible or they probably never will.

I once read in I believe, 'The Dilbert Principle' where the author claimed an insite learned during a course on hypnotism. Namely, human beings do not think before they act. They think after they act, usually to rationalize the action, and they will do so to incredible lengths.

I believe that's what we do in this blog, both those in favor of legalization and those against, we acted a long time ago either to use drugs or not, and now we rationalize our behavior endlessly.

[IntLibber]

Unless drug dealers can get to young people under age 25 the whole of the illicit trade would probably collapse, they have to get them while they're young and susecptible or they probably never will.

I once read in I believe, 'The Dilbert Principle' where the author claimed an insite learned during a course on hypnotism. Namely, human beings do not think before they act. They think after they act, usually to rationalize the action, and they will do so to incredible lengths.

I believe that's what we do in this blog, both those in favor of legalization and those against, we acted a long time ago either to use drugs or not, and now we rationalize our behavior endlessly.

Speak for yourself. I decided long ago, before I ever used drugs myself, that they should be legalized, taxed, and available to adults just as alcohol and cigarettes are. I was an uptight, alcohol abusing ass at the time. Since then I quit drinking and use drugs occasionally for relaxation and enjoyment and have never become addicted to any of them. I'm much happier about myself these days. I think LSD is a fantastic substance that definitely should be legalized and that people should be taught the responsible use of it in meditation classes. (FYI I've only used it twice in the past year).

[Betruger]

Topic drift strikes again.

If there is a genetic guarantee for runaway addiction and/or absence of it (i.e. hard evidence that excessive drug use is entirely willful), I can't see how it wouldn't eventually become an essential part of regulation of legalized drugs.

[MSimon]

If you make all illegal drugs legal, by claiming hardly anybody gets killed by them, you create a whole new legal can of worms. The law of unintended consequences will run amock

Just like they did in the 400 years before the laws were passed in America.

[MSimon]

Topic drift strikes again.

If there is a genetic guarantee for runaway addiction and/or absence of it (i.e. hard evidence that excessive drug use is entirely willful), I can't see how it wouldn't eventually become an essential part of regulation of legalized drugs.

The genetic component prevents runaway addiction.

And since genetics is not enough (you need a trigger) that is a further fire wall. And since the trigger is trauma (mostly child abuse) we can actually do prevention.

But unless we start dealing with causes our efforts will have no effect.

Also note that people use the weakest drug that will solve their problem. Which is why pot is way more popular that heroin.

[MSimon]

Unless drug dealers can get to young people under age 25 the whole of the illicit trade would probably collapse, they have to get them while they're young and susecptible or they probably never will.

Spend a lot of time in fantasy land?

They can't keep drugs out of prisons.

On a board with supposedly rational people I have never seen so many hair brained "solutions" - i.e. if we just double down we can fix this thing.

Well actually I have seen similar nuttiness when ever discussion of drug prohibition comes up. I suppose it is proof positive that drugs make people stupid.

====

Let me explain supply and demand my economically illiterate friend.

1. Supplies are cut back due to raids
2. Prices go up due to lack of supply
3. This brings more sellers into the market
4. Back where you started except that the general population is now paying for food and housing and watchers for those caught.

====

I think it was Phoenix where there was a raid that cleared ALL (or nearly all) the dealers out of the market. For 7 days nothing was available. On the 8th day supplies reappeared and by 30 days things were back to normal.

It is why police refer to these raids as herding junkies.

====

When a policy has 70+ years of failure rational people change policy. The irrational prescription? Double the size of the police force. Man all the borders (it is estimated that it would require 10 to 40 additional divisions to do that). And I especially like Newt's prescription - death for 2 oz of pot. With the usual unofficial elite exemption.

====

When the current system doesn't work the conservative thing to do is to go back to to the way things were before the stupidity started.

Evidently we only have Progressives in this country. Oh. They have their factions. But the policy is always more government intervention as the cure.

The rallying cry of Progressives? "Government can...." No it can't.

[MSimon]

I really hate injecting reality into such an interesting discussion but if you want numbahs (vs free floating and unconnected to reality fiction) the numbers on this page are representative. (the policy prescriptions are nuts - but they have their phony baloney jobs to protect)

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/pub ... t/druguse/

Let us look a stats for 2001 (they are representative)

Past month pot use:
12 - 17 yos - 8.0%
18 - 25 yos - 16.0%
26 - 34 yos - 6.8%
35 and up - 2.4%

Now it seems to me that if we do nothing the desire to use declines with age. Naturally.

I'm not going to look up a link (you can do that) but the same thing happens with heroin. Every year without rehab 5% of the users give it up. Fortunately rehab is much more successful. With rehab 5% a year give it up. The one thing rehab has going for it is that it is 7X cheaper than the prison industrial complex. So if we are going to be stupid I say lets do it on the cheap.

[MSimon]

Remember how feminists fought to legalize abortion, only now poor countries use abortion as a gender selection tool for son's over daughters, and in a few more years those sons won't have wives.

Yeah. That is a real pisser. But how can you stop it? Technology marches on. Instead of having to hire a surgeon you can now buy a pill.

BTW abortion was always available in America. The only question that ever was on the subject was who was going to be the provider. Criminals who often enough killed the woman involved or reputable physicians who kept the women alive to bear children another day? As many do.

And of course every single illegal abortion makes another enemy of the state (not counting repeats).

Now how would I do something about all this? Change the culture. Without government "help". A longer road to be sure. But far more certain.

[choff]

Date rape also comes in a pill, and is subject to exactly the same laws of supply and demand as narcotics, but if we use your logic, we should legalize and tax it since drug prohibition won't work. If we arrest all the date rapists, within a week new suppliers will fill the void, but of course we shouldn't worry because usage falls off with age.

Incidentally, I've never seen a conservative so enthusiastic to bring in a new tax. Do you consider illegal narcotics to be recreational drugs like tobacco and alcohol, or medicinal and therefore subject to prescription.
(Viagra may fall into a grey area here.)

Be careful how you answer, because if you want to call it medical marijuana and tax it, then the legalized pot growers can complain, 'why should we have to pay tax that all other medications don't.' Then out of fairness, the tax gets extended to every other prescription medication. Don't think so, you must be some kind of progressive!

Big Pharma can legitimately complain, why do we have to wait for new drug approval and recall new drugs over side effects and pay out huge lawsuit claims when medical narcotics have it scott free, or perhaps the same lawsuits will kill off marijuana when its available for prescription and users can now sue over side effects.

Now, even if you want to call them recreational drugs, not subject to prescription, and apply your shiny new progressive taxes on them, do you honestly believe the illegal trade will stop. The bootleggers are thriving selling contraband tobacco and alcohol in direct circumvention of taxes and regulations, in fact tobacco companies have been involved in the crime.

Either way, big pharma isn't going to like getting taxed and having the country flooded by cheap overseas drugs that don't require prescriptions, the only good side for them is that now they can create brand new addictive substances. The kind that hook you via second hand smoke and never let you go.