Alcohol Is a Very Dangerous Drug

[MSimon]

new instantly addicting mind altering substances.

No such substances have been discovered yet. Except on television and by the DEA.

In the medical literature there is no such thing.

In addition addiction according to the NIDA is caused by genetics and environmental factors. And as far as we can tell the main environmental factor is trauma. Of course if the NIDA were to say "trauma" most of the wind would go out of the drug war sails because who but Old Testament Christians would want to punish the traumatized?

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... vegas.html

also check out the new links I have added here:

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

But I'm a sneaky bastard and have been winning over some fundamentalists over from time to time (my first was a former Sheriff around 2002 - and when he got it he was so sorry for what he had been doing) and I'm definitely getting to their children.

Most folks can not dispassionately study anything they get emotionally invested in past age 20. So like the pied piper I go after the kids with the most instantly addicting drug known to man - information.

A retired police detective friend of mine thinks it will take about 5 more years of informing +/-. I do love getting into these discussions with folks who can't be convinced. There are children reading. Heh.

[MSimon]

And when genetic technology gets more advanced how will you prevent people from cooking up a bug, putting it in some "soup", and getting all the drugs they want at a cost of a few dollars a pound. We already have a bug for alcohol. It is just a matter of time until we get bugs for anything you want.

Time is on my side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Law_of_Prohibition

The Iron Law of Prohibition is a term coined by Richard Cowan which states that "the more intense the law enforcement, the more potent the prohibited substance becomes." This is based on the premise that when drugs or alcohol are prohibited, they will be produced only in black markets in their most concentrated and powerful forms. If all alcohol beverages are prohibited, a bootlegger will be more profitable if he smuggles highly distilled liquors than if he smuggles the same volume of small beer. In addition, the black-market goods are more likely to be adulterated with unknown or dangerous substances. The government cannot regulate and inspect the production process, and harmed consumers have no recourse in law.

[seedload]

A retired police detective friend of mine thinks it will take about 5 more years of informing +/-. I do love getting into these discussions with folks who can't be convinced.

Either we can't be convinced or we can be convinced. I suppose you are really saying that all of us "folks who can't be convinced" actually can be convinced - it's just gonna take five years. Not sure a retired police detective is the expert on convincin' time. But, good luck with it.

Why do you like having discussions with folds who can't be convinced? Have you considered the reasons for this passion of yours? Are you marveling at their (my) stupidity or are you reveling in your own intelligence? One wonders what it actually is you are enjoying. Probably being smarter than they are is my guess - at least in your own mind. Good luck with that too.

Blind enjoyment of your self perceived logical dominance can be a dangerous thing when talking to those that you don't really know on topics this sensitive. Perhaps you should tone down the enjoyment and add a healthy dose of circumspection to your discussions. Just perhaps.

My experience is that Heroin is far different from a beer mainly because many people can handle the latter and NOBODY can handle the former. I feel the same way about Crack, but I don't have the experience to really know.

Anyway, not sure why I chimed in here. As you say, I will not be able to be convinced. Your opinions seem to be strong and rooted in your own copious investigations. So, there is really no where to go from here. Again, good luck.

[MSimon]

I suppose you are really saying that all of us "folks who can't be convinced" actually can be convinced

Some of you will be convinced sooner, some later, some not at all.

What I gain is a chance to present evidence to the children whose minds are still plastic.

And the medical evidence OVERWHELMINGLY supports my position. I have yet to see one bit of counter evidence from the recent medical literature. Heck - you are not even quoting Gabriel Nahas.

===

And on the socio-political side no refutation of the fact that alcohol prohibition was a disaster for children. There was an epidemic of kids coming to school drunk.

The corresponding debilitation: it is easier for a kid to get an illegal drug than a legal beer.

===

Then there are the drug gangs encroaching on our Southern border. Something I predicted 20 years ago - to much derision at the time. The progression at the time was - Colombia - Central America. I just extrapolated to - Mexico - the US. That wasn't difficult.

===

Then there is the corruption of prohibition agents. Here is a good one:

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_17415662?nclick_check=1

And the Colby quote I keep posting (I'll spare you)

===

Then there is the Constitutional question - for all you strict constructionists. Where is the Drug Prohibition Amendment?

===

Then there are the spoutings of "Addiction, Addiction, run for your lives". When we know addiction is a two factor problem - genetics and trauma. Well you know kids are just fools for justice. Punishing the traumatized - victims of rape, beatings, police and firemen doing their duty, soldiers in war zones - seems, I don't know, wrong. Kids just fall for that stuff.

===

And it all comes from the fundamental lie: "drugs cause addiction". You might as well say water causes thirst. Or food causes hunger.

So I love these shouting matches. I don't expect to win them here. I expect to win them with the kids. And if you follow the stats I am. I can't tell you when. The if is not in doubt.

===

My motto?

Grab 'em by the hearts and minds. Their balls will follow.

[KitemanSA]

The corresponding debilitation: it is easier for a kid to get an illegal drug than a legal beer.

Mike,
It may be that you are emphasizing the wrong point. If you make the statement:
"It is harder for kids to get a legal beer than an illegal drug",
it leads naturally to the continued thought...
"in which case it should be even HARDER for them to get a legal drug"
which is the thought you want to plant! After all, "legal" implies a degree of social control that "illegal" does not.
Just a thought.

[MSimon]

My experience is that Heroin is far different from a beer mainly because many people can handle the latter and NOBODY can handle the former

A victim of government propaganda I see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin

In 1895, the German drug company Bayer marketed diacetylmorphine as an over the counter drug under the trademark name Heroin.

Over the counter for about 20 years. And opium was over the counter for 300 or 400 years in America. We're so much better people now. /s

And the people who brought us drug prohibition? A coalition of Progressives and Old Testament Christians. You would thing that the modern Old Testament Christians would be ashamed of that coalition and would be doing everything in their power to reverse the work of that coalition. You would be wrong.

Here is a nice comment about one of those Old Testament Christians who is in politics:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives ... l#comments

And I won't vote for Sanctimonious Santorum because of his Animal Rights connections. He was behind PAWS that would have devastated hobby breeders. The Federal Government does not need to be in my whelping box. He is a Progressive and needs to stay out of power.

Karen · February 18, 2011 4:28 PM

====

Politically for now I'm allied with the Right to defeat socialism. Once that is well on the way - another year or four - I'm going to ally with the Left - they are going to be pissed and out for revenge. I intend to show them how. In fact I have already started. See my comments here:

http://markpocanwi.blogspot.com/2011/02 ... horse.html

====

I forgot to mention that the opiate use rate in America pre 1914 was about 2%. It is now about 2%. We are spending $70 bn a year nationally for that result. I believe I can get the same result for free.

You have to wonder why - if heroin is so addicting - everyone in America over the age of 18 wasn't addicted when the drug was over the counter.
We're so much better people now. /s

As per usual the Right is all for smaller government except when it comes to their pet projects. My attitude: "If the lefties can't have their pet projects neither can the right." I'm serious about smaller government. Serious as death.

====

Note: the same argument for the banning of opiates can be used for the banning of guns. They are dangerous and some folks are getting killed.

The rejoinder often is: gun prohibition will not work. Black markets will supply the demand.

You have to wonder how the pro gun folks can think so clearly about guns and yet get so muddled when it comes to drugs. Reminds me of the old saw - "Drugs make people stupid. Especially people that don't use them."

[MSimon]

The corresponding debilitation: it is easier for a kid to get an illegal drug than a legal beer.

Mike,
It may be that you are emphasizing the wrong point. If you make the statement:
"It is harder for kids to get a legal beer than an illegal drug",
it leads naturally to the continued thought...
"in which case it should be even HARDER for them to get a legal drug"
which is the thought you want to plant! After all, "legal" implies a degree of social control that "illegal" does not.
Just a thought.

Thanks,

People rather distant from me call me Mike or Michael. All my close friends and associates (even the first mate) call me Simon.

And you are correct about the social control - we have more social and government control over legal beer than illegal drugs. The only thing the dealer cares about is trading his stash for cash as quickly as possible. And no one wants to flash an ID in such a transaction.

====

And for my prohibitionist friends. I LOVE discussing this subject with the ignorant. It makes them look like fools. There is only one prohibitionist who can go toe to toe with me. And he studies the literature intensively. He knows it as well as I do. But such folks are very rare. Most are lazy. Heck nearly all. And I have heard and have been demolishing the lazy arguments for 30 years. By now I'm moderately good at it.

"You cannot be sure you are right unless you understand the arguments against your views better than your opponents do." - Milton Friedman - a nice Jewish boy who was against prohibition:

The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise by Milton Friedman

Uncle Miltie was a Republican politically but he often said his true attachment was to libertarianism.

Funny thing is that most of the pro prohibition folks here are anti-socialist except when it comes to their pet projects. Go figure.

[Diogenes]

MSimon, you say so many things which defy common sense and defy experience. You routinely ignore any data which defies your narrative, and you extrapolate the stuff that agrees with your narrative way beyond any meaningful point.

The only valid argument you've got that i'll admit to is the one you seldom use, and that is "How is the drug war constitutional?"


From a Federalism argument, you might have a point, but even so, that leaves the issue in the realms of the States, so it makes precious little difference in Practice. Even Liberal Lunatic California couldn't muster enough votes to declare the most innocuous drug (Marijuana) to be Legal.


At this point, I really wish there was some state that would "try out" Libertarian thinking, so people could see once and for all what is wrong with it. But you know what? It still wouldn't convince anyone.

I and others have been saying for Decades what horrible consequences result from letting Democrats run things, and we have Example after Example of Cities and States with Long running Democrat Control, such as New York, Detroit, Chicago, Massachusetts, California, etc. and no matter how big of a disaster these places end up being, It never gets pointed out that this is a consistent result of letting Liberal Democrats run things.

I'm pretty sure a Libertarian disaster would probably generate just as much apathy and lack of Ideological accountability.

We (collectively) have lost our Freakin minds!

[MSimon]

MSimon, you say so many things which defy common sense and defy experience.

Researching actual facts will do that to you.

As I have said, "There is only one pro-prohibition guy who I have ever discussed the issue with who knows the facts as well as I do." And it is not you.

BTW he would not disagree with any of the research points I have presented. He might or might not agree with my prescription about what to do. From time to time we get into it by e-mail.

He is an extremely bright lawyer and it is his opinion that Federal Drug Prohibition is unConstitutional. If I told you his name you would most likely recognize it.

But I'm glad to have you spouting from ignorance. You are the easiest kind of opponent to defeat on the question. Because the kids can cross check my facts and find out I'm telling the truth and you are just spouting government propaganda. Odd for some one who doesn't blindly trust the government on the vast majority of subjects. But there it is.

Keep up the good work. You strengthen my points with every Government informed objection.

I don't expect to change your mind. That is not why I do what I do. I expect to be winning over the next generations. And if you follow the change in sentiment on the question I'm gaining ground and you are losing it. You would do a LOT better if you actually knew the literature. I'm glad you don't.

It would probably take you three to five years to get up to speed. To do that you would have to first give up everything you know and start with a fresh mind. In my estimation you are incapable (as are most people) of doing that on subjects you are emotionally invested in. So I get to take advantage of your all too human nature. My condolences.

My prohibitionist friend follows this dictum:

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" J. M. Keynes

You seem to follow this one:

"Facts are against us? The worse for the facts" - Stalin

The USSR is gone. And in time Drug Prohibition will follow.

[KitemanSA]

People rather distant from me call me Mike or Michael. All my close friends and associates (even the first mate) call me Simon.

So where do you think I fit on that spectrum?

[Diogenes]

MSimon, you say so many things which defy common sense and defy experience.

Researching actual facts will do that to you.

As I have said, "There is only one pro-prohibition guy who I have ever discussed the issue with who knows the facts as well as I do." And it is not you.

BTW he would not disagree with any of the research points I have presented. He might or might not agree with my prescription about what to do. From time to time we get into it by e-mail.

He is an extremely bright lawyer and it is his opinion that Federal Drug Prohibition is unConstitutional. If I told you his name you would most likely recognize it.

But I'm glad to have you spouting from ignorance.

Judging from the things you have said, I believe only one of us has significant real world experience with the effects of people and drugs, and it isn't you.

You are the easiest kind of opponent to defeat on the question. Because the kids can cross check my facts and find out I'm telling the truth and you are just spouting government propaganda.

MSimon, you have a habit of continuously repeating something, regardless of how many times it has been demonstrated to be untrue. You obviously don't believe me when I tell you that I have personal first hand information about this subject, and it is completely contradictory to everything you claim. Several others have said as much as well. Their personal experience with drugs and drug addicts is diametrically opposite your "medical" studies and claims. Your attitude reminds me of that song by Shaggy.


You seem to be telling me "Who you gonna believe? Me or you lyin eyes? "

Odd for some one who doesn't blindly trust the government on the vast majority of subjects. But there it is.

I don't trust them at all, but oddly enough your credibility is approaching theirs on this subject.

Keep up the good work. You strengthen my points with every Government informed objection.

I personally know TWO people who have died from drugs. One was found dead along a back country road, the other died in a fiery car crash on highway 281. (She stole the car from a john she was jackballin with, and ran it into an overpass support.)

Both of them left young children behind. I know dozens of others who have gone in and out of prison, i've seen them infected with meth bugs, and watched their teeth rot out. I've seen walking skeletons who were infected with all sorts of diseases, just because they couldn't put the crack pipe down.

I knew these people personally. I've watched them take their hits, i've watched them play their games, I've seen them jonesing, and rushing around all over town trying to get some more.

Obviously you don't believe me. I've got pictures of me with some of these people. Perhaps if I show you the pictures and then show you their mug shots on the DOC.State.OK.US, would that convince you? Probably not.

You will simply keep repeating that i'm listening to "Government Propaganda."

I don't expect to change your mind. That is not why I do what I do. I expect to be winning over the next generations. And if you follow the change in sentiment on the question I'm gaining ground and you are losing it. You would do a LOT better if you actually knew the literature. I'm glad you don't.

Yes, I need to learn Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Aramic to understand Leviticus 20:13. After all, "...they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" Might mean something else in those languages.

At least that's what you told me when we discussed THAT subject last. Funny, now you are saying the same thing about drugs, as if the nuance of DEAD PEOPLE is to subtle for me to grasp without the benefit of years of drug propaganda research.

It would probably take you three to five years to get up to speed. To do that you would have to first give up everything you know and start with a fresh mind. In my estimation you are incapable (as are most people) of doing that on subjects you are emotionally invested in. So I get to take advantage of your all too human nature. My condolences.

Emotionally invested in? I didn't give a crap about this subject for the longest time. It's only because of your persistent insistence that drugs are harmless and/or beneficial that I finally deigned to bother discussing the subject. The people that I knew who have wrecked their lives with the stuff were not my relatives, and those of them that came to be my friends have straightened out quite a bit, so I don't have any personal trauma related to this stuff. Yeah, I feel sorry for some of the people i've known who have seriously hurt themselves, but I warned them at the time, and that was all I could do.

You ARE making progress though. You are taking a subject that I (and perhaps others) didn't give a whit about and increasing my (and perhaps others) willingness to start opposing it. It's getting as bad as the Gehy stuff. It's far more objectionable when people start pushing it into your face.

My prohibitionist friend follows this dictum:

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" J. M. Keynes

You seem to follow this one:

"Facts are against us? The worse for the facts" - Stalin

The USSR is gone. And in time Drug Prohibition will follow.

Anarchy will follow drugs. Then comes a Dictator.

[choff]

Mike, do you believe that all date rape drugs should be legal without prescription, in any amounts, without age limits for purchase. If we say that the less government controls, the better, should we not remove restrictions on things like Ricin and VX gas. There was a drug bust in my town lately, enough Ketamine to knock out the entire population.

[MSimon]

Mike, do you believe that all date rape drugs should be legal without prescription, in any amounts, without age limits for purchase. If we say that the less government controls, the better, should we not remove restrictions on things like Ricin and VX gas. There was a drug bust in my town lately, enough Ketamine to knock out the entire population.

I believe we should ban the #1 date rape drug of all time: alcohol.

/sarc

=====

Banning the drugs provides a false sense of security. And as your examples show - it doesn't work.

=====

I see by the appellation you use to refer to me that you are no friend. Nice to know.

=====

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Law_of_Prohibition

The Iron Law of Prohibition is a term coined by Richard Cowan which states that "the more intense the law enforcement, the more potent the prohibited substance becomes." This is based on the premise that when drugs or alcohol are prohibited, they will be produced only in black markets in their most concentrated and powerful forms. If all alcohol beverages are prohibited, a bootlegger will be more profitable if he smuggles highly distilled liquors than if he smuggles the same volume of small beer. In addition, the black-market goods are more likely to be adulterated with unknown or dangerous substances. The government cannot regulate and inspect the production process, and harmed consumers have no recourse in law.

This is true not just for individual drugs but the whole drug scene. You ban a mild drug like pot and the dealers will be dealing stronger stuff.

You ban opium and you get heroin. You ban heroin and you get even stronger analogs.

So the harder the drug war is fought the more self defeating the war becomes. Think of prohibition as an incentive plan to provide more, stronger, more dangerous drugs to the drug market.

Conservatives can apply economic thinking most exquisitely to almost any market except the drug market. The mere mention of drugs makes conservatives stupid. A word makes some folks instantly stupid. That is some powerful shite.

===

And just as alcohol prohibition corrupted law enforcement so has drug prohibition done the same:

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_17415662?nclick_check=1

The arrest not only calls into question the credibility and integrity of Wielsch as an individual, she said, but also that of the task force as an investigative body and the guardian of prosecution evidence.

"Was he motivated by a desire to confiscate as much drugs as he could so he could turn around and sell them? Was he writing false police reports? Was he exaggerating in police reports? You have to question everything in a CNET investigation," Lipetzky said. "You also have to wonder when it's the top cop of the investigation that's a crooked cop, what did others in CNET know?"

Wielsch and Chris Butler, who runs the investigative firm Butler and Associates, were arrested together in Benicia by federal agents Wednesday morning after an undercover investigation that began in January, said Department of Justice special agent Michelle Gregory.

Both men were booked into County Jail in Martinez on as many as 25 suspected felony offenses, including possessing, transporting and selling marijuana, methamphetamine and steroids, and embezzlement, second-degree burglary and conspiracy. District Attorney Mark Peterson said his office will likely decide whether to file charges Friday.

Deputy public defenders on Thursday began requesting police reports surrounding Wielsch's arrest during court appearances for clients arrested by CNET.

"At this point, this is material we are entitled to because it could impact the integrity of the investigation of any open case," Lipetzky said.

She said she is waiting to hear details about the allegations against Wielsch before assessing how his arrest would affect past CNET cases. The further back criminal activity is alleged to have occurred, the more cases would be affected. The public defender said she is prepared to have the office revisit cases from years back at a time when staff time and resources are already scarce.

===

The belief in prohibition is equivalent to the belief in socialism. It is a faith not founded on facts. And yet no amount of failure can dissuade the believers (generally). Darndest thing I have ever seen.

[MSimon]

D,

Anecdotes are not evidence. You are probably unaware of that. So I thought I would tell you.

And since you scoff at medical evidence I assume you have nothing to do with doctors.

===

And why do I keep repeating the medical evidence? In the hope (forlorn to be sure) that some day you will read it and provide counter evidence.

You wouldn't do physics (evidence free) the way you deal with this subject. I assume you are emotionally unequipped to deal with evidence that might counter your faith. And yet you would scoff at anyone doing faith based physics. Amusing.

===

BTW Eric (of Classical Values) and I both admire our prohibitionist friend because of his knowledge of the subject. We come to different conclusions than he does but Eric and I agree that our friend does know the literature. And if I come up with something he is unfamiliar with he reads my evidence. I do the same with the evidence he provides. We have HONEST disagreements.

All I get from you are anecdotes and repetition of government propaganda. All the better for me.

[MSimon]

Anarchy will follow drugs.

Good one. I assume the US was in the grip of anarchists from September 1787 until December of 1914 when the grip of the anarchists was broken and formerly over the counter drugs like heroin were made illegal nationally.

Your faith is touching my friend. Ungrounded in reality but fun to watch.

I understand your plight. Reason makes the head hurt while faith provides comfort for those who can buy in. The problems come when reason defeats faith. The story of Galileo is instructive in that regard.

Prohibition only drives drunkenness behind doors and into dark places, and does not cure or even diminish it.

MARK TWAIN