Latest drug addict loons.

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Latest drug addict loons.

Post by Diogenes »

williatw wrote:
GIThruster wrote:That's simply not true. The drugs that are illegal all across the world today, are illegal specifically because we observe this fantastically destructive result on all society. For you to pretend we have arrived at the solution we have, with so many drugs illegal, is just ridiculous on its face.

Other than China conquered by the British who forced Opium upon them, name one country in history destroyed by intoxicants; for it to be a "normal progression" there should by definition be many examples you can site.


I am going to address only a single point in your comment. Your attempt to use the word "Intoxicants" instead of narcotic will-sapping drugs.


Once more, the Libertarian talking point of attempting to equate alcohol to narcotics.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Latest drug addict loons.

Post by williatw »

Diogenes wrote:
williatw wrote: And I am sorry it was legal in the United State, Britain and presumably the rest of Europe at the time; neither experienced your "normal progression". Your stated caveats about lack of knowledge of opiates (suppose they didn't "know about" opiates in Europe either) prior to the Civil War; Conquered China is your singular example of your normal progression; Opium was legal in America, Britain, (I would assume the rest of Europe); and no "normal progression"; you can't make that go away with hand waving about lack of knowledge or different values than today, etc.
Oh My God. Here is this *LIE* being presented to me again. I am fed up with hearing this lie, and I'm not going to answer it again. Stop repeating this f*cking lie.
Yeah...lie, lie, lie got it; it was in fact illegal everywhere for ever and ever; the British didn't conquer China; lie, lie, lie; and even if they did that's beside the point what does conquering someone have to do with anything? It wasn't legal in America and Britain and even if it was it doesn't count; got it; lie, lie lie.

You know Hanleyp doesn't agree with me but at least he has rational points that can be responded to.


Unlike say:
GIThruster wrote: You are reprobate, and unable to see the hand in front of your face because of your commitment to frick up your brain on drugs. There is no reasonable discourse to be had with such people. You are not rational, and you are quite incapable of rational discourse. Making demands upon your debate opponent to do what he has done time and again for years, is simply not making a real argument. Obviously, you do not have one to make.
The poster boy for the effects of past (allegedly past) drug abuse; if anyone has psychotic episodes it would be him; if he has managed to stay out of jail it must be by virtue of being white an able to afford really good lawyers. My guess is he is frequently off his anti-psychotic meds.


Of course what do you expect from a mind that could produce:
GIThruster wrote:If you are not doing wrong, you have no reason to fear the police. End of story. No exceptions.
What species of authoritarian nutbag could possibly believe something like that?

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Latest drug addict loons.

Post by Diogenes »

If you aren't going to tell the truth, I don't see the point in attempting a discussion with you.


Doubling down is the wrong direction.


In the United States, prior to 1865, drugs were just as legal as nuclear weapons, and for the same reason. They were few and far between, and weren't in common usage.


To deceptively claim that we had no laws against drugs is an effort to mislead people, and you ought to be better than that.


That particular lie is insidious because it is close enough to the truth that simple minded people can't tell the difference. That's why Libertarians constantly repeat it.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Latest drug addict loons.

Post by williatw »

Diogenes wrote:If you aren't going to tell the truth, I don't see the point in attempting a discussion with you.
I am the one being dishonest? Seriously Diogenes?

The British government circa 1780 or so the most powerful government in human history at the time controlling the largest empire in history something like 10% of the human population and 1/4 of the land area on the planet being under their rule. They have a problem a huge trade imbalance with China as a result of the British public falling in love with expensive Chinese silk. They hit upon a solution; they will conquer China and legalize Opium; there, they were done the rest will take care of itself, right that's all they did. They didn't use the afore mentioned power to massively grow, transport, and distribute said Opium on the Chinese population anyway they could; oh no that wouldn't be ethical; of course the Opium did that all by itself; the power of addiction all by itself. There were of course Opium dens in Europe and America at the same time China consumption took off, but that's beside the point. As though if the British had conquered California instead they couldn't do the same thing with the same result. Conquer Calif. legalize Opium (oh wait it already was); load up ships with Opium ship to America, doesn't matter if that would initially be expensive there're a rich gov they can run in the negative if need be for a while. Explode the no. of Opium dens in San Francisco any way they can with no check whatsoever. Sell said Opium at cost (or even below) to massively breed more addicts; whatever hit the British government initially takes, no problem, it will be more than made up down the line. An ordinary private group(s) couldn't do that; they just don't wield a stick that big to push it on the population to that degree; jack up no. of addicts then raise prices; before you know it your taking peoples' money, gold, land you name it. That's not normal free-market capitalism at work. Only a powerful government could make that happen. You had a product Opium available (if you were willing/able to pay for it) in Britain, Europe and the United States (or british colonies) for centuries; consumption was flat; (because) there was no huge extraneous force (the British government) pushing for an increase in consumption. The masses of the people simply stuck with the intoxicants they knew; alcohol.
Last edited by williatw on Mon May 25, 2015 5:54 am, edited 4 times in total.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Latest drug addict loons.

Post by Diogenes »

williatw wrote:
they will conquer China and legalize Opium; there, they were done the rest will take care of itself, right that's all they did. They didn't use the afore mentioned power to massively grow, transport, and distribute said Opium on the Chinese population anyway they could; oh know that wouldn't be ethical; of course the Opium did that all by itself; the power of addiction all by itself. [/b][/color]

The addicting properties of the drug was the one essential ingredient of the plan. Without it, their ability to grow, transport and distribute means nothing.


You seem to insist on believing the ability to grow/manufacture, transport and distribute is some sort of implacable problem. No, the lynch pin of the entire operation is addictiveness coupled with legality. Without it, the rest comes to naught. With it, you create the slow burn of a nation.




williatw wrote: There were of course Opium dens in Europe and America at the same time China consumption took off, but that's beside the point.

Inconsequential in influence for the larger population. That would change if given sufficient time.



williatw wrote: Only a powerful government could make that happen.


Nonsense. The Cartels are powerful enough. Without interdiction, it would be happening now. The Cartels would soon *BE* the governments of their respective countries.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Latest drug addict loons.

Post by williatw »

Diogenes wrote:
williatw wrote: Only a powerful government could make that happen.
Nonsense. The Cartels are powerful enough. Without interdiction, it would be happening now. The Cartels would soon *BE* the governments of their respective countries.
Are they? The WOD created the cartels. Of course you should know that many in the minority community think the federal government is behind the drug trade; how they ask can the richest most powerful government on earth be apparently powerless to stop the flow of drugs into the inner city (or for that matter even into prisons)?; but I digress. Consider the example you yourself a few days ago posted about opiate use in the United States. You said it was practically non-existent before the Civil War; that when thousands and thousands of soldiers were wounded during said war they were given opiates for pain; supplied by of course the US government. The US government then must have spent millions purchasing/importing vast quantities of the opiates from the Far East and gave them in mass to the wounded soldiers. In other words they heavily "primed the pump" inadvertently breeding uncounted 10's of thousands of addicts in a way well over a 100+ years of "opiates" legally available to the general public had failed to do. In other words just as was the case of the Opium Wars in China it was a government that could afford to spend millions buying and distributing drugs that produced the addicts; not the true free market or even the drugs themselves. Absenting that government "primer" the "slow burn" would have likely continued to slow burn at a low level minus government intervention.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Latest drug addict loons.

Post by GIThruster »

williatw wrote:The WOD created the cartels.
Do you just pull this stuff out of your asshole and think it doesn't smell like shyt?

I don't think you get that no one believes you. I'm shocked even you could possible believe you. You prove you have no credibility when you make statements like this. The Sinaloan clans were dealing drugs and murdering people more than 40 years ago, way before the WoD. This all started when soldiers brought ganja back from Vietnam, 50+ years ago. In the very first moments people learned to get stoned, the drug lords where there turning people's weakness into profit. This is a natural combination--drugs that appeal to the worst in a person and a drug lord who is ready to harness the addiction for his own financial gain. The two go hand in hand and no one who doesn't do drugs buys your fairy tail that prohibition causes this dynamic. EVIL causes this dynamic.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Latest drug addict loons.

Post by Diogenes »

williatw wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
williatw wrote: Only a powerful government could make that happen.
Nonsense. The Cartels are powerful enough. Without interdiction, it would be happening now. The Cartels would soon *BE* the governments of their respective countries.
Are they? The WOD created the cartels.

That is naive. Profit creates the cartels. No "War on Drugs" created the British East India company. Profits and Markets did that.


You might be surprised to learn that cartels existed long before the "War on Drugs" with all sorts of other products and services.

williatw wrote: Of course you should know that many in the minority community think the federal government is behind the drug trade; how they ask can the richest most powerful government on earth be apparently powerless to stop the flow of drugs into the inner city (or for that matter even into prisons)?;


The government isn't being stopped by a lack of reach or force, it is being stopped because the necessary methods to eradicate drugs are currently illegal. We Americans favor these restraints on our government. We'd rather put up with the small percentage of the population that can sneak drugs around under the current system than authorize the necessary powers which the government would need to stop it completely.


Our current status quo is a balance between what we will tolerate and what will work. Using the current methodology, there will inevitably be holes through which determined people will sneak product.



williatw wrote: Consider the example you yourself a few days ago posted about opiate use in the United States. You said it was practically non-existent before the Civil War; that when thousands and thousands of soldiers were wounded during said war they were given opiates for pain; supplied by of course the US government. The US government then must have spent millions purchasing/importing vast quantities of the opiates from the Far East and gave them in mass to the wounded soldiers. In other words they heavily "primed the pump" inadvertently breeding uncounted 10's of thousands of addicts in a way well over a 100+ years of "opiates" legally available to the general public had failed to do. In other words just as was the case of the Opium Wars in China it was a government that could afford to spend millions buying and distributing drugs that produced the addicts; not the true free market or even the drugs themselves. Absenting that government "primer" the "slow burn" would have likely continued to slow burn at a low level minus government intervention.


It was Both the Union *AND* the CSA that were using opiates, and they were also using cocainoids, (If I remember correctly) which might have been easier to obtain. But you are right. Absent that pump priming by governmental importation, addiction would have burned at a much slower rate. Perhaps it would have been extinguished even.


But this is irrelevant to the fact that it happened, and that now the markets are served by for profit entities.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Latest drug addict loons.

Post by williatw »

Diogenes wrote:
williatw wrote:Are they? The WOD created the cartels.
That is naive. Profit creates the cartels. No "War on Drugs" created the British East India company. Profits and Markets did that.


I misspoke Diogenes. I said "created the cartels" factually not correct. There were doubtlessly some sort of network of people selling Opium in China 1000 years before the British conquered China. Similarly the WOD in the US created a huge market for an illegal supplier of drugs greatly expanding the power of the illegal cartels the same as Alcohol Prohibition in the US blew up, massively expanded (but did not create) organized crime in America.
What I should have said that the government intervention "priming the pump" blew up the relatively weak market for Opium greatly expanding them into huge vast cartels. Both by legalizing it after conquering China and no doubt pumping lots of money into to cause it to grow so rapidly. Think about it I seem to recall you posting that at one point half the adult pop. of China were opium addicts. Poor rural peasants somehow managed to get their hands on relatively expensive Opium; yes I know production and particularly transportation costs would have been lower than shipping to much wealthier Europe/America was but still. Obviously someone (the British Government) fed the cartels money initially allowing them to quickly blow up the supply and distribution of Opium (probably selling at cost or even below cost) to breed lots of addiction very quickly. It would be "naive" to think otherwise given the facts.

Diogenes wrote:It was Both the Union *AND* the CSA that were using opiates, and they were also using cocainoids, (If I remember correctly) which might have been easier to obtain. But you are right. Absent that pump priming by governmental importation, addiction would have burned at a much slower rate. Perhaps it would have been extinguished even.

But this is irrelevant to the fact that it happened, and that now the markets are served by for profit entities.
I suppose you may have some point with that, but I find it difficult to trust a gov. that clearly greatly expanded the problem in the first place and whose actions to address that, the WOD, has at best produced decidedly mixed results as being the entity to fix it. After all in your favorite example China the various treaties signed in the late 19th or early 20th century didn't end the opium addiction problem the takeover by a brutal ruthless dictator (Mao) did. He solved the problem all right by killing by the 100's of thousands; an then went on to kill 100 million or so more (albeit for different reasons). I would go with legalize it and strictly regulate it putting the illegal criminal cartels out of business as much as possible.
Last edited by williatw on Sun May 24, 2015 1:54 am, edited 4 times in total.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Latest drug addict loons.

Post by Diogenes »

williatw wrote: What I should have said that the government intervention "priming the pump" blew up the relatively weak market for Opium greatly expanding them into huge vast cartels. Both by legalizing it after conquering China and no doubt pumping lots of money into to cause it to grow so rapidly. Think about it I seem to recall you posting that at one point half the adult pop. of China were opium addicts. Poor rural peasants somehow managed to get their hands on relatively expensive Opium; yes I know production and particularly transportation costs would have been lower than shipping to much wealthier Europe/America was but still. Obviously someone (the British Government) fed the cartels money initially allowing them to quickly blow up the supply and distribution of Opium (probably selling at cost or even below cost) to breed lots of addiction very quickly. It would be "naive" to think otherwise given the facts.

Whatever point you are trying to make escapes me. I consider it axiomatic that those who profit from drugs will do whatever they see as increasing profits. They will "Push" drugs.

Do you not already see how many legal manufacturers of pharmaceuticals constantly push their drugs? It is the nature of drugs to be "pushed". You can't separate pushing and drugs. There will always be pushers if there are drugs to be pushed.



williatw wrote:
I suppose you may have some point with that, but I find it difficult to trust a gov. that clearly greatly expanded the problem in the first place and whose actions to address that, the WOD, has at best produced decidedly mixed results as being the entity to fix it.

This is an argument with which I am highly empathetic. The government seldom does anything well and therefore needs to be constrained from "doing things" as much as possible. However, it is the entity responsible for handling this problem, and so we just have to put up with it's tendency to botch things and work to improve it's efficiency to the extent that it is possible. (But we don't want it to be too efficient. :)


williatw wrote: After all in your favorite example China the various treaties signed in the late 19th or early 20th century didn't end the opium addiction problem the takeover by a brutal ruthless dictator (Mao) did. He solved the problem all right by killing by the 100's of thousands; an then went on to kill 100 million or so more (albeit for different reasons). I would go with legalize it and strictly regulate it putting the illegal criminal cartels out of business as much as possible.


Regulation is just a milder form of prohibition. It still creates a supply/demand differential, and that still creates a black market. H*ll, there is a black market for Viagra, Lortabs, Cigarettes, etc.


Are we to use the same standard that people apply to the "War on Drugs" and conclude that because a black market exits, regulation is a failure?



Also with the Dictator thing. My theory is that if you collapse a society, you will always get a Dictator. By the 1930s, China was so weak it couldn't even repel an invasion from Japan.


I regard it as axiomatic that Anarchy gives way to the strong man form of government, and that this will always happen. (This is a very old theory.) It is the nature of Humans to demand order in the midst of Chaos, and the man who can bludgeon his way to the top becomes the defacto Leader of any society seeking to exit Chaos.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Latest drug addict loons.

Post by williatw »

Diogenes wrote:Whatever point you are trying to make escapes me. I consider it axiomatic that those who profit from drugs will do whatever they see as increasing profits. They will "Push" drugs.

Do you not already see how many legal manufacturers of pharmaceuticals constantly push their drugs? It is the nature of drugs to be "pushed". You can't separate pushing and drugs. There will always be pushers if there are drugs to be pushed.
My point is that there is no "pusher" like a government pusher. A gov pusher (or gov backed pusher) can do whatever it wants, write/enforce the rules/regs (if any) as it sees fit and ultimately do what it wants without check to a far greater degree than a private "pusher" can hope to dream of. The examples of that being China's Opium Armageddon courtesy of the East India Tea Company (British government), Opium "pump priming" during the Civil War (US/Confederate governments). And of course indirectly pushing things to the black market unregulated Prohibition & current WOD (US gov).

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Latest drug addict loons.

Post by williatw »

Diogenes wrote:Regulation is just a milder form of prohibition. It still creates a supply/demand differential, and that still creates a black market. H*ll, there is a black market for Viagra, Lortabs, Cigarettes, etc.
Are we to use the same standard that people apply to the "War on Drugs" and conclude that because a black market exits, regulation is a failure?

Agreed I will opt for that "milder form" It is demonstrably more effective (and compatible with Constitutional limits); current alcohol/tobacco regulation vs alcohol prohibition for instance. The goal isn't to eliminate the black market but to minimize it; at the very least our actions shouldn't blow it up.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Latest drug addict loons.

Post by Diogenes »

williatw wrote:
My point is that there is no "pusher" like a government pusher. A gov pusher (or gov backed pusher) can do whatever it wants, write/enforce the rules/regs (if any) as it sees fit and ultimately do what it wants without check to a far greater degree than a private "pusher" can hope to dream of. The examples of that being China's Opium Armageddon courtesy of the East India Tea Company (British government), Opium "pump priming" during the Civil War (US/Confederate governments). And of course indirectly pushing things to the black market unregulated Prohibition & current WOD (US gov).


Okay, so maybe "government pushers" are best, but non-government pushers are "good enough" to achieve the same result, albeit it might take slightly slower.


Acceleration eventually achieves a particular velocity, whether it be 1g or 1/2 g, the same velocity will eventually be obtained.
‘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
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Latest drug addict loons.

Post by Diogenes »

williatw wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Regulation is just a milder form of prohibition. It still creates a supply/demand differential, and that still creates a black market. H*ll, there is a black market for Viagra, Lortabs, Cigarettes, etc.
Are we to use the same standard that people apply to the "War on Drugs" and conclude that because a black market exits, regulation is a failure?

Agreed I will opt for that "milder form" It is demonstrably more effective (and compatible with Constitutional limits); current alcohol/tobacco regulation vs alcohol prohibition for instance. The goal isn't to eliminate the black market but to minimize it; at the very least our actions shouldn't blow it up.


The "War on Drugs" successfully minimizes it. People incorrectly try to measure it by the tiny bit that get's through, rather than the vast amount that doesn't, but would if interdiction were not in place.


Again, they use an irrational and unrealistic standard to measure the success or failure of the "War on Drugs." Without more draconian methods of dealing with suppliers and distributors, this is about as minimum as can be accomplished given the constraints applied.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Latest drug addict loons.

Post by williatw »

US marijuana legalisation has not led to rise in use by adolescents, study finds


Image
Hand holding marijuana buds.

Legalising the medical use of cannabis has not led to a surge in the numbers of adolescents using it in the USA, according to new research that surprised its authors and will encourage those hoping for relaxation of the law elsewhere.

Since 1996, 23 US states and the District of Columbia (DC) have approved the medicinal use of cannabis. In the states of Colorado, Washington, Alaska and Oregon and DC, recreational use is also legal. These moves towards permissiveness, even where possession of the drug is restricted to medical use, have caused many critics to worry that cannabis use would rise, especially among teenagers.

That assumption was the starting point for the research carried out by Dr Deborah Hasin, professor of epidemiology at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, and her colleagues. However, the findings from 24 years of data from more than one million adolescents in the 48 contiguous states did not substantiate those fears. Their paper in the journal Lancet Psychiatry says that the use of cannabis by adolescents was already higher in the states that have opted for medical legalisation. But the change in the law did not lead to a jump in numbers.

Analysing data from a national study called Monitoring the Future, which collects information from 50,000 pupils aged 13 to 18 in the 8th, 10th and 12th grade (years 9, 11 and 13 in Britain) every year, they found there had not been a rise even after taking into account individual, school and state-level factors that can affect marijuana use (such as age, ethnicity, public or private school and proportion of each state’s population that was male or white).

“Our findings provide the strongest evidence to date that marijuana use by teenagers does not increase after a state legalises medical marijuana,” said Dr Hasin. “Rather, up to now, in the states that passed medical marijuana laws, adolescent marijuana use was already higher than in other states.”

That still gave cause for concern, she suggested: “Because early adolescent use of marijuana can lead to many long-term harmful outcomes, identifying the factors that actually play a role in adolescent use should be a high research priority.”

Among the youngest students surveyed, the 8th graders, marijuana use actually dropped. The authors speculate that the older students’ views on the drug may already have been fixed before medical legalisation, but that those who were younger were less likely to view it as recreational once medicinal use was authorised. Another possibility is that parents were taking a more vigilant and robust stance against it, the authors said, adding that this warranted further investigation.

In a commentary in the journal, Dr Kevin Hill, from the division of alcohol and drug abuse at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Massachusetts, writes: “Perhaps the main concern of many people opposed to medical marijuana laws is that they will lead to increased general marijuana use, including among adolescents.”

Cannabis use has increased in the US among teenagers in recent years, unlike nicotine, alcohol or opioids, and the perception of its dangers has dropped, he points out. “Hasin and colleagues postulated, as many would, that the passage of medical marijuana laws would increase adolescent marijuana use by contributing to the declining perception of the potential harms of marijuana. Their well-designed, methodologically sound study showed that this was not the case,” he says.

The study shows how important it is to test out hypotheses with rigorous research before making health policy, he says. “The growing body of research that includes this study suggests that medical marijuana laws do not increase adolescent use, and future decisions that states make about whether or not to enact medical marijuana laws should be at least partly guided by this evidence.”

David Nutt, professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London, said the result of the study was as he would have predicted. “The illegal market for cannabis is probably saturated, so making it a medicine will just allow law-abiding citizens with chronic medical problems to obtain the relief ‎they have been denied for the past 40 years of prohibition,” he said.

British experts campaigning to reschedule cannabis in the UK to allow medicinal and research use welcomed the study. “Patients are suffering unnecessarily and others in great pain are travelling abroad to find the cannabis they need to ease their symptoms,” said Prof Val Curran of University College London, the UK’s leading expert on medicinal cannabis and joint author of a new report for the all-party parliamentary group for drug policy reform. “All this could change by moving cannabis from schedule 1 to schedule 2, thus recognising the medicinal value of the drug.”









http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-mar ... id=U218DHP

Post Reply