2010:warmest year ever since records began

[KitemanSA]

Again, all I can say is viagra. It is legal, it is regulated, yet the black market for cheap, often dangerous knock offs is booming. This black market is run by- of course- criminals!
So why would it be different with drugs.

Fraud is fraud. Be it Viagra, Rolex watches, or "heroin", people will try to sell fakes. The more expensive the real stuff, the more likely a criminal will try to defraud the gullible. And some folk are just bound and determined to be gullible. That is no reason to ban Viagra as you seem to be proposing

[KitemanSA]

I agree that there is a problem with someone "getting it." You are the one defining the "boundaries". (Subjectively I might add.) I am the one pointing out that there are no clear delineations. "Lawyer Chess" with words is what you are doing, because you want to believe your position has some objective truth in it.

Nope. Quite OBJECTIVELY, thank you. You just seem too dense to see the objects. Not sure why that should be so, you seem relatively clear headed about most other issues. Guess its that you have sold yourself a bill of goods and can't admit to yourself that you have be duped by yourself.

You do understands that there is a difference between "self" and "others" don't you? If not, there is no point in even conversing.

[Diogenes]

And yet, those who ruin a person's life by getting them addicted to drugs, should not be in this category as well?

I'm not quite sure what you are proposing here. I think it fully appropriate that an individual should be free to sue whoever cons them into becoming addicted. And if they threatened them with great physical harm to maintain the addiction, then perhaps enslavement is also at work.
I suspect that if the result of coming "out" concerning their drug addiction weren't so heinous due to the drug war, this type of lawsuit might actually happen with some regularity. Indeed, a criminal case for fraud (aside from enslavement) MAY be made against the drug pusher if that person were not up front about the dangers.

To the degree the pusher uses force, fraud, or coersion against an individual in order to hook them, that pusher has involved that person involuntarily and has committed a real crime. The psuher should be dealt with appropriately for those real crimes. Since one of the characteristics of being a child (in law and by social norm) is that the child is not competent to volunteer for such things, this would mean that the pusher has de-facto perpetrated a fraud against that child and should be prosecuted. The difficulty arises when the pusher is a child too. However, surely in that case "Faginy" charges should apply to the adult trafficker.

OK. Now suppose we change the premise to one more in accordance with facts. Addiction is a deficiency disease.

Yeah, like tobacco. Funny thing is, if you don't ever try it, you never develop a deficiency disease from not having it.

Should pushers be paid extra for helping to alleviate the deficiency against the force of government?

Pushers should be executed and their heads should go on spikes around their community to serve as warning to others that such behavior will not be tolerated.

Now I know you will not read my links but for those who may:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... holes.html

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... sease.html

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... ystem.html

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... ation.html

Schizophrenia and Tobacco
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives ... t_439.html

And finally (for now) what doctors know:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... ecret.html

====


Yes, you can drown us in links. Of this, I think most people are very aware. I have yet to see one of your links that refutes what I've personally seen to be true. Drugs do not help anyone, they only make their, and everyone around them, lives worse.

I'd really love it if some day people discussing this subject were well up on the medical literature. Or at least had seen it in passing.

I mean it is silly. The medical profession has come to the conclusion that addiction is a result of genetic predisposition and a triggering event: most likely trauma. There is good evidence of that here:

Hey, I heard the Scientific community has decided that Man caused Global Warming is beyond debate! In this regard, you are right, the two issues are very similar.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2004/09/heroin.html

And yet here we have people arguing with a straight face "pushers".

The pushers are doing a really bad job when only one out of ten who try heroin wind up with a habit. And why is the habit so bad? Well it costs hundreds of dollars a day to fill it. Now imagine the same habit costs $1 a day.

Even if that's true, (Which I am not convinced) 10% addiction to heroine is not something any society should want to tolerate. I don't care if it's 1%, the stuff is dangerous and needs to be controlled. If anyone NEEDS it, they can get it administered with medical oversight.

http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/ ... rpool.html

The Chapel Street Clinic in Widnes (a suburb of Liverpool) run by Dr. John Marks is the most famous holdout for the old system of free drug maintenance. The incredible success of this small institution has been a stark contrast with the documented failure of the other alternatives. Unfortunately, the U.S. government has maintained constant pressure to shut down this glaring example of an approach that flies in the face of American drug war orthodoxy.

The situation became critical following a CBS "60 Minutes" broadcast on the clinic in 1990. The facts in this story completely debased fundamental U.S. policy assumptions. The most startling statistic was the crime rate. Beginning in 1988, the local police began tracking the criminal records of 112 addicts who entered the drug maintenance program at Chapel Street. According to the Cheshire Drug Squad, there was a 93 percent drop in theft, burglary, and property crimes among this group over the next two years -- thus illuminating the age-old argument about whether it is the drugs themselves or the pursuit of drugs that drives addicts to criminal behavior.

In addition, the HIV infection rate among these injecting drug users was zero. Zero. And the incidence of death among addicts -- normally 15 percent per year -- was also zero.

This is just another case of Lockheed Martin telling everyone that their aircraft is superior to Boeing's. Evidence reported by a protagonist has not nearly the weight of any favorable evidence reported by an antagonist. What do you think his reports are going to reflect? That he's an idiot and that his theories are completely wrong? Of course not. He's going to report that he's a genius and everyone else is a moron because they don't recognize his genius.

Even if his theories are Objectively correct, how is this an improvement on people never getting hooked on the drugs in the first place? It's like saying "Having AIDS is just fine and dandy because I can treat it with AntiViral drugs! " Why should we want addicts (or AIDS) at all?

Black market heroin is very dangerous. Properly manufactured heroin: not so much. It may be that it is not heroin that makes heroin so dangerous. It is heroin prohibition.

If you are really rooting for dead drug users the system we have now is one of the best. It kills off users and the government has plausible deniability.

Of course the same was true during alcohol prohibition. People went blind from adulterated alcohol. That ended (at least on a mass scale) with the end of alcohol prohibition.

But I do understand how hard it is for most people to change their minds once government has taught them to think a certain way. Parrots. Millions of squawking parrots. Amusing. What is even more amusing is that it is faith based and thus immune to reason.

Yeah, i'm a parrot. I've seen numerous people DIE from drugs, and I get my thinking from the government telling me it's bad. GEEZE, do some real world research yourself! Hang around with addicts for awhile, and perhaps your faith in drugs might be shaken.

H3ll, i'm sure the internet is full of testimonials from people who quit drugs. I have known several people that kicked the habit. ASK THEM what they think of drugs. I assure you it's safer than hanging out with addicts.

Which is why I don't have much truck with faith. Reason is better. When you can get it.

I slept with faith and found a corpse in my arms on awakening; I drank and danced all night with doubt and found her a virgin in the morning. - The Book of Lies

Facts learned first hand are better still. I would urge you to stop reading things and then treating them like a matter of faith. Theory is fine, but it is no match for contradicting facts.

[KitemanSA]

What I am proposing is to regard drug dealers and pimps (almost the same thing anyways) as equally bad, and suggesting that if execution is the answer to the white slave trade, then it ought to be the answer for the drug pusher as well. ( Seriously, the two vocations are virtually identical for all intents and purposes. Prostitution drives the drug trade in many cases.)

Watch out pharmacists, he is out to kill you all!

Oh, you mean "dealers of "illegal" drugs. Watch out on-line Canadian pharmacists whose drugs are sold illegally in the US, he is out to kill you all.

Oh, you mean "illegal - non-perscription" drugs.
watch out Canadian drug store owners who sell over the counter meds that are illegal in the US, he is out to kill you all.

Why not just admit that "illegality" is a fickle thing at best and has no real purpose in a discussion about "right" and "wrong" other than to obfuscate?

Oh by the way, he also seems to be a raving racist. Seems white slavery diserves death, but appearantly not yellow or black slavery.

[Diogenes]

We do not deny needed medicines to individuals

Of course we do. Every day. Clue here:

It is a War On Drugs.

Suppose for instance you have diabetes and learn in California that it pot is the best medicine for you.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... betes.html

In America that makes you subject to felony prosecution by the Feds. Although they generally don't do small cases unless they have a political axe to grind against you.

Yeah, the research is from "American Alliance for Medical Cannabis (AAMC)." How odd it is that a research organization that is promoting an agenda finds that their conclusions match their hypothesis? Weird Huh?


Yeah, Cannabis is a MIRACLE drug. It cures everything! And like pyramid power, it sharpens razorblades and keeps bananas fresh!

Now suppose for some reason you have a cannabinoid deficiency (you know - those drugs the body makes) and you find that pot helps (while you were in Amsterdam say. Or Portugal.). Too bad. Because although CB1 and CB2 receptors are all over the body and in the brain, cannabinoid deficiency is not yet recognized as a medical condition.

Yeah, like a nicotine deficiency. When will those people ever learn that humans NEED nicotine? Strangely enough, a lot of addicts can swap one drug for another. Funny thing is, they are different chemically, so they target different receptors. Makes it hard to make an argument that they are naturally deficient in this or that substance, when a different substance seems to do the trick.

Or suppose you were repeatedly raped by your step-father and despite being in your 30s you are not over it. And God forbid some how you find out that heroin helps:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2004/09/heroin.html

Well you can't find doctor one who will prescribe opiates for your medical condition. Because solving those kinds of "mental" problems with that kind of drug is just not allowed.

Really? And they call themselves "Doctors." Probably got their medical degrees out of a crackerjack box. Seriously, the reason Doctors don't treat with Opiates is not from lack of understanding or experience. They are all too familiar with the history of that particular narcotic.

So yes. We deny drugs to plenty of people. For political reasons. What I like to call "torturing people for their own good" or maybe for the good of people down the street. Can't happen here? Guess again.

Robin Prosser didn’t look or sound much like a fighter, but she was. A mother and a musician, the Missoula woman also acted as Montana’s most outspoken advocate for medical marijuana, the only remedy that could ease the ravaging pain of the lupus-like immunosuppressive disease she endured for 23 years. Prosser’s fight ended Oct. 18 when she took her own life.

<snip>

She spoke, too, of her 2004 agreement with the city of Missoula—when police charged her with marijuana possession following a thwarted suicide attempt—that deferred prosecution and allowed her to use marijuana before medical use was legalized.

During the subsequent campaign for medical marijuana, which won support from 62 percent of Montana voters, she became a literal poster child for the effort, appearing in campaign ads. And when the state issued her a medical marijuana ID card, things seemed to be looking up.

Then in March, federal Drug Enforcement Agency agents seized a small shipment of medical marijuana in transit from Prosser’s state-approved caregiver. Though she was never criminally charged, Prosser was crushed. She said caregivers became afraid to supply her with the medicine she needed so badly.

In July, she penned an op-ed piece in the Billings Gazette, pleading with Montana’s politicians and her fellow citizens to speak out against the DEA’s actions and improve the lives of people like her.

http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/mis ... id=1139381

The Schillings were arrested earlier this year after a snitch told the Waukesha Metro Drug Enforcment Unit they had a grow-op in their home. An undercover policeman and another snitch bought a total of $120 worth of marijuana from the couple, after which police raided the home, finding 21 plants, 12 grams of pot and "drug paraphernalia." On June 27, the Schillings and their son Joshua were charged with maintaining a drug house, manufacturing marijuana and mushrooms, and possession with intent to deliver marijuana and mushrooms.

All three faced possible years in prison, but that wasn't enough for the drug warriors. On September 20, US Marshals hand-delivered a notice of forfeiture action against the couple's home. Although no one has explained why federal authorities were involved in seeking seizure of a home in a small-time state-prosecuted case, US Attorney Steven Biskupic, whose office filed the forfeiture motion, called the Schillings' set-up "a substantial grow operation."

In a suicide note left at the scene, Denise Schilling offered a different explanation, citing her efforts to overcome a lifetime of disease. "I had tried every politically correct route, from religion to psychotropic drugs, and none of them helped me in any way," she wrote. "Perhaps someday people like me will not be persecuted. Perhaps someday it will not be a crime to take care of your health."

Another of the couples' children, Caleb Schilling, pointed an accusing finger at the legal system. "We're being screwed by these people," he said.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old ... ings.shtml

People aren't allowed to DECLARE a cure and be taken seriously, especially regarding a recreational narcotic. The reason such cases as this have no traction is because few people regard the "Declarations" as credible. It's like the dodge to get around abortion laws. They "Claim" that the psychological trauma is a serious health threat, which of course is utter bullshit, but that is how the medical dodge gets misused.


These people are trying to be vigilantes regarding laws they disagree with, and that the bulk of the population (the portion that hasn't lost it's freakin mind) supports. I don't feel sorry for people who seriously assault the authority and pretend like they can ignore them. Of COURSE the government's gonna step on you like a bug. Jack Kevorkian is another one of these that comes to mind. He thought he would be so arrogant and in your face about his own personal beliefs and disdain for established law that he basically begged the government to give him some comeuppance. They obliged, and now he wishes he hadn't poked that bear.

Shirley Dorsey 56 years old
Placerville, California
April, 1991
Rather than being compelled to testify against her 70-year-old boyfriend (Byron Stamate) for cultivating the medicinal cannabis she depended upon to help control her crippling back pain, Shirley Dorsey committed suicide. She saw it as the only way to prevent the forfeiture of their home and property. Despite her suicide, Stamate was sentenced to 9 months prison, and his home, cottage, and $177,000 life savings were seized.

http://www.marijuana.com/legalization-d ... ctims.html

Here is a guy I was corresponding with (e-mail) just a few days before his death. He asked for my help in locating some facts. I don't remember the subject. Probably on the Drug War. Although he was a libertarian and dealt with other issues as well.

http://www.hr95.org/mcwilliams.p.htm

Peter McWilliams was a best-selling writer and publisher of many self-help and other books. Among his best-known works are How to Survive the Loss of a Love, Life 101 and Ain't Nobody's Business if You do. Having repeatedly pulled his life together after hardships and bouts with depression, he wrote books to help others rise above adversity.

In March1996, Peter was diagnosed with AIDS and cancer. Using the chemotherapy and radiation to fight the cancer and combination therapy for the AIDS, he found that the cure was almost worse than the disease. Nauseous, unable to eat and bereft of his appetite, Peter began to waste away at his scenic hilltop home overlooking the Los Angeles basin. Fortunately, he found that using cannabis allowed him to keep down the drugs and fight the diseases.

Peter told himself that if he lived, he would devote his life to getting medical marijuana to all the sick people who needed it. He made a remarkable recovery and was once again his positive, vivacious, productive self. Even better, California voters passed Proposition 215, which legalized cultivation and use of medical marijuana. Peter became an outspoken advocate, and he commissioned Todd McCormick, an activist and patient, to write a book on cultivating different strains of medical marijuana for different illnesses. Todd began his research by doing his own grow, which was soon raided by the DEA.

Peter, Todd and others were charged with a marijuana conspiracy. Since federal law does not allow medical marijuana, the judge and prosecutors forced them to stop using medical marijuana as terms of their release. Random drug testing and the prospect that his mother's and brother's homes would be forfeited if marijuana was detected in his urine assured Peter's compliance with these terms. With no legal defense left and facing a 10-year sentence, McWilliams pled to a lesser charge and got five years. While awaiting sentencing, Peter choked to death on his own vomit. For this AIDS patient, the government's denial of the medicine that controlled his nausea became a death sentence.

Prohibition is not a victimless crime.

For all of the alleged victims you mention, you would have thousands of times more victims from legalizing drugs. As a general rule, I do not trust an addict's credibility. Of COURSE they are going to tell you that it relieves pain. That's what people also told me about crack. The fact is, they enjoy getting high, and they are going to rationalize and justify it in any manner possible.


The only one of the stories that I find to be plausible, and possibly having a point is the case of the man going through chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is definitely awful for those having to endure it. Marijuana does stimulate the appetite and would very likely mitigate the side effects of being treated with the chemotherapy poisons. That being said, I find it unlikely that no other legally available medication should be able to address this problem, but if that is indeed the case, the Medical community should derive the drug into a medicinal form, (and no, smoking it should not qualify) and get it FDA approved for this use.

You would think drug companies would like a new medication to sell, especially one that is so cheap to manufacture. Probably the thing that is most inhibiting this use is the fact that it's advocates keep trying to poke everyone's face into it. Kinda like the Gay issue in that respect. People naturally rebel against a small minority demanding this or that.

Now here's a moral question: How many Mexican police have to die because American parents believe that U.S. drug laws will keep their teenagers from doing something their kids may or may not do whether it is or isn't legal?

http://www.pokemon.creators.com/conserv ... count.html

Good question.

Let's flip that assertion over. How many Mexican police have to die because we won't execute every drug dealer we catch? Treat em like they do in Malaysia, and we could save the Mexican police officers.

How does that shoe feel when it's on your foot?

[Diogenes]

So let me get this straight. In order to prevent people from harming themselves we are killing people who have harmed no one. Collateral damage I believe it is called. You can add Mexico to the list.

More goodies (well not so good really):

http://www.marijuana.com/legalization-d ... ctims.html

Veronica Bowers 35 years old
Charity Bowers
7 months old
In the air over Peru
April, 2001
As part of a long-standing arrangement to stop drug shipments, U.S. government tracking provided the information for the Peruvian Air Force to mistakenly shoot down a Cessna plane carrying missionaries. Killed in the incident were Roni Bowers, a missionary with the Association of Baptists for World Evangelism, and her daughter, Charity. In 2008, a new report surfaced indicating widespread problems with the shoot-down program that had been withheld from Congress by the CIA.

Rudolfo “Rudy” Cardenas 43 years old
San Jose, California
February, 2004
Rudy was a father of five who was passing by a house targeted by narcotics officers attempting to serve a parole violation warrant and the police mistakenly thought he was the one they were there to arrest. They chased Cardenas, and he fled, apparently afraid of them (they were not uniformed). Cardenas was shot multiple times in the back. Dorothy Duckett, 78, told the Mercury News she looked out her fifth-floor window after hearing one gunshot and saw Cardenas pleading for his life. “I watched him running with his hands in the air. He kept saying, ‘Don’t shoot. Don’t shoot,’” Duckett said. “He had absolutely nothing in his hands.”

Willie Heard 46 years old
Osawatomie, Kansas
February, 1999
SWAT conducted a no-knock drug raid, complete with flash-bang grenades. Heard was shot to death in front of his wife and 16-year-old daughter who had cried for help. Fearing home invasion, he was holding an empty rifle. The raid was at the wrong house.

Kathyrn Johnston 88 years old
Atlanta, Georgia
November, 2006
Kathryn lived in a rough neighborhood and a relative gave her a gun for protection. When she noticed men breaking through her security bars into her house she fired a shot into the ceiling. They were narcotics officers and fired 39 shots back, killing her. The police had falsified information in order to obtain a no-knock search warrant based on incorrect information from a dealer they had framed. After killing Johnson and realizing that she was completely innocent, they planted some marijuana in the basement. Eventually their stories fell apart federal and state investigations learned the truth. Additional facts have come to light that this was not an isolated incident in the Atlanta police department.

Civilian casualties often occur in a war. As with other wars, the fastest way to reduce casualties is to win the war as quickly as possible. The problem with the war is the way we've been pussyfooting around with the enemy. If we started killing dealers instead of this "catch and release" program, the cost of doing business would exceed their budget.

The problem is, the American people are just too kind to malefactors and troublemakers. Who are we kidding? The American people can't even understand simple math relating to government finances, so this problem is not going to get solved until after the economic crash which is coming.


It is immoral to sell your children into slavery to pay for your partying. You really can't separate morality from economics, they are different sides of the same coin.

[Diogenes]

OK. Now suppose we change the premise to one more in accordance with facts. Addiction is a deficiency disease.

Addiction to drugs is almost always an INDUCED deficiency disease. To the degree that a "pusher" is party to inducing said disease without the victim's volunteering for it, that pusher is a criminal and should be prosecuted appropriately. Please note that I have tried to distinguish between a "pusher" and something seldom spoken of, a "retailer".

Someone who sells to a user when said user initiates the sale is a retailer. Someone who introduces a non-user into usage is a pusher. Again, this subject is so charged with confusing terminology I have to select terms for specific meanings and try to stick with them. "Pusher" and "retailer" are different concepts and I try to reliably use the words as stated above.

Look. I have evidence for everything I have posted. Where in the h3ll is your evidence for the bolded statement?

One does not need evidence for a self evident fact. Plant toxins just mimic naturally occurring hormones which are necessary for the proper functioning of the body. It is ridiculous to argue that someone would have a Naturally occurring addiction to plant toxins when in fact the toxins are evolved to kill or dissuade predators, and they are not in fact, the same thing the body uses or needs. In order for your argument to have any validity whatsoever, you would have to argue that some people are born with a deficiency of a naturally occurring hormone of which the plant toxin is the closest imitation available.

Even THAT notion, which might have some degree of credibility, is silly when you try to apply it to everyone. You see, we have a long history of people NOT using drugs, and functioning just fine without them.

We also have a long history of people that were never addicted to drugs until such time as they became available, and then addiction arose dramatically.

BTW if we are going after "pusher" that would mainly be friends. So are you willing to put some 17 year old away for a LONG time for "pushing drugs" on a 16 year old friend?

I would make it widely known that the penalty for dealing drugs is death, and after giving everyone an opportunity to learn this, I would start executing dealers, and their age should not protect them. Don't want to play with those stakes? Stay out of the game.

This is similar to how China solved their drug problem.

And it is as I suspected. You have read exactly none of the evidence I presented. You know. Research. Some of it published in actual medical journals.

Tell you what though. Just read this and get back to me.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... ecret.html

I swear. You seem to have gotten your drug education from Reefer Madness .

The movie features this in the opening:

The Incidents and Characters portrayed in this film are purely fictional and any similarity to actual occurrences and living or deceased persons is coincidental.

Take it to heart.

And a final note for my conservative friends - "The Drug War is the Global Warming of the Right."

The only similarity between the drug issue and Global warming is that both issues have their die hard advocates who are willing to phony up documents and studies which assert their dubious claims. The right correctly identifies these assertions as crap in both cases. On the one hand, we have a problem which does not exist, and people want to uproot everything to address it. On the other, we have a problem which DOES exist, and people want to pretend it's not a problem.

[Diogenes]

The text of Shirley Dorsey's suicide note follows:

"They want to take our property, security and herbal medicine from us, even though we have not caused harm to anyone.

"It is not fair or in the best interest of the people of society.

"I will never testify against you or our right to our home. I will not live in the streets without security and a place to sleep.

"I am old, tired and ill, and I see no end to the harassment and pressures until they destroy us."

She committed suicide to keep her boyfriend from prison and to try and save his retirement funds. They put him in prison, took his domicile, and all his retirement funds. All because he was her supplier. And therefore a notorious danger to the community. See link on previous page. Or Google her name.

It's not up to her to decide if she cause harm. It's also not up to her to call something a "Medicine." People cannot ignore the will of society without coming athwart of it's backlash. The tragedy is that these people were given the false notion that this wouldn't wreck their lives.

Running a pretty good sized growing operation is NOT good for your health. Of course she claims she's innocent of wrongdoing. Reminds me of King Frederick II's experience.

Frederick II, the eighteenth-century king of Prussia, fancied himself an enlightened monarch, and in some respects he was. On one occasion he is supposed to have interested himself in conditions in the Berlin prison and was escorted through it so that he might speak to the prisoners. One after the other, the prisoners fell to their knees before him, bewailing their lot and, predictably, protesting their utter innocence of all charges that had been brought against them.
Only one prisoner remained silent, and finally Frederick's curiosity was aroused.
"You," he called. "You There."
The prisoner looked up. "Yes Your Majesty?"
"Why are you here?"
"Armed robbery, Your Majesty."
"And are you guilty?"
"Entirely guilty, Your Majesty. I richly deserve my punishment."
At this Frederick rapped his cane sharply on the ground and said.
"Warden, release this guilty wretch at once. I will not have him here in jail where by example he will corrupt all the splendid innocent people who occupy it."

I don't prefer to sound cruel and heartless, but nowadays it is difficult to tell what is true and what is hype and propaganda. The fact that a jury saw fit to send her boyfriend to prison indicates to me that 12 people who knew more about this case than I do probably didn't find her argument persuasive. I googled for data on the case. All I can find are diatribes about how unfair it was, nothing regarding the quantities involved, which I think is the salient point.

[Diogenes]

Again, all I can say is viagra. It is legal, it is regulated, yet the black market for cheap, often dangerous knock offs is booming. This black market is run by- of course- criminals!
So why would it be different with drugs.

Price my man. Price.

Explain why criminals don't deal wheat. Or tap water.

====

Let me explain it to you: there is a thriving black market in cigarettes in America. Why? The taxes are now so high in some places that smuggling pays.

You really want to put the criminals out of business? Set the vice taxes low enough that criminals can't compete. In fact don't tax vices any more heavily than other activities would be the best.

Tobacco is just treading water. It is going under sometime in the next couple of decades. (Unless government reverses course and saves it because of the revenue it produces and the dead social security claims that won't have to be paid.) Tobacco cannot match the rapid addiction characteristics of more potent drugs, and therefore it is evolutionarily inferior, and will likely not be able to make up new users as fast as it burns through it's established users.

[Diogenes]

This is a perfect example of my thesis: when it comes to their favorite government objective righties get all stupid about economics. Of course the left is no different. They just have different objectives.

I find it especially true of the drug war. You want an exquisite economic analysis? Ask a leftie. The right gets suddenly stupid. And when it comes to the rest of economics the left gets stupid and the right gets smart. You would observe generally that people can't think past their own prejudices.

Unfortunately for me I am incapable of that kind of blinkered thinking. If I got into the habit it would ruin my value as an engineer.

Or, the right could be absolutely correct, and you are being overcome by the fumes of bogus information.

[Skipjack]

Fraud is fraud. Be it Viagra, Rolex watches, or "heroin", people will try to sell fakes.

They are selling Sildenafil and they usually admit that it is not real Viagra. Viagra is just a brandname. The chemical substance is Sildenafil citrate and that is what they actually sell (well usually, sometimes it is also stretched with something else). Of course there are often even blacker sheep among the black sheep...
Anyway, I would not really call these guys frauds, they are more on the same level as meth cookers.

[Diogenes]

To the degree that a "pusher" is party to inducing said disease without the victim's volunteering for it, that pusher is a criminal and should be prosecuted appropriately.

BTW if we are going after "pusher" that would mainly be friends. So are you willing to put some 17 year old away for a LONG time for "pushing drugs" on a 16 year old friend?

I would prosecute that 17 year old "friend" for defrauding someone regarding drug use as much as I would for any other comparable fraud by that 17 year old friend. If he sold his friend a car he knew to be a lemon while pretending it was running perfectly, wouldn't you think he should be prosecuted? I do. Similarly, if he defrauds a friend wrt drugs, he should be prosecuted for that too. Not for providing drugs as in some "drug war" horror scenario, but for fraud. You don't support fraud, do you?

Oh yes. Do let us regard this as a case of LYING rather than wrecking someone's life. I personally consider the life destruction as more serious than the lying. Of course the defendant can always argue that it doesn't screw EVERYONE's life, and so therefore he shouldn't be held responsible just because the majority of the people's lives get seriously destroyed.


I think a more appropriate charge would be reckless disregard with a dangerous substance. If the person ends up dying, I would up it to manslaughter. If more than one person ends up dying, I would up it to full fledged murder. You have to wait and see what becomes of the victim to decide what the "harm" was.

It's like the police officer who was shot and lay in a coma for a couple of decades. When he finally died, the doctors attributed it to his having been shot, so they charged the perp with murdering a police officer.

[MSimon]

Addiction to drugs is almost always an INDUCED deficiency disease.

Look. I have evidence for everything I have posted. Where in the h3ll is your evidence for the bolded statement?

Sorry, I didn't realize it was in question. My statement is predicated on the understanding, obtained over years of reading about, watching shows on, discussing the issue, etc. that people are seldom, if ever, addicted by the first drug usage. It takes several uses, differing numbers for different people, to suppress the body's natural supply of the chemical which is replaced by the drug.

And if all your links were intended to counter that, sorry, you get so voluminous in your ejecta that I often stop reading after your initial statement.

No, I have neither the time nor inclination to go and find a kazillion sources on the issue. As I said, I didn't think it was in question.

I have studied the matter extensively. And you may be correct for chronic users. You may be correct also in terms of habituation. We can cure that. What we have no clue about is curing addiction: i.e. why some habituated users after detox never go back and why others despite detox can't quit. We are getting to understanding. We are far from a cure.

So let me reframe your studies: Drugs Do Not Cause Addiction. They can cause habituation. Which we can fix. Those in charge of the wallet extraction scheme prefer that people stay confused.

Let me tell you what I have seen over the years. Warmists do not look closely at the science behind global warming. Anti-drug crusaders do not look closely at the brain science and other factors behind what we call addiction. Why? Too much confirmation in the mass media. Each side knows the lies that do not impugn their faith. They fail to connect that maybe they are being lied to about everything. Which of course would call their faith into question. Can't have that. What we can have is sudden attacks of stupid and willful blindness. Humans is such interesting creatures.

The only cure? Doubt. Everything.

[Diogenes]

Again, all I can say is viagra. It is legal, it is regulated, yet the black market for cheap, often dangerous knock offs is booming. This black market is run by- of course- criminals!
So why would it be different with drugs.

Fraud is fraud. Be it Viagra, Rolex watches, or "heroin", people will try to sell fakes. The more expensive the real stuff, the more likely a criminal will try to defraud the gullible. And some folk are just bound and determined to be gullible. That is no reason to ban Viagra as you seem to be proposing

He isn't proposing to ban Viagra, he is pointing out that being legal is not stopping criminals from selling FAKE Viagra, or even real Viagra through the black market. His point is that legalizing illegal narcotics would not make the criminals go away either.

[Skipjack]

He isn't proposing to ban Viagra, he is pointing out that being legal is not stopping criminals from selling FAKE Viagra, or even real Viagra through the black market. His point is that legalizing illegal narcotics would not make the criminals go away either.

Yes, yes, exactly. So what I am saying can be understood, if people are only trying
Thanks Diogenes!