Definitely another drug thread.

[MSimon]

You know, Simon may be going on ranting about things and he may not always be right. But he has never been anything but nice to people here.

Oh please don't act like a moron. Simon has threatened me multiple times. He's not the person you pretend, nor he pretends.

He's a druggie.

And so are you. I have it on competent authority you are addicted to air. You can't go ten minutes without it. That is a very serious Jones.

But don't feel bad. I share your addiction.

[randomencounter]

You know, Simon may be going on ranting about things and he may not always be right. But he has never been anything but nice to people here.

Oh please don't act like a moron. Simon has threatened me multiple times. He's not the person you pretend, nor he pretends.

He's a druggie.

And so are you. I have it on competent authority you are addicted to air. You can't go ten minutes without it. That is a very serious Jones.

But don't feel bad. I share your addiction.

GIT is perfect, therefore anybody who disagrees with him must have grievous flaws.

As long as you keep that straight you won't have any trouble with him.

[seedload]

Addicts, in the midst of their abuse, will often feel persecuted by their family and friends. They think this persecution is unfair persecution for being addicts.

But they ARE persecuted and hunted down by the law. SWAT Teams (gestapo raids) at 3AM ring a bell?

The deal is that you have done this to your children. And they are revolting. Quietly so far - Colorado ring a bell? But who knows? If it gets bad enough they might take up arms against you. Is that really what you want?

And if you consider the laws before 1914 the persecution is unfair. What is the point of persecuting those whose body chemistry is different from yours? I'm sure you have a rational answer for that.

When you consider that at least 30% of them got the body chemistry from child abuse and other causes of PTSD the persecution is monstrous. Fortunately your conscience is clear.

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. Clive Staples "CS" Lewis

I thought you said that Government was playing on our fears. "Swat teams", "gestapo", "hunted down", your children will "take up arms against you", etc. Seems pretty clear who is trying (unsuccessfully) to use our fears against us.

Your premise that Heroin is a cure for trauma from child abuse based solely on addiction statistics is ludicrous. Lots of obese people suffered child abuse. Is cake also a cure?

Finally, I find it funny that you are quoting a famously devout Christian when you just got done telling us that Christians have no mercy. Next thing you know you will be referencing medical advise from the time of bloodletting as if it were pertinent. Oh, snap. You already did that.

[MSimon]

Addicts, in the midst of their abuse, will often feel persecuted by their family and friends. They think this persecution is unfair persecution for being addicts.

But they ARE persecuted and hunted down by the law. SWAT Teams (gestapo raids) at 3AM ring a bell?

The deal is that you have done this to your children. And they are revolting. Quietly so far - Colorado ring a bell? But who knows? If it gets bad enough they might take up arms against you. Is that really what you want?

And if you consider the laws before 1914 the persecution is unfair. What is the point of persecuting those whose body chemistry is different from yours? I'm sure you have a rational answer for that.

When you consider that at least 30% of them got the body chemistry from child abuse and other causes of PTSD the persecution is monstrous. Fortunately your conscience is clear.

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. Clive Staples "CS" Lewis

I thought you said that Government was playing on our fears. "Swat teams", "gestapo", "hunted down", your children will "take up arms against you", etc. Seems pretty clear who is trying (unsuccessfully) to use our fears against us.

Your premise that Heroin is a cure for trauma from child abuse based solely on addiction statistics is ludicrous. Lots of obese people suffered child abuse. Is cake also a cure?

Finally, I find it funny that you are quoting a famously devout Christian when you just got done telling us that Christians have no mercy. Next thing you know you will be referencing medical advise from the time of bloodletting as if it were pertinent. Oh, snap. You already did that.

I had the good fortune to grow up in the 50s when WW2 movies were common on TV, and it sure looks to me like 3AM SWAT raids mirror what I saw in those WW2 movies - you know the gestapo breaking down doors at 3AM looking for Jews. But you have nothing to fear. You don't use drugs. Well at least nothing to fear if the cops don't screw up and kill you by accident.

Now care to explain how drugs can be eradicated from America if the CIA is importing them at the same time DEA is fighting them? Or maybe it is just a ploy to maintain the DEA budget. Or maybe the job of the DEA is to eliminate the CIA's competition. As is happening in Mexico re: the Sinaloa vs Zeta Wars. You are familiar with those wars and the side the CIA is backing are you not? Well Google is your friend. You might want to try it some time.

You would be amazed at what you can learn if you actually wanted to learn something.

And if you want to dig deeper look into - "Agenda 21" drug prohibition - it might clear that film of what ever it is covering your eyes. I know this will come as a complete surprise but your government is lying to you. Who ever would have expected that?

Another fun topic - drug running by the CIA - have a look at the Mike Ruppert video. That is a fun one.

I am always amused by experts on the subject who know nothing about it. Say. You might want to try - PTSD heroin - just to see if I'm giving you the Bravo Sierra. You can fact check my a$$. I welcome it.

[Teahive]

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

So 67% of the US population are users of alcohol, an addictive and dangerous drug. Yet apparently lawmakers and society as a whole think that prohibition of alcohol is not the right way to deal with it, that regulating the sale and treating addiction as a medical condition is better. Not saying that the majority must be right, but it at least shows that the decision is a trade-off, and it's not even dominated by the suffering that abusers of the drug directly bring upon themselves or others. It's also worth pointing out that a clear distinction is being made between those who drink alcohol and alcoholics.

For other drugs, depending on their specific properties different aspects of the discussion will become more or less important, but it never boils solely down to "users of this drug bring suffering upon themselves and others, therefore all access to the drug should be forbidden."
Personally, I think a credible argument can be made that in many cases prohibition actually brings more suffering to drug users and others.

[Teahive]

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.

The typical market response to a commodity which becomes supply constrained is a drastic price increase and an attempt to increase the supply. Is there evidence of either?

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.

Would you take a scientist seriously if he tried to transfer the outcome of a single experiment to a situation with completely different starting conditions (culturally, economically, and socially)? Not to mention misrepresenting the experiment, as opium use started expanding well before it was forcibly legalized.

[GIThruster]

For other drugs, depending on their specific properties different aspects of the discussion will become more or less important, but it never boils solely down to "users of this drug bring suffering upon themselves and others, therefore all access to the drug should be forbidden."

I'm not sure I understand what point you're making. No one has ever said the details don't matter. Of course they matter. Why would alcohol be legal and cannabis not, if not for the details? It is the effects of cannabis that make it such a harmful drug. It's an hallucinogen, and using it just a little increases your probability to suffer a psychotic episode by 5,000%. It is well characterized as destroying ambition and making people "dopers". "druggies", or lazy", none of which descriptions really portray how destructive it is. Apart from Opium, it's effects are perhaps the most devastating of any recreational drug. Again, look at the life of Simon.

[MSimon]

Ah GIT,

Ignorant of history I see. It had nothing to do with the danger according to this historian:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

The above talk was given to the FBI and also a group of judges. He also wrote a book.

And if you look up the medical history of the drug you will find that cannabis was prescribed as a safer alternative to alcohol. As was heroin in some cases.

Now ask yourself - why would your government be lying to you in these matters? Or at the very least keeping them hidden? Clue - follow the money. And where does the money lead? To the banks.

[GIThruster]

You have a pathetic, weirdo excuse for everything, Simon, but the fact of the matter is that dope makes people into dopes. The troubles from alcohol are by comparison insignificant. One doesn't need to look this stuff up on the web and read someone else's opinion of it. All one needs to do is open their eyes and look at the effects, such as in your life. It's plain to see for anyone who really looks, that cannabis should not be legal, because of all the fantastic harm it does.

[MSimon]

You have a pathetic, weirdo excuse for everything, Simon, but the fact of the matter is that dope makes people into dopes. The troubles from alcohol are by comparison insignificant. One doesn't need to look this stuff up on the web and read someone else's opinion of it. All one needs to do is open their eyes and look at the effects, such as in your life. It's plain to see for anyone who really looks, that cannabis should not be legal, because of all the fantastic harm it does.

Excuse? I have history on my side. What you got? Prejudice.

If cannabis causes such fantastic harm why was it in the US pharmacopeia until it was outlawed? Look at the indications it was used for back in that era. Also look at the testimony of the AMA at the hearings (very short) before the plant was outlawed. It is in the above ("whiteb") link.

You might also want to look into the CB1 and CB2 systems in the body. They are pervasive. Found by an Israeli researcher because cannabis research is nearly impossible in the US. Look up the work of Dr. Raphael Mechoulam. Particularly his work on PTSD.

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

Cannabinoid System in Neuroprotection, Raphael Mechoulam, PhD

If the stuff is so dangerous why does your body produce so many cannabis analogs (called anandamides - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anandamide ).

If you are going to beat me in a discussion you had better know the subject better than I do.

Well keep it up. Every one of your raves gives me another opportunity to educate the lurkers.

[Teahive]

It's plain to see for anyone who really looks, that cannabis should not be legal, because of all the fantastic harm it does.

See, that's exactly what I was referring to, reducing the argument to "users of this drug bring suffering upon themselves and others, therefore all access to the drug should be forbidden."

[Diogenes]

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.

The typical market response to a commodity which becomes supply constrained is a drastic price increase and an attempt to increase the supply. Is there evidence of either?

In the case of drug use in Nantucket (which is what this subtopic is discussing) the supply was low and the demand was low. They were relatively in balance, and usage had not increased to the point where it was outpacing supply. i.e. it was the early stages. What you say would be true at a later point in history if the addiction demand was maintained or increased.

For whatever reason, that seemingly didn't happen.

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.

Would you take a scientist seriously if he tried to transfer the outcome of a single experiment to a situation with completely different starting conditions (culturally, economically, and socially)? Not to mention misrepresenting the experiment, as opium use started expanding well before it was forcibly legalized.

You mistakenly regard what happened to China as a single experiment. No, it was millions of experiments that happen to occur in the same geographical location; China. The results are consistent. Whether illegal or legal, psuedo-limitless drug availability exponentially increases addiction.

[Diogenes]

It's plain to see for anyone who really looks, that cannabis should not be legal, because of all the fantastic harm it does.

See, that's exactly what I was referring to, reducing the argument to "users of this drug bring suffering upon themselves and others, therefore all access to the drug should be forbidden."

And what is wrong with this argument? Barring any positive attributes, why should the negative attributes not be sufficient to require interdiction?


We don't let people walk in and buy dynamite without a license, or for that matter, many raw chemicals. People have to show cause and competence before certain dangerous substances/devices are available to them.

I find this to be a perfectly reasonable methodology for dealing with dangerous substances. Simon's argument that Marijuana may have actual medicinal properties is probably one of his better arguments for making it available.... AS A MEDICINE.

[randomencounter]

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.

Would you take a scientist seriously if he tried to transfer the outcome of a single experiment to a situation with completely different starting conditions (culturally, economically, and socially)? Not to mention misrepresenting the experiment, as opium use started expanding well before it was forcibly legalized.

You mistakenly regard what happened to China as a single experiment. No, it was millions of experiments that happen to occur in the same geographical location; China. The results are consistent. Whether illegal or legal, psuedo-limitless drug availability exponentially increases addiction.

Would you take up heroin if it was cheaply and legally available in your area?

If a large proportion of the people around you would, do you honestly believe they are deserving of your "protection" from the opportunity to mess their lives up as you assert is the inevitable consequence of taking it up?

Sometimes freedom also means the freedom to drive right off that cliff.

[Diogenes]

Would you take a scientist seriously if he tried to transfer the outcome of a single experiment to a situation with completely different starting conditions (culturally, economically, and socially)? Not to mention misrepresenting the experiment, as opium use started expanding well before it was forcibly legalized.

You mistakenly regard what happened to China as a single experiment. No, it was millions of experiments that happen to occur in the same geographical location; China. The results are consistent. Whether illegal or legal, psuedo-limitless drug availability exponentially increases addiction.

Would you take up heroin if it was cheaply and legally available in your area?

For people dedicated to patronizing a website specifically themed around nuclear events, you seem to have a distinct lack of understanding of statistical analysis, the understanding and mathematics of which, are responsible for the successful understanding of the minimal quantity of fissionable material necessary to initiate or sustain a chain reaction.

It doesn't matter what *I* do, or what any single other individual does. Macroscopic patterns only emerge by looking at Macroscopic conditions. If you make Heroine available to a community, some percentage of the population will get caught up in it. If left alone, the usage of it will exponentially increase as people spread the addiction through their social contacts.

If a large proportion of the people around you would, do you honestly believe they are deserving of your "protection" from the opportunity to mess their lives up as you assert is the inevitable consequence of taking it up?

Sometimes freedom also means the freedom to drive right off that cliff.

If their actions were only limited to causing disaster for themselves, then much of the opposition to their actions would be muted. Drugs, however, do not remain just the problem of the user. It spreads to innocents in numerous and sundry ways.

Your seeming failure to be aware of just how drug addicts impact negatively upon everyone around them indicates such a dire lack of knowledge on the subject that you need a crash course in experience with drug addicts just to catch up enough to be on the same page with the rest of us who are discussing this.

You really don't seem to understand the scope of this issue you are discussing. To you, this is all theoretical and philosophical, but to myself and others on this website, it is all too real past experiences with addicts and abuse.