Time for Media Control.

[Diogenes]

Now if we were Democrats, using the Government to force our will would be the first thing of which we would think.

Republicans have similar habits. Just about different things.

And here we are back on the "drugs" issue again. Simon, you may not believe this, but there are those of us who regard drugs as just a bad of a threat to our lives and freedom as we would regard an enemy army.


As we would insist on using our collective government to fight an enemy army, so should we insist on using it to fight a threat which we regard as just as bad.

You just don't believe it to be a threat at all, and from my perspective you base this on your theorizing and your apparently very small (or no) experience with hard drugs. Those of us who have seen the threat up close are not convinced that it isn't a dire threat.

[paperburn1]

Now if we were Democrats, using the Government to force our will would be the first thing of which we would think.

Republicans have similar habits. Just about different things.

And here we are back on the "drugs" issue again. Simon, you may not believe this, but there are those of us who regard drugs as just a bad of a threat to our lives and freedom as we would regard an enemy army.


As we would insist on using our collective government to fight an enemy army, so should we insist on using it to fight a threat which we regard as just as bad.

You just don't believe it to be a threat at all, and from my perspective you base this on your theorizing and your apparently very small (or no) experience with hard drugs. Those of us who have seen the threat up close are not convinced that it isn't a dire threat.

I have to agree, on weekends iwork at a pawn shop sometimes helping out a friend and it can be very scary when a meth head comes in looking for quick cash for the next rock. You just don't know what they're doing or thinking of doing for their
next fix. Had one guy arrested for beating his mother in the parking lot because she wouldn't pawn her wedding ring so he could hook up

[MSimon]

And here we are back on the "drugs" issue again. Simon, you may not believe this, but there are those of us who regard drugs as just a bad of a threat to our lives and freedom as we would regard an enemy army.

Funny - you don't feel that way about alcohol. Which causes 20X the damage.

And you will note that despite your fears the Federal authority in the area is questionable at best. Many of us believe as Republicans did in 1914 that the Feds have no authority in the area.

The Republicans of 2012 have acquired all the bad habits of the Progressives with none of the virtues. Such as they are.

As I like telling my friends on the left: "Gun prohibition will work as well as drug prohibition" To the right I say. "Drug prohibition will work as well as gun prohibition."

The fears of the right are as overblown on drugs as the fears on the left are about guns.

My guess is that it is because the left knows drugs and the right knows guns. Familiarity breeds indifference. Wit the country moving leftward on social issues I believe that you are or soon will be SOL when it comes to your pet fears.

BTW did you read about another country decriminalizing use? Croatia. But they plan to keep the cartels as suppliers. Penalties for dealing have been raised. Just about an ideal situation from the cartel standpoint.

But it is not just about drugs. The Republicans have a lot of difficulty with the messyness of human interpersonal behavior. As the Left has with the messyness of human economic behavior.

My attitude? We have more government that we can afford. You are going to have to give up your pet fears if you expect the left to give up theirs. Me? Living in fear was never an attraction. What ever comes up I will deal with it. I never acquired a Power and Control (over humans) habit. That is one habit I have never seen anyone who has it kick. A very powerful drug indeed.

But you understand how government works don't you?

H.L. Mencken: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

You have been hobbled by your goblins. My condolences.

[paperburn1]

Myy appolgy to all, I fell prey and helped turn this into a drug thread. Now we were talking about media bias. I try to get my news from outside sources as the are less inclined to sway based on politics.

[MSimon]

D,

What you fail to comprehend is that the fashionable fears have changed. You have shown up to the party with a dress 4 years out of date. So out of date as to be noticed not so out of date that you can claim "retro".

In any case the country survived for a long time with legal legal drugs. We will be fine with them again.

And if you are worried about opiates it is too late. Big Pharma moves about 4X as much of their product into the illegal marked vs cartel opiates. With that kind of volume people must be being paid to look the other way.

[MSimon]

Myy appolgy to all, I fell prey and helped turn this into a drug thread. Now we were talking about media bias. I try to get my news from outside sources as the are less inclined to sway based on politics.

The purpose of media is to let you know what fears are fashionable. They will never ever put government (generally) in that category. Their license to broadcast is issued by the government.

BTW it was D who turned the thread. But I did my part too.

[Diogenes]

I have to agree, on weekends iwork at a pawn shop sometimes helping out a friend and it can be very scary when a meth head comes in looking for quick cash for the next rock. You just don't know what they're doing or thinking of doing for their
next fix. Had one guy arrested for beating his mother in the parking lot because she wouldn't pawn her wedding ring so he could hook up

MSimon's next point will be that if we made drugs legal, all of this behavior would go away. This argument demands a "leap of faith" that runs contrary to my own experience and contrary to previous efforts where such an idea was tried.


I am simply not buying the theory that all the bad parts of drug usage will disappear if we legalize them. I see the probable outcome as the exact opposite of this; An explosion in addiction and the crimes/tragedies associated with it.

[Diogenes]

And here we are back on the "drugs" issue again. Simon, you may not believe this, but there are those of us who regard drugs as just a bad of a threat to our lives and freedom as we would regard an enemy army.

Funny - you don't feel that way about alcohol. Which causes 20X the damage.

I believe I am on record as calling for better regulation of Alcohol. I have also put myself on record as calling for regulation of marijuana.

And you will note that despite your fears the Federal authority in the area is questionable at best. Many of us believe as Republicans did in 1914 that the Feds have no authority in the area.

Not directly. It ought to be regarded as strictly a state issue but for one thing. Foreign suppliers turn it into a Federal issue.

The Republicans of 2012 have acquired all the bad habits of the Progressives with none of the virtues. Such as they are.

As I like telling my friends on the left: "Gun prohibition will work as well as drug prohibition" To the right I say. "Drug prohibition will work as well as gun prohibition."

Guns have utility. (I regard them as a necessity. So does the Army and all law enforcement.) Drugs do not.

The fears of the right are as overblown on drugs as the fears on the left are about guns.

The Left, which seeks to rule us all, fears that guns will allow us to stop them. Drugs, for them, are just another tactic to undermine and weaken the society so as to enable their pursuit of power. (Among those of the intellectual left. Amongst the morons of the left, (the bulk of them) they are just entertainment.)

My guess is that it is because the left knows drugs and the right knows guns. Familiarity breeds indifference. Wit the country moving leftward on social issues I believe that you are or soon will be SOL when it comes to your pet fears.

Not even close. Our ideas are not based on subjective whim, they are based on past experience and knowledge of what is natural law. You are not going to game that system. Political victories will not repeal laws of nature, and the subsequent consequences will correct the wrong headed behavior better than any reasoned argument ever could. The downside is that many people will have needlessly died and suffered before the slow among us figure out their simple minded ideas won't work.

BTW did you read about another country decriminalizing use? Croatia. But they plan to keep the cartels as suppliers. Penalties for dealing have been raised. Just about an ideal situation from the cartel standpoint.

But it is not just about drugs. The Republicans have a lot of difficulty with the messyness of human interpersonal behavior. As the Left has with the messyness of human economic behavior.

My attitude? We have more government that we can afford. You are going to have to give up your pet fears if you expect the left to give up theirs. Me? Living in fear was never an attraction. What ever comes up I will deal with it. I never acquired a Power and Control (over humans) habit. That is one habit I have never seen anyone who has it kick. A very powerful drug indeed.

Yes, we have more government than we can afford, but it was not caused by the 25 billion dollar per year "war on drugs." It was caused (mostly) by the Trillion dollar per year "War on Poverty."

Let us work on removing the "beam" before we worry about the "splinter."

But you understand how government works don't you?

H.L. Mencken: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

You have been hobbled by your goblins. My condolences.

My hobgoblins have left people I know dead. Pretty good trick for imaginary goblins.

[Diogenes]

Myy appolgy to all, I fell prey and helped turn this into a drug thread. Now we were talking about media bias. I try to get my news from outside sources as the are less inclined to sway based on politics.

No apology necessary. This circumstance is alas, unavoidable.


Regarding the news and entertainment of this nation. People simply do not grasp the consequences of the fact that the vast majority of everything you see on television (The way most Americans get their news) is filtered through Liberal New York Democrat Union members. Entertainment is produced almost exclusively by Liberal Democrat Los Angeles Union Members.

It is simply impossible to hear an equal quantity of speech from their political opposition. It is exactly like a football game being refereed by the Players of one of the teams. The calls aren't fair, the penalties aren't fair, and the biased referees will always help their team to win. To bad we can't insist on the Wisdom of Franklin.

5. Printers are educated in the Belief, that when Men differ in Opinion, both Sides ought equally to have the Advantage of being heard by the Publick; and that when Truth and Error have fair Play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter: Hence they chearfully serve all contending Writers that pay them well, without regarding on which side they are of the Question in Dispute.

7. That it is unreasonable to imagine Printers approve of every thing they print, and to censure them on any particular thing accordingly; since in the way of their Business they print such great variety of things opposite and contradictory. It is likewise as unreasonable what some assert, "That Printers ought not to print any Thing but what they approve;" since if all of that Business should make such a Resolution, and abide by it, an End would thereby be put to Free Writing, and the World would afterwards have nothing to read but what happen'd to be the Opinions of Printers.

Benjamin Franklin: Apology for Printers

Published in The Pennsylvania Gazette, May 27, 1731

[Diogenes]

Myy appolgy to all, I fell prey and helped turn this into a drug thread. Now we were talking about media bias. I try to get my news from outside sources as the are less inclined to sway based on politics.

The purpose of media is to let you know what fears are fashionable. They will never ever put government (generally) in that category. Their license to broadcast is issued by the government.

BTW it was D who turned the thread. But I did my part too.

You accusation is only true if you can name an issue OTHER than drugs in which you envision Republicans as supporting governmental force. As we all know your default thinking is that the Drug war is one big infringement upon the freedom of people to pharmacologize their brains, it is hard to imagine you were referring to any other example of government intervention in people's lives.

[paperburn1]

Myy appolgy to all, I fell prey and helped turn this into a drug thread. Now we were talking about media bias. I try to get my news from outside sources as the are less inclined to sway based on politics.

The purpose of media is to let you know what fears are fashionable. They will never ever put government (generally) in that category. Their license to broadcast is issued by the government.

BTW it was D who turned the thread. But I did my part too.

I did not name you Ms but I also do not have a great love of all alcohol for excessive drinking is a bad as well. You can not nanny state everything but it is only logical to minimise damage from what only few benefit from.
The amount of sufferings from drugs far outweighs the benefit for a select few that experienced little or no harm pot is on the more benign end but until it's production and quality controls can be established itcan not be allowed for public consumption. IMHO ihave seen the seedy side of the industry and if you knew what was in your smoke you would stop. I am not going to tell you for your the type of individual that must discover for yourself or you will not believe. So look learn and listen and you just might quit on your own. And if not, oh well you were told.

[choff]

Was reading about how when Mayan kings died, they would have 80 young girls buried alive with them. The young women offered no resistance to being buried alive, they did as they were told and simply walked into the grave and had the dirt shoveled on top. The reason was a drug called scopolamine, it can be used as a date rape drug, to kidnap women into prostitution, or to rob Johns. Also used as a truth serum, 1 gram can kill.

The governments have known about this drug and used it at different times for at least 100 years, as well as experimenting with different drugs/hypnosis to create programmable assasins. You wouldn't want it becoming the next illegal drug to hit the streets.

[MSimon]

Republicans have similar habits. Just about different things.

And here we are back on the "drugs" issue again. Simon, you may not believe this, but there are those of us who regard drugs as just a bad of a threat to our lives and freedom as we would regard an enemy army.


As we would insist on using our collective government to fight an enemy army, so should we insist on using it to fight a threat which we regard as just as bad.

You just don't believe it to be a threat at all, and from my perspective you base this on your theorizing and your apparently very small (or no) experience with hard drugs. Those of us who have seen the threat up close are not convinced that it isn't a dire threat.

I have to agree, on weekends iwork at a pawn shop sometimes helping out a friend and it can be very scary when a meth head comes in looking for quick cash for the next rock. You just don't know what they're doing or thinking of doing for their
next fix. Had one guy arrested for beating his mother in the parking lot because she wouldn't pawn her wedding ring so he could hook up

There is a fix for this. Treat the stuff like alcohol. But prohibitionists insist on maintaining an unregulated market and the cartels/gangstas in business. Go figure.

OK. You have seen the stuff up close. How is that possible? I'm told the shite is illegal.

BTW you do know that the experience of countries that have decrimmed is that prohibition is a vector for the spread of drug use. i.e. get your friends using so you can sell to them and thus pay the price the cartels ask.

So add that to the list of things prohibitionists claim to be against that they in fact promote. It is a wonder.

I do admit that it is all counter intuitive. Which just goes to show you that fear makes people stupid. My preference is to avoid fears. I was never a big fan of stupidity. But a lot of people love their fears. Another: Go figure.

This is all a big case of what Wm. Burroughs calls "the word virus". Mistaking words for reality. i.e. Prohibited means unavailable. What is the real meaning of prohibited? "Distributed by criminals." Can't you think of a better method of distribution? Say regulated like alcohol.

[MSimon]

Now if we were Democrats, using the Government to force our will would be the first thing of which we would think.

Republicans have similar habits. Just about different things.

And here we are back on the "drugs" issue again. Simon, you may not believe this, but there are those of us who regard drugs as just a bad of a threat to our lives and freedom as we would regard an enemy army.


As we would insist on using our collective government to fight an enemy army, so should we insist on using it to fight a threat which we regard as just as bad.

You just don't believe it to be a threat at all, and from my perspective you base this on your theorizing and your apparently very small (or no) experience with hard drugs. Those of us who have seen the threat up close are not convinced that it isn't a dire threat.

I rest my case.

And yes. There are other things besides drugs that Republicans like big government for. Controlling marriage say.

From the outside looking in both parties appear to be full of power and control addicts. You might want to read Wm. Burroughs (if you can get past the gay sex) "Naked Lunch" for his view on the subject. Senders, liquefactionists, replicationists, etc. He has the the whole sorry lot and their various strategies cataloged.

I liked this review:

Great book, far and away Burroughs' best.

I suggest you just skim over parts that confuse you or gross you out and focus on the satire. Look at the warring parties of the Interzone and their tactics for control: the Liquifactionists want to destroy anyone unlike them, the Divisionists want to populate the Earth with copies of themselves, and the Senders are into thought control. The Factualists are the renegades.

And don't forget, this is an outrageously funny book. Vignettes like Lee's trip to the County Clerk and Mohammed being shut off at the tavern are what make this such a wild ride.

http://www.online-literature.com/forums ... -Burroughs

I count myself among the factualists.

Generally the left fears wealth and the right fears pleasure. I am not the first to notice.

Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy. H. L. Mencken

Puritanism is THE disease of the right.

Factualism is the cure for it all. But faith is generally stronger than fact at least for a generation or so.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck

I think that holds for ALL new truths. Well a new generation is coming that has different fears than the current political schemes can account for. It will be interesting.

[MSimon]

You cannot nanny state anything that people want. That is what we have learned from prohibition.

The history of prohibitions is that they last about 50 years from the time of cultural introduction (wide spread use).

In fact prohibitions only work when directed against disfavored minorities. In the US these laws were in fact passed to harass disfavored minorities. They still serve that purpose today.

This law enforcement official had it explained to him by a supervisor.

http://youtu.be/HmgeCeGk--I

The short version: "You can't go after white people. They will shut down the gravy train if you do." i.e. the police have joined the moocher class. Lots of overtime in the fight against drugs.

We are at the final stage of the Soviet. Few still believe but the chances of change are still small. Everyone is in it for what ever they can get. Collapse is getting nearer though. We are nearing the last wall of the castle.

===

And you consider prohibition a bulwark against drugs? The evidence shows it is a vector for the spread of drug use.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/20 ... -portugal/

But evidence rarely trumps fear. However the generations coming to power never got the doses of refer madness their parents did. Without the fear they can weigh the evidence. And in every category prohibition does the opposite of what its proponents claim.