ScottL wrote:Diogenes, according to you all forms of government lead to destruction. If this is the case, why not find a balance between the forms?
Where did you get that notion? I am in favor of the Republican form of government; a design we have been steadily moving away from since the founding. The founders DESPISED Democracy, yet that is where we have been heading. As we move closer, our society degrades.
Most of our constitutional Amendments were mistakes which had disastrous and unforeseen consequences.
‘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:An earlier poster mentioned that cigarette smoking has been on the decline. Probably mostly because of the massive propaganda campaign against the dangers of smoking, even though cigarettes are still cheap(like alcohol) and legal. Consumption of hard liquor is similarly down, with beer and wine making up most alcohol consumption. Maybe then the answer is yes legalize drugs, even hard ones like cocaine and heroin but heavily regulate them. Marijuana might be relatively free of regs but heroin/cocaine heavily regulated. Legal heroin/cocaine might be a "product containing heroin/cocaine" that was only about 10% h or c. I seemed to recall hearing a Frontline special on Crystal meth that said the threshold for ferociously addictive was the concentration, that above a certain threshold it was hard to quit from. Wonder if H or C are the same? Maybe below a certain threshold of legal(purchased at a state liquor store by a licensed provider) the 5-10% product much cheaper than illegal is not that addictive? Legal but heavily regulated, massive education/propaganda against usage through schools/media but queasily tolerated like smoking still is.
And this is an idea which I have put forth before. My suggestion was simply to license users, and suspend licenses for violations.
‘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:I see widespread drug addiction as an existential threat.
And the most efficient defense against this threat is awareness, regulation (not prohibition), and medical treatment. How much of that applied to China?
I am not comprehending your theory. I am of the opinion that drug addiction works like an infectious disease. Once initiated, if not interdicted, it spreads exponentially. What kind of "treatment" do you think is going to hold it in check?
MSimon has long railed about the ineffectiveness of the drug war because 2% of the population was addicted in 1900, and still today only 2% of the population is addicted. I argue that the normal trend for addictive drugs looks like this:
Chests of Opium brought into China
That we have managed to maintain a flat line where the normal condition is an exponential curve would seem to indicate the war on drugs has been somewhat successful.
So, to get to the salient point, do you think that if we legalized drugs the usage wouldn't go up? (as it did in China?)
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Well you are like so many: you want Republican government EXCEPT for your pet projects. And in order to get what you want the MOST your rep will log roll on projects you are not so hot for to keep you happy ("sure the government spends too much but at least I get MY Prohibition").
People almost invariably get destroyed by their fears. Either what they fear is really that fearful (very rarely) or their fear drives them to do stupid things (very frequently).
“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
In this country external attacks are not so puissant. We prefer our panics to be moral. And why do we have a wide ranging Drug War? Because Harry Anslinger needed something to do once Alcohol Prohibition was over. You can look it up. Now what do you suppose our Federalized police forces will be doing once Drug Prohibition is over? A War On Tobacco is my best guess at this time. Or they could morph into food police. Or wood police. Or Sex Police. Or economic police. They WILL be doing something.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
MSimon wrote:Well you are like so many: you want Republican government EXCEPT for your pet projects. And in order to get what you want the MOST your rep will log roll on projects you are not so hot for to keep you happy ("sure the government spends too much but at least I get MY Prohibition").
Why do you keep saying this? I don't see it as even slightly true. Law enforcement is not my "pet project", it is an unpleasant, albeit necessary function of all governments.
MSimon wrote:
People almost invariably get destroyed by their fears. Either what they fear is really that fearful (very rarely) or their fear drives them to do stupid things (very frequently).
“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
In this country external attacks are not so puissant. We prefer our panics to be moral. And why do we have a wide ranging Drug War? Because Harry Anslinger needed something to do once Alcohol Prohibition was over. You can look it up. Now what do you suppose our Federalized police forces will be doing once Drug Prohibition is over? A War On Tobacco is my best guess at this time. Or they could morph into food police. Or wood police. Or Sex Police. Or economic police. They WILL be doing something.
None of this has anything to do with the salient point of this issue.
What knowledge could you possibly have that would explain why China went through exponential drug addiction, but that we would not?
‘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:I am not comprehending your theory. I am of the opinion that drug addiction works like an infectious disease. Once initiated, if not interdicted, it spreads exponentially. What kind of "treatment" do you think is going to hold it in check?
MSimon has long railed about the ineffectiveness of the drug war because 2% of the population was addicted in 1900, and still today only 2% of the population is addicted. I argue that the normal trend for addictive drugs looks like this:
[...]
That we have managed to maintain a flat line where the normal condition is an exponential curve would seem to indicate the war on drugs has been somewhat successful.
So, to get to the salient point, do you think that if we legalized drugs the usage wouldn't go up? (as it did in China?)
I don't think there is a "normal trend". Drug use depends on a complex combination of circumstances, including economic prosperity, health, social norms, education, and of course the level of influence held by drug producers.
Despite easy access we haven't all turned into alcoholics, smokers, or aspirin addicts for that matter. In fact several trends are downwards. They've gone up and down in the past. This would seem to contradict your "infectious disease" theory.
Opium existed long before the 18th century. China prohibited its sale in 1729, following up with harsher legislation. Among other contributing factors, I think your graph shows prohibition as a failure. Law enforcement loses out against very powerful drug cartels.
Prohibition is your pet project. It makes everything worse. And yet you cling to it. It corrupts the justice system. It engenders disrespect for the rule of law. And enforcement is very selective. Not to mention that it has become so gestapo like in drug raids. Which is now tending to other areas (Gibson wood raids).
Opiate use before opiate prohibition was a concern for 1.3% of the population - with prohibition and the country awash with opiates (semi-legal and illegal) - we still have a 1.3% use rate.
i.e. all we have gained from a black market in opiates is gangs of criminals, plus financing a war against out military.
I propose we get quit financing the criminals and the jihadis. End prohibition.
Then we can let Dr.s deal wit the medical problems of drug use.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Prohibition is the vector for increased use. Because you turn users into pushers. How does that happen? Well, prices are high because of prohibition and that means for those on the bottom - dealing or stealing. Dealing is safer.
Instead of a drugstore every 20 or 30 blocks you have one every 20 or 30 yards. No drug store is going to tell you: try some. The pusher will.
And despite prohibition the price of opiates has declined by a factor of 600 - adjusted for inflation and purity - over the last 40 years. So even in terms of what it was intended to do - it doesn't work. The market (who could have guessed this) becomes more efficient.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
MSimon wrote:Prohibition is your pet project. It makes everything worse. And yet you cling to it. It corrupts the justice system. It engenders disrespect for the rule of law. And enforcement is very selective. Not to mention that it has become so gestapo like in drug raids. Which is now tending to other areas (Gibson wood raids).
Prohibition is NOT my pet project. I don't even CARE about this issue. The only reason I discuss it at all is because you bring it up. It is probably number 26th on the list of things facing our nation which I worry about.
MSimon wrote:
Opiate use before opiate prohibition was a concern for 1.3% of the population - with prohibition and the country awash with opiates (semi-legal and illegal) - we still have a 1.3% use rate.
i.e. all we have gained from a black market in opiates is gangs of criminals, plus financing a war against out military.
I propose we get quit financing the criminals and the jihadis. End prohibition.
Then we can let Dr.s deal wit the medical problems of drug use.
I simply find your belief that legalization will not cause skyrocketing addiction to be baffling. We even have the real world example of China, yet that doesn't dissuade you at all from your belief. You can't explain it, (at least not any any way that I can comprehend) yet you are certain it won't happen here.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
MSimon wrote:Prohibition is the vector for increased use. Because you turn users into pushers. How does that happen? Well, prices are high because of prohibition and that means for those on the bottom - dealing or stealing. Dealing is safer.
Instead of a drugstore every 20 or 30 blocks you have one every 20 or 30 yards. No drug store is going to tell you: try some. The pusher will.
And despite prohibition the price of opiates has declined by a factor of 600 - adjusted for inflation and purity - over the last 40 years. So even in terms of what it was intended to do - it doesn't work. The market (who could have guessed this) becomes more efficient.
An interesting point. What did the price of Opium in China do in the 140 years it took to addict half of the nation? I haven't researched this, perhaps you have? Did it get cheaper or more expensive in the end?
‘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:I am not comprehending your theory. I am of the opinion that drug addiction works like an infectious disease. Once initiated, if not interdicted, it spreads exponentially. What kind of "treatment" do you think is going to hold it in check?
MSimon has long railed about the ineffectiveness of the drug war because 2% of the population was addicted in 1900, and still today only 2% of the population is addicted. I argue that the normal trend for addictive drugs looks like this:
[...]
That we have managed to maintain a flat line where the normal condition is an exponential curve would seem to indicate the war on drugs has been somewhat successful.
So, to get to the salient point, do you think that if we legalized drugs the usage wouldn't go up? (as it did in China?)
I don't think there is a "normal trend". Drug use depends on a complex combination of circumstances, including economic prosperity, health, social norms, education, and of course the level of influence held by drug producers.
Despite easy access we haven't all turned into alcoholics, smokers, or aspirin addicts for that matter. In fact several trends are downwards. They've gone up and down in the past. This would seem to contradict your "infectious disease" theory.
Opium existed long before the 18th century. China prohibited its sale in 1729, following up with harsher legislation. Among other contributing factors, I think your graph shows prohibition as a failure. Law enforcement loses out against very powerful drug cartels.
The Opium exports to china didn't seem to trend downward. Obviously there is something wrong with the Chinese. That of course wouldn't happen to us. We could legalize opium etc. and our usage would go DOWN.
Really?
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
