Diogenes wrote:Right back at ya dude. No doubt the British troops put the pipes in their mouths and offered them a light.
Actually, that is not far from the truth. It is called "pushing" these days, and these days it is for retail economic purposes. Back then and there it was more Government Policy for national economic purposes, but it was still pushing.
It may STILL be a fact that some government or quasi-government entity has similar nefarious purposes towards the US, but proper controls at this end SHOULD prevent what the Brits did to the Chinese. (Actually, the German ruler of the Brits, I think).
Diogenes wrote:It's easier for kids to get an illegal drug than a legal beer!
Are you being ironic with your signature line? Or are you making an argument for legalization to make it harder for kids to get drugs that are currently illegal? I'm confused.
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.
I guess. After all, I am not enlightened like you. You are an independent thinker. The rest of us are lemmings. When I say "my experience" there is absolutely no possibility I am actually talking about my experience.
No, sir. Only you are capable of personal thought and experience. After all, you are the guy with the retired police detective friend and the five year plan. You are the kind of guy that the youth of a nation will look to for guidance because you are so darn convincing. Your like the Justin Beeber of drug education. Your viral man! Power and Control! A vehicle to convince the world, two readers at a time!
Diogenes wrote:Right back at ya dude. No doubt the British troops put the pipes in their mouths and offered them a light.
Actually, that is not far from the truth. It is called "pushing" these days, and these days it is for retail economic purposes. Back then and there it was more Government Policy for national economic purposes, but it was still pushing.
It may STILL be a fact that some government or quasi-government entity has similar nefarious purposes towards the US, but proper controls at this end SHOULD prevent what the Brits did to the Chinese. (Actually, the German ruler of the Brits, I think).
Belies the point. The Drug infection spread till 50% of the population was infected. Doesn't matter that it was pushed, 50% addiction is a threat to any nation's survival, and the trend was still upward.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Diogenes wrote:It's easier for kids to get an illegal drug than a legal beer!
Are you being ironic with your signature line? Or are you making an argument for legalization to make it harder for kids to get drugs that are currently illegal? I'm confused.
I have repeatedly pointed out that a beer costs $1.00 and can easily be snuck out of a parents refrigerator, while a rock of crack costs $20.00 and a dope fiend will beat you like a drum if you try to steal it from him, but regardless of how many times i've demonstrated the idea to be completely false, MSimon keeps repeating it.
At first I thought it was a joke, but as he kept repeating it, I finally decided he must be doing it because he thinks that I find the statement annoying. Since I don't find it annoying, and now regard it as a source of amusement, I decided to make it my tag line. You know, to give the idea more publicity!
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Diogenes wrote: Belies the point. The Drug infection spread till 50% of the population was infected. Doesn't matter that it was pushed, 50% addiction is a threat to any nation's survival, and the trend was still upward.
No, it IS the point. For drug use to grow, folks need to be PUSHED. Official British Government Policy Economic pushing in China; non-official(???) retail economic pushing today. No push, little use; only the self medicators? And why are you SO agains self medication?
Diogenes wrote: Belies the point. The Drug infection spread till 50% of the population was infected. Doesn't matter that it was pushed, 50% addiction is a threat to any nation's survival, and the trend was still upward.
No, it IS the point. For drug use to grow, folks need to be PUSHED. Official British Government Policy Economic pushing in China; non-official(???) retail economic pushing today. No push, little use; only the self medicators? And why are you SO agains self medication?
I assert that active pushing only makes widespread addiction happen faster. If Addictive drugs are available, it will happen anyway.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Diogenes wrote: Belies the point. The Drug infection spread till 50% of the population was infected. Doesn't matter that it was pushed, 50% addiction is a threat to any nation's survival, and the trend was still upward.
No, it IS the point. For drug use to grow, folks need to be PUSHED. Official British Government Policy Economic pushing in China; non-official(???) retail economic pushing today. No push, little use; only the self medicators? And why are you SO agains self medication?
I assert that active pushing only makes widespread addiction happen faster. If Addictive drugs are available, it will happen anyway.
The evidence is against you. In every case, lack of pushing reduces new user creation and eventually reduces user rates (barring other perversions like the importation of new users because you have the only freedom around).
KitemanSA wrote: No, it IS the point. For drug use to grow, folks need to be PUSHED. Official British Government Policy Economic pushing in China; non-official(???) retail economic pushing today. No push, little use; only the self medicators? And why are you SO agains self medication?
I assert that active pushing only makes widespread addiction happen faster. If Addictive drugs are available, it will happen anyway.
The evidence is against you. In every case, lack of pushing reduces new user creation and eventually reduces user rates (barring other perversions like the importation of new users because you have the only freedom around).
So, we get everyone to respect the morality of Non-Pushing and everything's okey dokey? Really?
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Diogenes wrote: So, we get everyone to respect the morality of Non-Pushing and everything's okey dokey? Really?
Unless you believe that there is an external political reason why drugs are being pushed in the US, then yes. Of course the only thing you need do to get folks to "respect the morality of Non-Pushing" is to take the profit out of it. That is what ending prohibition will do.
If there IS a group who's intent is to hurt the US via pushing, the only way you will find out is to end prohibition and see who tries to control the sources.
In either case, (internal retail pushing, external political pushing) maintanance of prohibition is good for them, bad for US.
Diogenes wrote: So, we get everyone to respect the morality of Non-Pushing and everything's okey dokey? Really?
Unless you believe that there is an external political reason why drugs are being pushed in the US, then yes. Of course the only thing you need do to get folks to "respect the morality of Non-Pushing" is to take the profit out of it. That is what ending prohibition will do.
If there IS a group who's intent is to hurt the US via pushing, the only way you will find out is to end prohibition and see who tries to control the sources.
In either case, (internal retail pushing, external political pushing) maintanance of prohibition is good for them, bad for US.
The Chinese method of taking the profit out of it was to grow it themselves. They concluded that if they were going to have Chinese addicts, they may as well be smoking Chinese opium instead of the British import from India. After the domestic market became so massive, the Brits agreed to quit selling the stuff after ten years.
At the end of it, half of China was addicted, with more than 3/4 of the population in some provinces.
You explain this as the activity of pushers? It appears to me to be the result of dramatically increasing the supply. The drug "pushes" itself.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
You may be correct that after many years of shear political manipulation, there was a critical mass reached wherein the shear supply caused new users. Seems all the more reason to stop prohibition before it forces US into that state.
