Casting about for a reason why Rudy Eugene gnawed off most of a homeless man's face in an unprovoked attack on Miami's MacArthur Causeway last month, his girlfriend suggested he may have been the victim of a voodoo curse. Or maybe he was drugged, she told The Miami Herald, adding, "I don’t know how else to explain this."
While the voodoo hypothesis did not gain much traction, the idea that drugs turned Eugene into the "Miami Zombie" was repeated by one news outlet after another, even though there was little more evidence in its favor. This pattern of credulous reporting, characteristic of drug panics, reflects our perennial readiness to believe that satanic substances hijack people's souls and compel them to sin.
Stories about psychoactive substances that transform people into irrationally violent monsters with superhuman strength have been tied to various chemical agents over the years, including cocaine, PCP, methamphetamine, and even marijuana. They always prove to be grossly exaggerated, if not utterly fictitious.
A 1989 analysis of "crack-related homicides" in New York City, for example, found that the vast majority of the violence stemmed from black-market disputes, as opposed to the drug's psychoactive effects. After finding only three documented cases in which people under the influence of PCP alone had committed acts of violence, the authors of a 1988 literature review concluded that "PCP does not live up to its reputation as a violence-inducing drug."
That does not mean people who use these drugs are never violent. But focusing on extreme cases and presenting them as typical—as police, E.R. physicians, psychiatrists, reporters, and politicians tend to do—suggests such incidents are much more common than they actually are.
It is clear that drugs do not "cause" violence in any straightforward way. Otherwise, given the millions of people who have used drugs reputed to trigger violence, we'd have a lot more murder and mayhem.
By mindlessly repeating the claim that "bath salts" made Eugene eat a man's face, the press asks us to believe these drugs are disturbingly popular even though they commonly cause outbursts of vicious violence in otherwise pacific people. If that seems plausible to you, you may be qualified to write about drugs for a major news organization.
Actually the only drug statistically associated with violence is alcohol. When you also consider what it does to the unborn it is obvious it should be made illegal. Again.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Actually the only drug statistically associated with violence is alcohol. When you also consider what it does to the unborn it is obvious it should be made illegal. Again.
Actually the only drug statistically associated with violence is alcohol. When you also consider what it does to the unborn it is obvious it should be made illegal. Again.
Uhm, meth?
Nope. The connection is anecdotal. The only drug use with a statistical association with violence is alcohol. And believe me he DEA (in the US) and our other Prohibition Enforcers have looked. They (well one of the US Drug War organs) did the original study. Unfortunately I can no longer find it on line. Wonder why?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Actually the only drug statistically associated with violence is alcohol. When you also consider what it does to the unborn it is obvious it should be made illegal. Again.
Uhm, meth?
Nope. The connection is anecdotal. The only drug use with a statistical association with violence is alcohol. And believe me he DEA (in the US) and our other Prohibition Enforcers have looked. They (well one of the US Drug War organs) did the original study. Unfortunately I can no longer find it on line. Wonder why?
Not really convincing. I'd be interested in reading that study, if it exists.
I'm haven't tried to look for a counter-example, but I bet can dredge up news stories about crack addicts killing each other for cash or a few rocks.
Ever heard of dealers and users getting murdered or murdering over drugs, cash, and turf issues while high? Again, I'd like to see the statistics on that association, to use your wording, assuming there is any other study of accuracy out there in academia.
I'm haven't tried to look for a counter-example, but I bet can dredge up news stories about crack addicts killing each other for cash or a few rocks.
Of course you can. Probably thousands of such stories.
Just like (had there been an internet) you could have found lots of those stories during alcohol prohibition.
But they were not (mostly) caused by alcohol. They were caused by prohibition. People have a real hard time thinking clearly about this subject.
Most of the harms ascribed to drugs are caused by Prohibition. The way to tell is to look up the prevalence of such crimes before and after prohibition.
Hardly anyone does the research because they already "know" the answers. Odd for a place where engineers hang out (here) - but there you have it.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Psychological effects can include euphoria, anxiety, increased libido, alertness, concentration, increased energy, increased self-esteem, self-confidence, sociability, irritability, aggressiveness, psychosomatic disorders, psychomotor agitation, dermatillomania, delusions of grandiosity, hallucinations, excessive feelings of power and invincibility, repetitive and obsessive behaviors, paranoia, and with chronic use and/or high doses, amphetamine psychosis can occur.[14][20]
I'm haven't tried to look for a counter-example, but I bet can dredge up news stories about crack addicts killing each other for cash or a few rocks.
Of course you can. Probably thousands of such stories.
Just like (had there been an internet) you could have found lots of those stories during alcohol prohibition.
But they were not (mostly) caused by alcohol. They were caused by prohibition. People have a real hard time thinking clearly about this subject.
Most of the harms ascribed to drugs are caused by Prohibition. The way to tell is to look up the prevalence of such crimes before and after prohibition.
Hardly anyone does the research because they already "know" the answers. Odd for a place where engineers hang out (here) - but there you have it.
MSimon, lets summarize your POV, just to see if I understand correctly, because your statements appear contradictory.
Alcohol is the only drug that can be statistically linked to violence, but the major study may have been removed (suspiciously) by the government.
Violence before and after Alcohol Prohibition are directly due to the effects of that drug.
Violence during Alcohol Prohibition is due to lack of alcohol, and the effect of such withdrawal and/or illegal use and distribution of alcohol.
Is there a reason that the entire Talk-Polywell forum is continually manipulated into these childish, banal and trite discussions of drug use, except that the moderator is a drug abuser?
Simon, why is it acceptable for you to foist your obviously and stupidly wrong views on everyone in this forum? Why is it okay for someone who continually demonstrates no moral compass, to tell everyone here they should have no compass?
Can't you go find a child to steal candy from, or a small animal to abuse?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
"ad hominem" is a fallacy when it forms an attack on a person rather than go to the issue at hand, but the fact Simon is morally bankrupt is the issue at hand, so it's not a fallacy. It's recognition of the fact the issue of drug abuse is a moral one. When someone is so obviously and stupidly wrong that they can't see what a fantastic evil drugs represent, they need to be told they have no moral compass. And this is indeed what happens when people ignore their conscience continually--it becomes unable to function properly. Likewise, when people think only about how we're supposed to be open minded and fair in discussions, and don't realize that their conscience requires moral judgements at times, they become like you, unable to call evil, "evil".
Tell me, if you knew that Simon earned a living selling drugs to children, would it be easier for you to call that "evil"? If so, why is it okay for him to promulgate all the same sorts of arguments for drug use here, that one would use to sell drugs on a school-ground to children?
Huffington Post wrote:Eugene reportedly spent the night with a girlfriend, then woke early Saturday morning, grabbed a Bible that was later found at the scene, and headed to South Beach, where the annual Urban Beach Weekend festivities were in full swing.
Ok, now we know that substance that steals the human soul! The Bible made him do it!
Unless you're prone to believe in demonic possession as the owner of this thread implies, we should presume that this is a psychotic episode. People who smoke cannabis have a 5,000% higher chance of having a psychotic episode than those who don't, and Eugene had THC in his system. It looks like this is an example of drug induced psychosis. Though we don't know all the drugs in Eugene's system, we do know the one from smoking cannabis creates this sort of disorder at times.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
I'm haven't tried to look for a counter-example, but I bet can dredge up news stories about crack addicts killing each other for cash or a few rocks.
Of course you can. Probably thousands of such stories.
Just like (had there been an internet) you could have found lots of those stories during alcohol prohibition.
But they were not (mostly) caused by alcohol. They were caused by prohibition. People have a real hard time thinking clearly about this subject.
Most of the harms ascribed to drugs are caused by Prohibition. The way to tell is to look up the prevalence of such crimes before and after prohibition.
Hardly anyone does the research because they already "know" the answers. Odd for a place where engineers hang out (here) - but there you have it.
On this topic, you seem to be a "Theoretical" engineer. I've personally seen the "Experimental" results, and it doesn't work out at all the way your theory predicts. Meth heads and Crack addicts are bad news to everyone around them. I knew two of them that left behind infant children while they ended up getting themselves killed. One ODed, and the other died in a Car crash while she was running from the guy who's car she stole.
Their children are the victims of this "victimless crime."
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
