Definitely another drug thread.

[TDPerk]

The example given of opium use on Nantucket is not peculiar to that island, it is a general example of narcotic use without problematic (let alone exponential) societal addiction in the United States. Diogenes claims--in a diarrhetic flood of words intended to use sheer volume to hide the valence absent from his argument--that his "China" example stands because strict controls in place on opium in the US mean it is not a valid example of a society--our society--making his thesis null and void.

In fact, opium was available in a generally uncontrolled fashion until the Harrison Act, and was sold over the counter. Diogenes either lied or is misinformed.

Neither is there any evidence the War on Drugs has done anything but cost a great deal of money and lives, and destroy the Constitution in the process. Rates of addiction have been roughly constant, everyone who wants drugs gets them, if not one day then the next. There is no evidence it has been even slightly effective.

Neither is there anything usual or customary in drug prohibition laws, there were none such as they are exercised today prior to 1915 in this country. Neither is there anything of Christianity in them, neither are they conservative in any sense.

They are an expression of the "goo-goo", Progressive, good government movement as addle brained as the teetotallers who brought us Big Al Capone. The notion is that government can take a cattle-prod and machine gun and improve man and society from the top down. It is grotesquely un-American and has the same philosophical antecedents as the gun control laws--the idea the 2nd Amendment protects a state's right to arm a militia and not an individual right to arms is born of the same Progressive movement as that Diogenes slavishly supports, and that "interpretation" dates from the same era.

In fact, absent a amendment to the contrary, the War on Drugs in unconstitutional on it's face, whether undertaken by the State or National governments. The Constitution protects a general right to property with which both levels of government are prohibited from interfering, absent due process--you have to commit something sensibly a crime before your rights to create, sell, move, buy, or use a drug or any other property can be interfered with. You have to pick someone's pocket or break their knees first...only then have you commited a crime which can be properly punished, under our constitution, if it is understood as written.

Diogenes simply want to ignore the parts he doesn't like, and even imagines the constitution nigh compels a war on drugs, and hallucinates that such have been a part of our society from time immemorial.

If the spittle flying from his lips keeps putting his lamp out--if he's even really so much as pretending to look--he won't soon find any truth.

I think he lies to so much as imply by his name that he's looking.

[GIThruster]

Neither is there any evidence the War on Drugs has done anything but cost a great deal of money and lives, and destroy the Constitution in the process. Rates of addiction have been roughly constant, everyone who wants drugs gets them, if not one day then the next. There is no evidence it has been even slightly effective.

If this sort of claim had any truth to it, I'd be against prohibition. I would. Trouble is, there is no truth to your claim. The facts are that <9% of Americans use illegal drugs:

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/0 ... l-drugs-3/

and more than 67% drink alcohol.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141656/drink ... -high.aspx

If those illegal drugs were legal, their use would expand greatly.

This is the issue that drug users don't understand. They think because they're willing to break the law, that anyone interested in drugs is so willing, and that's just not true.

Only criminals are willing to be criminals. The rest of us want no association with any criminal activity. It's because druggies don't understand this, they make all these obviously and stupidly wrong claims about prohibition.

[MSimon]

If those illegal drugs were legal, their use would expand greatly.

Granting you premise I take it you would prefer the current and expanding police state as an alternative?

You know how it goes, "First they came for the dopers...."

===

From: Google executives say technology can be harnessed to fight drug cartels in Mexico.

If you Google Carlos Salinas, former PRI President, and Billionaires Banquet and NPR, then Google Raul Salinas, Nuevo Leon and Donaldo Collosi, you will realize that the Zeta and Gulf Cartels are the PRI. Google Chapo Guzman and PAN and you will see that they are the Sinaloa Cartel.

Each cartel faction has its own political party. I wonder who the cartels own in America?

“The Latin American drug cartels have stretched their tentacles much deeper into our lives than most people believe. It’s possible they are calling the shots at all levels of government.” – William Colby, former CIA Director, 1995

http://classicalvalues.com/2012/07/over ... -comments/

===

Now questioning your premise: what exactly is wrong with people consuming what they like? You would prefer government restrictions on that (precedent set - now nothing is off limits including 32 oz Cokes)?

Militarized police is a small price to pay to keep the drug cartels in business.

SWAT raids - they are not just for dopers anymore.

===

According to what can be learned here:

http://revolution.h-net.msu.edu/threads/crevecoeur.html

Widespread opiate consumption in America is not a problem unless supplies are restricted. Just as breathing is not a problem unless your air supply is restricted.

===

So GIT would you care to find me an article or information from before the Progressive/socialist era showing a serious problem with opiate consumption? Jefferson used to grow opium poppies. Funny thing was I lived back of his house when I was a kid. At that time the opium garden was still there. No longer though.

===

Government fiat can no more create moral health than it can create economic health.

Republicans used to run on that principle. Now they are merely the Religious wing of the Progressive Party.

Do I expect to change your mind? Of course not. What I'm after is the lurkers. And judging by the 67% of Americans who say Prohibition is not working I'm getting them.

[TDPerk]

"If this sort of claim had any truth to it, I'd be against prohibition. I would. Trouble is, there is no truth to your claim. The facts are that <9% of Americans use illegal drugs:"

And this is no evidence of the success of Prohibition, it is evidence of it's abject failure.

That's about the same number who regularly used drugs--were hooked on them--before Prohibition.

The only thing gotten out of Prohibition is the cost, there's no benefit to it.

There was an especially stupid period where the fraction was far higher, the Prohibition of alcohol. Lots more people used illegal drugs then, and they built the mob in doing it.

[MSimon]

Actual % of opiate addicts in America shortly before the Harrison Act?

About 1.3%

When Nixon started his Drug War? 1.3%

Since the War has been going on for 40+ years? About 1.3%

Stats from:
A Narcotics Officer Speaks Out

It had been declining since the mid 1800s as living conditions improved.

It seems that there is an irreducible minimum. No matter how hard you fight the war. Opiate use for the most severe cases of PTSD has recently been mooted. So it may have something to do with that. But we don't know because studies sympathetic to opiate use are severely discouraged by the DEA and FDA.

One by Tashkin on pot did get through but he was known for his negative bias. None the less he was an honest man. Much more than can be said of G. Nahas.

And what is the best selling point for pot? "People are willing to risk jail for this stuff? I have to try some." Currently, by age 25, 50% have tried it. The collateral damage though is that our children are behaving like a persecuted minority. Where does that lead? From Progressive Conservatism to the Libertarian Party and libertarian thought. They no longer have faith in authority. Now I might like that GIT. But I'm sure you don't. You know - once they question one aspect they start questioning everything. Religion is mildly declining in America in part because of the War On Children. I do believe that in time as the sentiment against authority becomes more popular that religion in America will collapse as it has done in Europe and for the same reason. The church lost its moral authority.

[MSimon]

Pat Robertson comes out for pot legalization in Colorado.

Also

http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/ claims kids are using pot less in Colorado since it was declared a medicine.

[seedload]

Widespread opiate consumption in America is not a problem unless supplies are restricted. Just as breathing is not a problem unless your air supply is restricted.

Potentially the worst metaphor ever. You would die without air. You will not die without opiates - no matter how bad it feels to you.

BTW, again your argument has drifted from legalization of drugs to advocating for use of drugs. You just said "consumption" is not a problem rather than legalization is not a problem.

Widespread opiate consumption is not a problem!?!?!

Wow! You previously said that some measures to decriminalize pot possession were evidence that people were on your side. News flash. People supporting decriminalization of pot possession are NOT on your side. I don't even think you are aware of how extreme your side is.

Mistakenly a Democrat. Mistakenly a Communist. Mistakenly a Libertarian. Mistakenly in an outlaw motorcycle gang. Admittedly mildly schizophrenic. Confused unclear references to support for Budism, Kabbalah, "Zen", etc.. In all cases, most definitely pursued with the same extreme advocacy currently being demonstrated.

Please forgive us for not blindly following you down the reckless path of your new next mistake.

[Diogenes]

The example given of opium use on Nantucket is not peculiar to that island, it is a general example of narcotic use without problematic (let alone exponential) societal addiction in the United States. Diogenes claims--in a diarrhetic flood of words intended to use sheer volume to hide the valence absent from his argument--that his "China" example stands because strict controls in place on opium in the US mean it is not a valid example of a society--our society--making his thesis null and void.

In fact, opium was available in a generally uncontrolled fashion until the Harrison Act, and was sold over the counter. Diogenes either lied or is misinformed.

Your criticism regarding how long was my response is valid. You obviously didn't bother to read it. I never disputed that drugs were available. I pointed out that the quantities which were available were nothing at all like the quantities available in China. Addiction was limited by the supply side of the equation.

Neither is there any evidence the War on Drugs has done anything but cost a great deal of money and lives, and destroy the Constitution in the process.

There is so much wrong with this statement that I simply cannot address it properly without another such long message which you will undoubtedly not read, or not understand if you do.

1. The evidence is the fact that we never developed the addiction rate of China.

2. Whatever number of lives and dollars it has cost, are but a pittance compared to the numbers of lives and dollars that the alternative would have cost. (Look at what it cost China.)

3. It is constitutional because it constitutes a real and existential threat to the nation. It killed China, it can kill US too.

Rates of addiction have been roughly constant, everyone who wants drugs gets them, if not one day then the next. There is no evidence it has been even slightly effective.

Let me put it in graph form so that it might be simple enough for you to grasp.

Neither is there anything usual or customary in drug prohibition laws, there were none such as they are exercised today prior to 1915 in this country.

Correct. They weren't needed because drug usage hadn't become a problem sufficient to be noticed. It was a threat which the nation had not dealt before. i.e. it was new. (to us.)

Neither is there anything of Christianity in them, neither are they conservative in any sense.

Do you get embarrassed? I suspect that you don't.

Romans 13:1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

1 Peter 2:13,

13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:

Romans 13:12-14 - Cast off the works of darkness, walk properly, not in drunkenness. Make no provision to fulfill the lusts of the flesh.

Galatians 5:19-21; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 - People who are guilty of drunkenness, will not inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 5:11 - If a church member commits drunkenness and refuses to repent, he should be disciplined so we don't keep company with him.

Romans 13:1212 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.

14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

Galatians 5:19–21

19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: 1aimmorality, impurity, sensuality,

20 idolatry, asorcery, enmities, bstrife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, cdisputes, dissensions, 1dfactions,

21 envying, adrunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not binherit the kingdom of God.

Galatians 5:13

13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.

Now I personally don't pay much attention to the bible, but I am not going to misconstrue what is in it.

They are an expression of the "goo-goo", Progressive, good government movement as addle brained as the teetotallers who brought us Big Al Capone. The notion is that government can take a cattle-prod and machine gun and improve man and society from the top down.

In your fantasy land of aggrieved childishness. Alcohol had been established for thousands of years, and so was therefore very difficult to dislodge, especially all at one time. People rebelled in a manner which they would not have done had they never had it, or had it been eradicated slowly.

Even today, we still regulate it; A Condition which you no doubt regard as a tyrannical abuse of power. Even so, Society is apparently accepting of the 75,000 people killed each year as a result of this stuff.

You childish types are very good at drawing equivalence between disparate issues. Facts and reason are not your forte.

It is grotesquely un-American and has the same philosophical antecedents as the gun control laws--the idea the 2nd Amendment protects a state's right to arm a militia and not an individual right to arms is born of the same Progressive movement as that Diogenes slavishly supports, and that "interpretation" dates from the same era.

Guns Guarantee freedom. Drugs Guarantee Slavery. I am on the side of Freedom, not Slavery. You are just too childish to understand the threat that drugs pose.

Have you any experience with drug addicts? Any at all? Do you know what the F*CK you are talking about, or are you just another mouthy little ignoramus popping off about sh*t you haven't experienced?

In fact, absent a amendment to the contrary, the War on Drugs in unconstitutional on it's face, whether undertaken by the State or National governments. The Constitution protects a general right to property with which both levels of government are prohibited from interfering, absent due process--you have to commit something sensibly a crime before your rights to create, sell, move, buy, or use a drug or any other property can be interfered with. You have to pick someone's pocket or break their knees first...only then have you commited a crime which can be properly punished, under our constitution, if it is understood as written.

The crime that drugs represent is the same crime that giving someone AIDS represents. You give the victim a disease that does not kill them immediately, but never the less you are responsible for giving them the disease. THAT is the injury for which drugs are a crime.

Diogenes simply want to ignore the parts he doesn't like, and even imagines the constitution nigh compels a war on drugs, and hallucinates that such have been a part of our society from time immemorial..

Nope, only since they started becoming a noticeable threat. Do you not comprehend that no action was taken UNTIL AFTER people started noticing problems?

Yes, the Constitution compels us to address any threat to the existence of our nation. The Toleration of Drug addiction will destroy us just as it destroyed China.

If the spittle flying from his lips keeps putting his lamp out--if he's even really so much as pretending to look--he won't soon find any truth.

I think he lies to so much as imply by his name that he's looking.

I think you are mentally a little child who doesn't like being told "No." You remind me of Calvin after he's been told he has to take a bath.




No child, drugs are not a right.

[Diogenes]

If those illegal drugs were legal, their use would expand greatly.

Granting you premise I take it you would prefer the current and expanding police state as an alternative?

And my response is this. Make drugs legal, and we'll get a police state MUCH FASTER. As a matter of fact, the only reason we are marching to a police state now, is because drug addicts keep giving them excuses to expand their powers.


YOUR SIDE IS BRINGING THE POLICE STATE!!!!


(Your side would also bring it if the stuff were legal, Just as it happened in China.)



Your thinking rests on a faulty foundation; the belief that legal drugs would leave society intact as it is currently constituted. The real world experiment of China shows that this is not the case, but you prefer to reject the experimental evidence in favor of your theory.

Experiment trumps theory.

[williatw]

Your thinking rests on a faulty foundation; the belief that legal drugs would leave society intact as it is currently constituted. The real world experiment of China shows that this is not the case, but you prefer to reject the experimental evidence in favor of your theory.

Experiment trumps theory.

God...I hope those asset forfeiture law enforcement folks find their way to you and your families house and possessions. After all jackboots, body armor and those reflecto-sunglasses cost money. White families have 20X the assets to take than black/hispanic families. No sacrifice is too great to keep those chest of opium from arriving.

[randomencounter]

If those illegal drugs were legal, their use would expand greatly.

Granting you premise I take it you would prefer the current and expanding police state as an alternative?

And my response is this. Make drugs legal, and we'll get a police state MUCH FASTER. As a matter of fact, the only reason we are marching to a police state now, is because drug addicts keep giving them excuses to expand their powers.


YOUR SIDE IS BRINGING THE POLICE STATE!!!!


(Your side would also bring it if the stuff were legal, Just as it happened in China.)



Your thinking rests on a faulty foundation; the belief that legal drugs would leave society intact as it is currently constituted. The real world experiment of China shows that this is not the case, but you prefer to reject the experimental evidence in favor of your theory.

Experiment trumps theory.

The experiment shows that expanding the classes of things that are illegal expands police power, leading inexorably to a police state.

You can't have freedom and enforce a particular brand of morality on people at the same time, it is an absolute contradiction that can only be defended by force of arms.

[Diogenes]

And my response is this. Make drugs legal, and we'll get a police state MUCH FASTER. As a matter of fact, the only reason we are marching to a police state now, is because drug addicts keep giving them excuses to expand their powers.


YOUR SIDE IS BRINGING THE POLICE STATE!!!!


(Your side would also bring it if the stuff were legal, Just as it happened in China.)



Your thinking rests on a faulty foundation; the belief that legal drugs would leave society intact as it is currently constituted. The real world experiment of China shows that this is not the case, but you prefer to reject the experimental evidence in favor of your theory.

Experiment trumps theory.

The experiment shows that expanding the classes of things that are illegal expands police power, leading inexorably to a police state..

You aren't looking at the correct experiment. You need to look at the experiment that left hundreds of millions of dead bodies behind. The experiment of Legalizing Opium use in China.

Why don't you learn a little bit about what happened in China, and get back with us when you are better informed?

You can't have freedom and enforce a particular brand of morality on people at the same time, it is an absolute contradiction that can only be defended by force of arms.

I meant to mention this to you before. All laws are enforced morality. The question is not *IF* morality is going to be enforced, the question is *WHO'S* morality is going to be enforced.

People who use drugs spread their disease. It is national self defense to prevent them from doing so. Don't talk to me about freedom when people are going around the countryside burning down people's lives. It's just like claiming the government is involved in your sex life when they forbid you from spreading AIDS.

You don't ever get that kind of freedom.

[GIThruster]

You can't have freedom and enforce a particular brand of morality on people at the same time, it is an absolute contradiction that can only be defended by force of arms.

You have an unusual, and impracticable idea of what is freedom.

This is the problem with libertarianism--it is not a philosophy of balance. It is a philosophy of unbridled idealism that left unchecked would result in catastrophe. Think what you are recommending. Is it anarchism? What is it you think you're saying, when you make such claims?

All law is enforcing a particular brand of morality. When you say it is wrong to lie, cheat, defraud, steal, injure, murder, etc, you are certainly enforcing a particular brand of morality on people. This nonsense that one can't legislate morality is as wrong as any statement can be. We don't ever legislate anything but morality.

The real issue is, what values will be upheld in our legislation. We here in the States live in a secular society and want to have as broad a group of laws as possible, so as to confine behavior as little as possible. Extreme, destructive behavior is the thing to limit, and anyone who knows anything about drugs knows that they are the cause of extreme, destructive behavior.

[Diogenes]

Your thinking rests on a faulty foundation; the belief that legal drugs would leave society intact as it is currently constituted. The real world experiment of China shows that this is not the case, but you prefer to reject the experimental evidence in favor of your theory.

Experiment trumps theory.

God...I hope those asset forfeiture law enforcement folks find their way to you and your families house and possessions. After all jackboots, body armor and those reflecto-sunglasses cost money. White families have 20X the assets to take than black/hispanic families. No sacrifice is too great to keep those chest of opium from arriving.

You don't have an answer to my argument other than wishing ill on me and mine? F*ck You! You've run out of arguments and so to make up for your lack of ability to reason, you want something bad to happen to me and mine? And you accuse MY side of supporting the jackbooted thugs?

Given your attitude, I have little doubt that you would attempt to put into practice your veiled threat did you but know where to point your attack. Brent Kimberlin has been phoning police and telling them his political enemies had killed their families and were armed and dangerous.

His efforts were to get them killed, or at least threatened into silence. How much further is it for you from the thinking to the doing much the same?

I think you should consider more carefully before wishing threats on someone in the future.

[williatw]

God...I hope those asset forfeiture law enforcement folks find their way to you and your families house and possessions. After all jackboots, body armor and those reflecto-sunglasses cost money. White families have 20X the assets to take than black/hispanic families. No sacrifice is too great to keep those chest of opium from arriving.

F*ck you up your @ss you little p*ssy faggot! I have repeatedly said that I am against the forfeiture laws, but you haven't been involved in this conversation long enough to be aware that I have said this. I have constantly told Simon this is the only aspect of his argument where he has a valid point.

Are you even aware that the discussion is NOT about marijuana? It's about a total legalization of all drugs. Crack, Meth, Heroin, Opium, Cocaine.

You either have no experience with people who have used this stuff (as have I.) or you didn't learn anything from such experience.

Again, GROW UP!!!!! Stop being a little child!

Any limp-dick old man can say that to someone on the internet love to see you say that to my face..your a real billy-badass as long as the other man is far far away. I am aware of your "disapproval" about asset forfeiture, but as far as I am concerned bring it on. Lets see how your side loves the war on drugs when your beloved authoritarian gov starts taking peoples stuff in mass.