Everyone Who Wants to Smoke Pot Is Already Smoking Pot

[MSimon]

But in any case it is all moot.

You can not stop people from feeding their appetites. Why? Well corrupt officials will overlook vice as long as they get their cut.

[Diogenes]

Seriously Talldave, what do you think the odds are of protecting anyone's rights if 90% of the males (and nowadays it would be the females as well, Horaah for women's rights! ) were smoking opium?

I think violating their rights in the name of protecting their rights is extremely ironic.

Irony or not. If they will not rise and protect their rights for whatever reason, they will be at the point of a gun one way or the other.

Anyways, why do you immediately assume it would be an existential crisis for the nation? Chinese society didn't exactly collapse into the ash heap of history. I think it would be fine, as long as they smoked at home or in safe situations. Opiates have a long history of usage.

And of course the United States will come along and rescue us if we should fall into the same situation as China. Oh, wait...

Again, every argument you make assumes that people cannot be trusted to behave responsibly and must be cudgeled into line.

Regarding mind altering substances, yeah that seems about right. Would you be willing to try opium? If not, why not?

We can all forgive Jefferson his ignorance, or perhaps he had the good judgment not to abuse the stuff?

And yet you assume society at large is incapable of such judgment.

The judgment of Jefferson? Are you kidding me? Most of our Leadership for the last two hundred years lacked the judgment of Jefferson, let alone the general public. Even today, we see everywhere signs that Jefferson was correct in his concerns about the future.

I will state emphatically, that Society at large is incapable of the Judgment exhibited by Thomas Jefferson. Decidedly so!

If drugs are legal, and addiction is allowed to grow, does it at some point not constitute a threat to freedom by creating a population unable to defend itself?

No, there's no reason to think they won't be able to defend themselves.

Why, is someone going to make them stop taking drugs before they show up to fight? What about their rights?

[Diogenes]

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/lib ... efault.htm

There it is again! Guys, when *I* cited the druglibrary.org, you said my information was lies and false etc. Are you going to tell MSimon that the source is lies and false information the way you told me?


So it is only lies and false information when it doesn't fit your narrative, or is it like, an objective thing or something?

A US government report no less.

IN JUNE, 1931, at the request of the Commanding General, Panama Canal Department, a committee was designated to reinvestigate the effect of the smoking of mariajuana on military personnel, with a view to securing additional evidence that might possibly be used as a basis for the formulation of regulations forbidding the cultivation, possession, or sale of mariajuana in the Canal Zone. The Governor designated three members to serve on the committee (Health Department officials) ; the Army two members (officers of the Medical Corps) ; and the Commandant, 15th Naval District, one member (medical officer of the Navy).

The committee concluded that the principal and most practicable method of securing reliable information would be to hospitalize a considerable number of soldiers who were known to be users of mariajuana, permit them to use it, then withdraw it and have the patients observed and studied throughout the period of hospitalization by a psychiatrist of high professional standing. The mariajuana used was grown at the Canal Zone Experiment Gardens, assuring uniformity of product. Thirty-four soldiers were observed.

There is no evidence that mariahuana as grown here is a "habit-forming" drug in the sense in which the term is applied to alcohol, opium, cocaine, etc., or that it has any appreciably deleterious influence on the individuals using it.

The Committee recommended "that no steps be taken by the Canal Zone authorities to prevent the sale or use of mariahuana, and that no special legislation be asked for."

The committee, in making its investigation, held hearings which were attended by the Post Commanders of Fort Clayton and Fort Davis. These officers were invited to give their opinions on the subject and to cite instances where mariajuana was the direct cause of military delinquency among soldiers. Members of the committee also visited Fort Davis and the Corozal Hospital for the Insane where they observed soldiers smoking mariajuana, and in addition members of the committee observed four physicians and two members of the Canal Zone Police Department who smoked the drug in their presence. Persons who smoked the drug at the request of the committee rendered written reports on the effect. Numerous written and oral statements of opinion were submitted for consideration. Military records of delinquency among the military personnel were also available and the committee found that in only a very small percentage of individuals brought to trial before General Courts Martial, in which there was a record of violence or insubordination, was it possible to attribute the delinquency to mariajuana.

The circular which forbade the possession of mariajuana was rescinded on January 29, 1926. In December, 1928, the law forbidding the possession and use of mariajuana in the Republic of Panama was repealed.

And MSimon, Get off it. You keep using a water pistol to justify a howitzer.

[MSimon]

If we make concealed carry legal there will be mayhem in the streets. People can't be trusted with guns.

[Diogenes]

But you do make a good point D so let us look at the evidence:

1. In India where opium was legal there was no significant problem

2. In China where it was illegal the problems were severe.

I think that is what is referred to in the vernacular as a clue.

After all if it had been such a problem in India don't you think the Brits would have outlawed it?

Prohibition is the vector that spreads drug use. Ironic isn't it?

MSimon, for someone that is always going on about how much they know regarding the drug war, you are sadly ill informed about the situation in China. Opium WAS legal in China, and that's when the problem BALOONED massively. England FORCED the Chinese to legalize and the Chinese did so. As a result, China ended up with a massive addiction epidemic that ranges from 25% - 90% of the population, depending on which source you wish to cite.

Then, in 1906, the incredible happened. After over a hundred years of steady demoralization, with half her population opium addicts, or worse still, making enormous profits out of the trade, China determined to give up opium.

Now is it only a clue when you are trying to give it to me, or do you take clues as well?

[Diogenes]

Did you forget about the part where the British forced the Chinese to make Opium legal in China

Nope. How could I forget something for which there is no evidence? In fact I have found evidence of the opposite.

Now if you have evidence it would be good of you to provide a cite.

Try this link.

Then, in 1906, the incredible happened. After over a hundred years of steady demoralization, with half her population opium addicts, or worse still, making enormous profits out of the trade, China determined to give up opium.

[Diogenes]

Well I went looking for evidence and this is what I found:

One episode that provides information on the consumption-reducing effect of drug prohibition is the Chinese legalization of opium in 1858. India was a major opium producer during the 19th century, and the British East India Company exported much of this opium to China and Southeast Asia. China prohibited the consumption and importation of opium during the early part of the century, but after the Second Opium War China yielded to British pressure and legalized opium.

The critical feature of this episode is that the Company kept records of opium exports from India to China. These exports were legal throughout the 1800s even though importation into China, and consumption within China, were prohibited until 1858. Exportation occurred before this date because third party entrepreneurs purchased the opium in India and smuggled it into China. If China’s prohibition reduced consumption to a substantial degree, legalization should have increased exports from India to China unless legalization also spurred production within China. In that case, however, Chinese substitution of domestic for imported opium should have reduced the export price of Indian opium. Thus, the joint behavior of opium exports and price indicate whether prohibition reduced opium consumption.

We examine the impact of China’s opium legalization on the quantity and price of British opium exports to China during the 19th century. We find little evidence that legalization increased exports or decreased price.

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/files/ ... rs_ael.pdf

But what do we know about opium in the US? Prohibition hasn't budged opiate use. Not even by .1% (in so far as such precision in an illegal trade can be reckoned).

Why? Aren't Chinese people just as good of guinea pigs as Americans would be? Are you arguing that Americans have some sort of gene that would prevent this massive level of addiction?

I would suggest based on the Chinese experience that if opium usage hasn't budged it's because there has been a force keeping it tamped down. I wonder what that force could be?

[MSimon]

But you do make a good point D so let us look at the evidence:

1. In India where opium was legal there was no significant problem

2. In China where it was illegal the problems were severe.

I think that is what is referred to in the vernacular as a clue.

After all if it had been such a problem in India don't you think the Brits would have outlawed it?

Prohibition is the vector that spreads drug use. Ironic isn't it?

MSimon, for someone that is always going on about how much they know regarding the drug war, you are sadly ill informed about the situation in China. Opium WAS legal in China, and that's when the problem BALOONED massively. England FORCED the Chinese to legalize and the Chinese did so. As a result, China ended up with a massive addiction epidemic that ranges from 25% - 90% of the population, depending on which source you wish to cite.

Then, in 1906, the incredible happened. After over a hundred years of steady demoralization, with half her population opium addicts, or worse still, making enormous profits out of the trade, China determined to give up opium.

Now is it only a clue when you are trying to give it to me, or do you take clues as well?

So tell me. When opiates were legal in America why were only 1.3% of the population into them?

And tell me further, now that opiates are illegal why are 1.3% of the population STILL into them.

What is this? Are we paying the Federal government $25 bn a year to do nothing? Couldn't we do nothing a LOT cheaper by actually doing nothing?

[Diogenes]

But in any case it is all moot.

You can not stop people from feeding their appetites. Why? Well corrupt officials will overlook vice as long as they get their cut.

So we should make sure not to tolerate corrupt officials? Good idea. Let us implement it as soon as possible! No more Democrats or Rinos elected to office!

Anyway, you CAN stop people from feeding an appetite they never develop. Like one of my friends says of the Palestinians, if you could get their children away from them before they teach them to hate, you could break the chain of violence that infects their lives.

If you can keep people from being exposed to Herpes, you can eventually wipe out the disease.

If you can prevent drug addicts from spreading their disease to new people, you can drive the scourge out of existence.

If they don't know what their missing, they won't miss it.

[Diogenes]

If we make concealed carry legal there will be mayhem in the streets. People can't be trusted with guns.

Sheesh, we're back to this again. Guns are not drugs. Guns protect rights, drugs endanger rights. Guns are equalizers between the strong and weak. They make people equally strong.

Drugs are also equalizers between the strong and the weak. They make the mentally strong equal to the mentally weak and deranged.


The one thing is a good thing, the other thing is a bad thing.

[MSimon]

The appetite for opiates hasn't changed in 100 years:

So tell me. When opiates were legal in America why were only 1.3% of the population into them?

And tell me further, now that opiates are illegal why are 1.3% of the population STILL into them.

What is this? Are we paying the Federal government $25 bn a year to do nothing? Couldn't we do nothing a LOT cheaper by actually doing nothing?

So how did those 1.3% develop their appetites? The shit is illegal.

[Diogenes]

But you do make a good point D so let us look at the evidence:

1. In India where opium was legal there was no significant problem

2. In China where it was illegal the problems were severe.

I think that is what is referred to in the vernacular as a clue.

After all if it had been such a problem in India don't you think the Brits would have outlawed it?

Prohibition is the vector that spreads drug use. Ironic isn't it?

MSimon, for someone that is always going on about how much they know regarding the drug war, you are sadly ill informed about the situation in China. Opium WAS legal in China, and that's when the problem BALOONED massively. England FORCED the Chinese to legalize and the Chinese did so. As a result, China ended up with a massive addiction epidemic that ranges from 25% - 90% of the population, depending on which source you wish to cite.

Then, in 1906, the incredible happened. After over a hundred years of steady demoralization, with half her population opium addicts, or worse still, making enormous profits out of the trade, China determined to give up opium.

Now is it only a clue when you are trying to give it to me, or do you take clues as well?

So tell me. When opiates were legal in America why were only 1.3% of the population into them?

And tell me further, now that opiates are illegal why are 1.3% of the population STILL into them.

What is this? Are we paying the Federal government $25 bn a year to do nothing? Couldn't we do nothing a LOT cheaper by actually doing nothing?

You want to talk about an experiment that is still running, rather than the one that has concluded? As I mentioned before, IF opium drug usage hasn't changed since it was made illegal, it could possibly be attributed to several factors.

1. The Anti-Drug operations are holding it down.
2. Users moved to other drugs because they liked them better.
3. Users moved to other drugs because it was harder to get opium.
4. The data is possibly wrong on the front end, the back end, or both.

As for the $25 billion, i'm pretty sure it was used to oppose drugs other than opium as well as opium.

[MSimon]

1. The Anti-Drug operations are holding it down.

Yup. It is keeping opiate use from rising from above the 1.3% use rate under legalization. Under prohibition the use rate is only 1.3%. Good job. Who knows what it would be if it was legal?

You know - if I engineered that way I would never have had a job.

What you are arguing is that prohibition has made the population MORE susceptible to opiate use than it was when the stuff was legal. If you are correct then that is another reason prohibition was a really bad idea. I guess - like socialism - we are stuck with it.

BTW can you explain to me why the Swiss voted TWICE (bigger margin the second time) for heroin legalization?

Also note: under legalization the average age of Swiss opiate users is rising. While the Brits with draconian prohibition find the average age of opiate users is falling. How the heck is that possible? I mean the shit is illegal in Britain. How are the youth getting their drugs? I mean really. Doesn't prohibition mean anything?

Don't the people in Britain know that prohibition means unavailable? I think they need a course in remedial English.

And the fookin Swiss. What is with them? Don't the stupids know that legalizing heroin will turn 50% or more of the country into addicts? Just look at what happened to China.

Don't the Swiss know that legal drugs ruin a country? We have proof of that right here in America. Look at what a mess the country was in from hundreds years of legal opiates. Why 1.3% of the population was into to them. Now that prohibition has reduced the use rate to 1.3% we are much better off.

BTW The SEIU has come out in favor of pot legalization in Calif.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/1 ... 15979.html

And The Teacher's Union as well.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/201 ... roval.html

Well Hitler first. Then Stalin. I really wish I had more allies on the right. But unfortunately allies are where you find them. Ah. Well. As a former Communist I know how to blend in well enough.

[GIThruster]

1. The Anti-Drug operations are holding it down.

Yup. It is keeping opiate use from rising from above the 1.3% use rate under legalization. Under prohibition the use rate is only 1.3%. Good job. Who knows what it would be if it was legal?

And that's with the crappy drug laws we have and our inability to incarcerate properly. I know a woman who has been terrorized by her ex husband for 9 years. He's been found guilty of assault on more occasions than I can count, credit card fraud (his own father turned him in), but most importantly, 5 drug violations over 10 years, including sales of heroin (3X). The judge gave him the max sentence this last time, and still it is just 5 years. 5 years for an extremely violent, repeat offender whose family wants nothing to do with him and whom everyone is afraid of. Wife beater. Child stomper. 5 years.

If things like this got 20 years, the opiate use rate would be way below 1.3%. Really, the guy deserves life in prison. He's just gonna get out and victimize someone else.

[rjaypeters]

FWIW - Report: Illegal drug use up sharply last year

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100916/ap_ ... drug_abuse