Time for Media Control.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 9:28 am

And then there is DNA. You can manipulate it in a home laboratory these days.

What happens when you can feed a culture sugar, water, and nutrients and get your drug of choice?

How do you intend to police that?

Belief in prohibition is definitely faith based. There is no evidence that it has worked for very long anywhere ever.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 9:47 am

Diogenes wrote:
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.

No leap of faith required. There is actual evidence.
No there is not. <snip> There is a term for such people.

What do you call these people:

Swiss approve prescription heroin

Swiss voters have approved a radical health policy that offers prescription heroin to addicts on a permanent basis.

Final results from the national referendum showed 68% of voters supported the plan.

The scheme, allowing addicts to inject the drug under medical supervision at a clinic, began in Zurich 14 years ago before spreading across the country.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7757050.stm

You see I do have evidence.

Supporters say it has had positive results - getting long-term addicts out of Switzerland's once notorious "needle parks" and reducing drug-related crime.

All the Swiss had to do to clean up their needle parks was legalize. I'm surprised you hadn't heard of it. Being how on top of the drug issue you are.

Or maybe you are just disingenuous on the issue.

There is another possibility: your income depends on prohibition. Which would explain a lot about your attitude. It is about the gravy train.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 9:57 am

They told this DEA agent not to enforce drug laws in white areas. Really.

paperburn1 · Post by **paperburn1** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 4:30 pm

MSimon wrote:

Swiss approve prescription heroin

Swiss voters have approved a radical health policy that offers prescription heroin to addicts on a permanent basis.

Final results from the national referendum showed 68% of voters supported the plan.

The scheme, allowing addicts to inject the drug under medical supervision at a clinic, began in Zurich 14 years ago before spreading across the country.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7757050.stm
You see I do have evidence.

.

darn, a Christmas miracle!!! Simom post has a valid source and documentation of an "solution". . Now my next question is what is the cost of medically supervised drug use with medical support. and what is the mean income contribution to society that these have.(cost verses benefit) Ok the first part was cheeky but I do want the numbers if you have links.

choff · Post by **choff** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 5:21 pm

Actually the Chinese didn't just lose because the dealers had better guns, they also had steam powered ships and the foriegn dealers govenment armies and financial institutions and mainstream media. It wasn't a case of home grown demand in China, it was imposed upon them.

As for the cold war, the same jokers that created the OSS/CIA are the same jokers who paid Karl Marx to write his manifesto and 'Das Kapital', same jokers that financed the Russian revolution and Hilter. They're also the same jokers doing such a splendid job running the banking industry, same jokers that get elected to put the people in hock to the banking industry.

These are the guys behind the drug trade and the prohibition that goes with it. Should you really want to buy drugs from these people and use them on yourselves.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:46 pm

paperburn1 wrote:
MSimon wrote:

Swiss approve prescription heroin

Swiss voters have approved a radical health policy that offers prescription heroin to addicts on a permanent basis.

Final results from the national referendum showed 68% of voters supported the plan.

The scheme, allowing addicts to inject the drug under medical supervision at a clinic, began in Zurich 14 years ago before spreading across the country.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7757050.stm
You see I do have evidence.

.
darn, a Christmas miracle!!! Simom post has a valid source and documentation of an "solution". . Now my next question is what is the cost of medically supervised drug use with medical support. and what is the mean income contribution to society that these have.(cost verses benefit) Ok the first part was cheeky but I do want the numbers if you have links.

We covered this earlier, there are a very low number in treatment verses total adicts, and off the top of my head it is like $400/week or something to treat. Currently, as I understand, the Swiss are questioning the program's utility.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Wed Dec 26, 2012 2:57 pm

I read through the comments and think "Why bother?" You can't reason with people who won't get their facts straight.

At least people are acknowledging that China LOST the war on drugs. Now if I could only get them to admit that the results were absolutely horrible, then we'll be making progress.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Wed Dec 26, 2012 3:06 pm

MSimon wrote:
All the Swiss had to do to clean up their needle parks was legalize. I'm surprised you hadn't heard of it. Being how on top of the drug issue you are.

Simon, i'm not at all on top of it. I HATE this issue. I am disgusted that I have to KEEP arguing about this issue. It is a special bit of stupidity that I have to keep dipping my mind in it against my preferences because it keeps getting pushed as a reasonable idea.

To me, you are just like all those other social engineers who think you are smarter than reality. Everything you posit is just theory, and my real world experience says it is all crap.

MSimon wrote: Or maybe you are just disingenuous on the issue.

There is another possibility: your income depends on prohibition. Which would explain a lot about your attitude. It is about [/url].

If it had anything to do with my income, I would certainly make more efforts than I have to date. You wouldn't be able to get a word in edgewise, i'll guarantee you that. At this point, I really wish the Communist states would legalize this sh*t. They need a massive fire-storm in their cities.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Wed Dec 26, 2012 3:11 pm

choff wrote:Actually the Chinese didn't just lose because the dealers had better guns, they also had steam powered ships and the foriegn dealers govenment armies and financial institutions and mainstream media. It wasn't a case of home grown demand in China, it was imposed upon them.

As for the cold war, the same jokers that created the OSS/CIA are the same jokers who paid Karl Marx to write his manifesto and 'Das Kapital', same jokers that financed the Russian revolution and Hilter. They're also the same jokers doing such a splendid job running the banking industry, same jokers that get elected to put the people in hock to the banking industry.

These are the guys behind the drug trade and the prohibition that goes with it. Should you really want to buy drugs from these people and use them on yourselves.

Dude, be careful of what you believe. You are sounding like a "Bilderberger" theorist now. Most of that crap comes from Anti-Semitism movements throughout the last hundred years or so. There are groups who constantly spread such theories to anyone who will listen. Don't.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Wed Dec 26, 2012 5:03 pm

There was more going on in China than the Opium drama in those days. It really came to relevance after Opium was "outlawed". Of note also was the US using the British Treaties to enact similar (for free) arrangements giving the US ever increasing access while the rest of Europe futzed around.

Pretty much every major power was in China and vying for position. Readup on the Boxer Rebellion, and also what happened later. It will give you a clearer idea on the powers at play and why.

Anothering interesting Historical note would be the tracing of US involvement and presence in China, which in military terms lasted about 100 years, effectively 1840s to 1940s (ish). Several movies (about the later years) were done on parts of this, such as the Yangtze River Patrol Force.

One could argue that US presence and involvement lasted until the final mainland days of Chang, and you probably wouldn't be wrong either.

choff · Post by **choff** » Wed Dec 26, 2012 7:52 pm

Diogenes wrote:
choff wrote:Actually the Chinese didn't just lose because the dealers had better guns, they also had steam powered ships and the foriegn dealers govenment armies and financial institutions and mainstream media. It wasn't a case of home grown demand in China, it was imposed upon them.

As for the cold war, the same jokers that created the OSS/CIA are the same jokers who paid Karl Marx to write his manifesto and 'Das Kapital', same jokers that financed the Russian revolution and Hilter. They're also the same jokers doing such a splendid job running the banking industry, same jokers that get elected to put the people in hock to the banking industry.

These are the guys behind the drug trade and the prohibition that goes with it. Should you really want to buy drugs from these people and use them on yourselves.

Dude, be careful of what you believe. You are sounding like a "Bilderberger" theorist now. Most of that crap comes from Anti-Semitism movements throughout the last hundred years or so. There are groups who constantly spread such theories to anyone who will listen. Don't.

I'm no anti-semite, and the best way to discredit something is to get an anti-semite to repeat it constantly, the better to repel respectible people away from it. Try reading up on Hegel.

TDPerk · Post by **TDPerk** » Fri Dec 28, 2012 1:58 pm

Simon, i'm not at all on top of it. I HATE this issue. I am disgusted that I have to KEEP arguing about this issue. It is a special bit of stupidity that I have to keep dipping my mind in it against my preferences because it keeps getting pushed as a reasonable idea.

That's is because reason and a sense of right and wrong demands it.

As a parallel example, David Gregory, evidently in knowing defiance of the guns laws of DC, held a 30 round magazine in front of a camera--he has convicted himself. I hope, given his base hypocrisy and elitism, that he gets thrown under the jail for it.

However, this is only justice because if his hypocrisy.

There is no more harm done in his having the magazine in a harmless and responsible fashion--it's not like he threw it at anyone--than there is in someone enjoying their drug a choice without hurting anyone else, which how they are almost always used.

There is nothing about legalization which makes it harder to prosecute criminals for crimes committed either "because of" or "under the influence of", and it permits a concentration of the effort of police towards such just and helpful ends.

Quite reasonable, all that can work, and all that should be done.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:44 pm

TDPerk wrote:
There is no more harm done in his having the magazine in a harmless and responsible fashion--it's not like he threw it at anyone--than there is in someone enjoying their drug a choice without hurting anyone else, which how they are almost always used.

And there is the nexus of it right there. Libertarians, seeing no farther than their arm, do not believe that using drugs hurts anyone other than themselves.

I (and others) do not believe this at all. I point out the largest real world experiment in history, and how it brought death and destruction to millions of people, and the libertarian side says "What misery? I don't see nuthin'."

Alternatively, if any of them can be brought to acknowledge the obvious, they simply say "All of that misery was caused by something OTHER than legal drugs."

TDPerk · Post by **TDPerk** » Fri Dec 28, 2012 3:18 pm

"Libertarians, seeing no farther than their arm, do not believe that using drugs hurts anyone other than themselves."

Using a drug does not, abusing a drug may well.

Your delusion is in believing they are necessarily the same thing.

Which is as ridiculous as the idea that merely holding a magazine of 30 rounds capacity is a crime worth of any sort, let alone a felony.

"I point out the largest real world experiment in history, and how it brought death and destruction to millions of people, and the libertarian side says "What misery? I don't see nuthin'.""

That's because we look to two sets of facts, 1) the fact China employed much more drastic mechanism to "control" it's "drug" problem* and failed, and yet it is still a great power, and the fact 2) the US enjoyed constitutional drug laws--meaning there essentially were none--until 1915, and simply had no such problems as you claim China had. *China's real problem was an ossified, sclerotic society ruled by a bureaucratic class more concerned with their own sense of privilege than undergoing the tribulations of entering the modern world. This produced a hopelessness on the part of the lower social classes where they knew their lives were worth darn little, and a Chinese government unable to preserve it's own jurisdiction over its own territory, in the face of European empire building.

""All of that misery was caused by something OTHER than legal drugs.""

That's your strawman, you own it. I freely acknowledge some people will become addicted to their drug of choice and unable to function in society. These people are drastically small in number and warehousing them until they off themselves is far cheaper and more merciful to them and to society than the costs of attempting prohibition. Prudence, reason, and the rule of law demand its end.

paperburn1 · Post by **paperburn1** » Fri Dec 28, 2012 3:27 pm

One thing that should be clearly understood is that the swiss didn't make heroin usage legal, they changed its classification to a illness to be eradicated by medical treatment under a doctors supervision.