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:
Every day for three years of probably >13% THC pot is pretty heavy use; (imagine getting blotto on Jack Daniels every day for three years sure it would have similar deleterious effects on young brains/bodies) hardly typical for most users, and not really an argument for continuing your beloved WOD.


The War on Drugs is no more "beloved" by me than is the War on Rape, the War on Robbery, and the War on Murder. They are all unfortunate expenditures of time and resources but they are necessary because some people won't control their behavior.


Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, — in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, — in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.
-Edmund Burke-
‘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:The War on Drugs is no more "beloved" by me than is the War on Rape, the War on Robbery, and the War on Murder. They are all unfortunate expenditures of time and resources but they are necessary because some people won't control their behavior.
Men have a way of convincing themselves that the things they desire (like control of others) are "right" and "necessary" and "unavoidable".

Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, — in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, — in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.
-Edmund Burke-
The trouble is that the "controlling power" isn't ever just applied to the allegedly intemperate; those who rules us wish to control ultimately all of us in our endeavors not just those whose excess "appetites" need controlling; they the "external power" are unfortunately made of of just as corruptible men as those they wish to control. Their drug of addiction is power; said power make them (our rulers & their minions) far greater threat to decent society than the drug addicts are. The constant growing of the laws/regulations/etc that we have to live under with the goal of making all of us unwitting lawbreakers needing ever increasing governing which they are only to happy to supply; while exempting themselves from the rules they apply to us "little people". Their "solutions" like the WOD which aren't really intended to solve the problem of drugs, never were; they simply use the problem of drug addiction as an excuse to exercise more and more power over all of us whether we use drugs or not.

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

Re: Latest drug addict loons.

Post by Diogenes »

williatw wrote:
Diogenes wrote:The War on Drugs is no more "beloved" by me than is the War on Rape, the War on Robbery, and the War on Murder. They are all unfortunate expenditures of time and resources but they are necessary because some people won't control their behavior.
Men have a way of convincing themselves that the things they desire (like control of others) are "right" and "necessary" and "unavoidable".

I believe this is normally referred to as "Facts", "Reason", and "Experience."


williatw wrote:
Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, — in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, — in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.
-Edmund Burke-
The trouble is that the "controlling power" isn't ever just applied to the allegedly intemperate; those who rules us wish to control ultimately all of us in our endeavors not just those whose excess "appetites" need controlling; they the "external power" are unfortunately made of of just as corruptible men as those they wish to control. Their drug of addiction is power; said power make them (our rulers & their minions) far greater threat to decent society than the drug addicts are.


Let us give up on the fantasy that men won't be governed by other men. No such condition exists for any length of time.

Once you accept the premise that there WILL BE a government, then you can move on to ponder how it must operate.

A fundamental postulate is this. Any government unwilling to insure it's existence, will not exist for long, but will instead be replaced by one that will insure it's own existence.


Drugs are a fundamental threat to the continued existence of a government. Either the government must act to prevent them from destabilizing it, or the Drugs will usher in an era of chaos followed by dictatorship.


williatw wrote: The constant growing of the laws/regulations/etc that we have to live under with the goal of making all of us unwitting lawbreakers needing ever increasing governing which they are only to happy to supply; while exempting themselves from the rules they apply to us "little people". Their "solutions" like the WOD which aren't really intended to solve the problem of drugs, never were;

This is true. The War on Drugs as it is currently constituted is not meant to solve the problem, it is meant to manage it. If it were meant to solve the problem, it would operate more like Singapore and there would be a real and extensive body count. (for awhile.)


What the War on Drugs does is keep the percentage of addiction from growing very much. It's been a hundred years, and addiction is still hovering around 2%. The reason it isn't intended to solve the problem of drug addiction is because Americans are too squeamish about the methods necessary to actually solve the problem.

The current War on Drugs is a compromise between the societal pain of tolerating some level of addiction and the aversion to the methods for wiping it out.


williatw wrote: they simply use the problem of drug addiction as an excuse to exercise more and more power over all of us whether we use drugs or not.

Sure. But the fault for the government exerting more control lies with those people who insist on using drugs. Yes, government gravitates towards more power, that is the nature of a government ran by humans, but they can only move in that direction when people give them reasons to move in that direction.


The War on Terror greatly expanded the Government's role and scope in our daily lives. Without the Terror, they wouldn't have been able to justify it.


Drug dealers/addicts are driving the government's power grab.
‘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:Men have a way of convincing themselves that the things they desire (like control of others) are "right" and "necessary" and "unavoidable".

I believe this is normally referred to as "Facts", "Reason", and "Experience."


More like "rationalizations"; Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal.


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein

williatw wrote:
Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, — in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, — in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.
-Edmund Burke-
The trouble is that the "controlling power" isn't ever just applied to the allegedly intemperate; those who rules us wish to control ultimately all of us in our endeavors not just those whose excess "appetites" need controlling; they the "external power" are unfortunately made of of just as corruptible men as those they wish to control. Their drug of addiction is power; said power make them (our rulers & their minions) far greater threat to decent society than the drug addicts are.

Diogenes wrote:Let us give up on the fantasy that men won't be governed by other men. No such condition exists for any length of time.

Once you accept the premise that there WILL BE a government, then you can move on to ponder how it must operate A fundamental postulate is this. Any government unwilling to insure it's existence, will not exist for long, but will instead be replaced by one that will insure it's own existence.
Agreed. But I also agree with the statement(s) that:
Henry David Thoreau (1817–62)
QUOTATION: I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;”
http://www.bartleby.com/73/753.html

and:

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.


http://napoleonlive.info/did-you-know/w ... l-address/

some dispute whether Washington said this.
Diogenes wrote: Drugs are a fundamental threat to the continued existence of a government. Either the government must act to prevent them from destabilizing it, or the Drugs will usher in an era of chaos followed by dictatorship.


Pot use which was/is the focal point of the WOD is decidedly not a "fundamental threat to the continued existence of a government"; the WOD probably caused the huge spike in the THC content of pot surely didn't prevent it. Your favorite example China's massive Opium addiction wasn't caused by lack of government action, it was created by government action. The British government conquering China and forcing Opium down people's throats any way they could. There was nothing "natural" about the progression it was a deliberately engineered by the British government to produce the effect it did to offset their balance of trade from exporting vast quantities of Chinese Silk. Opium (along with pot) were legal in Britain & the United States at the time and hadn't produced anywhere like the level of deleterious effects.


Diogenes wrote:What the War on Drugs does is keep the percentage of addiction from growing very much. It's been a hundred years, and addiction is still hovering around 2%.


Just as it likely was "around 2%" the 100yrs prior to the WOD and the 100yrs before that. No evidence the WOD is holding the line on anything just wishful thinking or "rationalizing".

Diogenes wrote: But the fault for the government exerting more control lies with those people who insist on using drugs. Yes, government gravitates towards more power, that is the nature of a government ran by humans, but they can only move in that direction when people give them reasons to move in that direction.


No the fault lies with the people who saw the problem of drug addiction not as a medical condition requiring medical treatment but as an excuse for a power grab and with the gullible public who went along with it; as long as the right sort (urban male minority youth) were the ones being targeted.
Diogenes wrote:The War on Terror greatly expanded the Government's role and scope in our daily lives. Without the Terror, they wouldn't have been able to justify it. Drug dealers/addicts are driving the government's power grab.

Again the fault lies with those who saw the Terrorist attack of 9/11 as an excuse to torpedo the Constitution and the frightened gullible gutless pu&%ys among the general public who sold their liberty down the river to feel "safe"; unworthy inheritors of our hard fought liberties. Do you think if during WWII if Boston (or any American city) had been hit with the exact sequence of "terrorist" attacks that the Boston Bomber did they would have practically shut down the whole city and told people to hide in their homes? Factories vital to war efforts shut down or even slowed down? Imagine what Hitler would have done if he had known that just a few bombs going off in a city or two or a plane crashing into a building or two would have paralyzed the American public with fright.

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

Re: Latest drug addict loons.

Post by GIThruster »

williatw wrote:. . .the WOD probably caused the huge spike in the THC content of pot surely didn't prevent it.
You must have finally realized your arguments have no weight, to be repeating these trite banalities over and over in complete disregard that they don't come to the issue, even were they true, which obviously they are not. Westerners have been refining every product they run across for 6 millennia. The wonder is really why it took so long for the THC content in pot to be increased the way it has, and the incarceration of dealers has little or nothing to do with what you keep trotting out as salient. It is obviously not salient and given you keep repeating irrelevant points, seems obvious your rational arguments are all done.
"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:Men have a way of convincing themselves that the things they desire (like control of others) are "right" and "necessary" and "unavoidable".

I believe this is normally referred to as "Facts", "Reason", and "Experience."


More like "rationalizations"; Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal.


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein




It isn't "rationalization" when we have real world experiments that confirm the phenomena. Drugs brought down the 4,000 year old Emperor form of government in China, a mere 70 years after Opium was legalized.


williatw wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Let us give up on the fantasy that men won't be governed by other men. No such condition exists for any length of time.

Once you accept the premise that there WILL BE a government, then you can move on to ponder how it must operate A fundamental postulate is this. Any government unwilling to insure it's existence, will not exist for long, but will instead be replaced by one that will insure it's own existence.
Agreed. But I also agree with the statement(s) that:
Henry David Thoreau (1817–62)
QUOTATION: I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;”
http://www.bartleby.com/73/753.html

and:

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.


http://napoleonlive.info/did-you-know/w ... l-address/

some dispute whether Washington said this.


Neither statement is in conflict with the need to ban drugs. Did they not exist, we would not need laws to control them, but as they do, we have to deal with them, just as we have to deal with rape, robbery and murder.


Therefore a Minimal system of governance requires the need to ban drugs.





williatw wrote: Pot use which was/is the focal point of the WOD is decidedly not a "fundamental threat to the continued existence of a government";

The philosophical foundation upon which the legalization of pot rests, legalizes all other drugs. As I have said so many times that I am tired of saying it, "Pot, is the camel's nose in the tent."




williatw wrote: the WOD probably caused the huge spike in the THC content of pot surely didn't prevent it. Your favorite example China's massive Opium addiction wasn't caused by lack of government action, it was created by government action. The British government conquering China and forcing Opium down people's throats any way they could.

You do realize, that I regard that statement as utter nonsense. Drugs don't need British soldiers grabbing people and forcing them to smoke opium, they will market themselves with no further input of energy. Do not forget, I have substantial experience hanging out with drug addicts. I have WATCHED people who never smoked crack turn into addicts. Nobody came along and shoved the crack pipe in their mouths, they just saw that other people enjoyed it, and then they wanted to try it themselves.


williatw wrote: There was nothing "natural" about the progression it was a deliberately engineered by the British government to produce the effect it did to offset their balance of trade from exporting vast quantities of Chinese Silk. Opium (along with pot) were legal in Britain & the United States at the time and hadn't produced anywhere like the level of deleterious effects.

I have also addressed this point until I am fed up with repeating myself. You and others keep comparing very different circumstances and asserting an equality which is false.


The United States had no drug laws prior to 1906 because they didn't need them. They didn't need them because they weren't having problems with abuse of drugs. They weren't having problems with the abuse of drugs because prior to the 1860s, there was very little supply, and very little knowledge among the public regarding the pleasurable effects of narcotics. Cocainoids were virtually unknown at this time, and what narcotics were available were mostly regarded as "Medicine."


Apart from that, there were widespread and common religion based disdains for the use of mind altering substances among the general populace.


The Civil War changed everything. Not only did it massively spike the demand for Opiates and Cocainoids, it acquainted hundreds of thousands of people with the pleasurable effects of narcotic drugs. Various sources assert that there were 400,000 wounded soldiers who became victims of the "Soldier's Disease."

Image


Add to this efforts like John Pemberton's beverages (~1865) which contained about nine milligrams of cocaine per glass, and you can see how addiction was just starting to take off when people started noticing the problems caused by these drugs.

Image



williatw wrote:
Diogenes wrote:What the War on Drugs does is keep the percentage of addiction from growing very much. It's been a hundred years, and addiction is still hovering around 2%.


Just as it likely was "around 2%" the 100yrs prior to the WOD and the 100yrs before that. No evidence the WOD is holding the line on anything just wishful thinking or "rationalizing".


It was very likely less than 0.00001 % prior to the Civil War. It *ROSE* to 2% due to the Civil war's priming of the drug supply/demand pump.






williatw wrote: No the fault lies with the people who saw the problem of drug addiction not as a medical condition requiring medical treatment but as an excuse for a power grab and with the gullible public who went along with it; as long as the right sort (urban male minority youth) were the ones being targeted.


Is Terrorism also a medical condition? I argue it makes no difference to Human government what is the pathology of a threat, the fact is, a Human government must deal with a threat regardless of it's source or cause.


Your argument completely overlooks the fact that similarity to the human endocrine components used in natural bodily functions is why drugs operate on the human body. They are not normal to human existence, they are mockeries or distortions of needed and normal human hormones. They were evolved to resemble mammalian endocrinal secretions for the purpose of mitigating predation on the plant which evolved them as a defense mechanism.


You can't argue it's a "Medical condition" when those particular plant-version of the chemicals were never meant to be in the Human body at all, and especially not in the levels attained by using a drug.


Also if crime stats indicated inner city minority males were committing 3% of the overall crime, (which is about their percentage of the population) you would have a point. But from what I can see, their tendency to commit crime in all forms hovers around 40% of the total crime, which pretty much destroys any argument that they are singled out for persecution regarding drug crimes.





williatw wrote:

Again the fault lies with those who saw the Terrorist attack of 9/11 as an excuse to torpedo the Constitution and the frightened gullible gutless pu&%ys among the general public who sold their liberty down the river to feel "safe"; unworthy inheritors of our hard fought liberties. Do you think if during WWII if Boston (or any American city) had been hit with the exact sequence of "terrorist" attacks that the Boston Bomber did they would have practically shut down the whole city and told people to hide in their homes? Factories vital to war efforts shut down or even slowed down? Imagine what Hitler would have done if he had known that just a few bombs going off in a city or two or a plane crashing into a building or two would have paralyzed the American public with fright.


Because this message is already too long, i'm not going to address this other than to say it is a false equivalence argument.
‘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 »

GIThruster wrote:
williatw wrote:. . .the WOD probably caused the huge spike in the THC content of pot surely didn't prevent it.
You must have finally realized your arguments have no weight, to be repeating these trite banalities over and over in complete disregard that they don't come to the issue, even were they true, which obviously they are not. Westerners have been refining every product they run across for 6 millennia. The wonder is really why it took so long for the THC content in pot to be increased the way it has, and the incarceration of dealers has little or nothing to do with what you keep trotting out as salient. It is obviously not salient and given you keep repeating irrelevant points, seems obvious your rational arguments are all done.

Why Are Illegal Drugs Stronger Than They Used to Be?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... 0e1dwHei-Q

Is it possible the war on drugs is to blame for increased potency in marijuana and for how crack ravaged inner cities in the 1980s? Prof. Adam Martin explains how the drug war has altered incentives for both drug buyers and sellers, leading them to favor higher potency drugs. This is what economists call the potency effect. As penalties for purchasing marijuana go up, for example, the cost difference between high- and low-potency marijuana decreases and people may think that if they’re risking a fine or jail time anyway they may as well buy the stronger drugs. Similarly, cartels and dealers have shifted their focus to high-value, high-potency drugs like cocaine as a result of the steeper fines and penalties for drug trafficking. The potency effect is just one of many economic forces that make markets so complex. Public policies that alter the incentives people face—as the war on drugs does—can lead to unintended and even dangerous consequences.

http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/why- ... y-used-be/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0e1dwH ... e=youtu.be

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5188&hilit=THC&start=30

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

Re: Latest drug addict loons.

Post by GIThruster »

. . .people may think that if they’re risking a fine or jail time anyway they may as well buy the stronger drugs
Only drug users try to get people to believe nonsense like this. Obviously people do not think this way, and you have to be a drug user, to believe arguments that are so strained and idiotic.

If you want to PRETEND to blame various social effects on Cannabis, do it right! Lets talk about the rise of psychosis, or autism, or the increase in failing grades in STEM. Lets talk about the lack of ambition and all the engineering positions we don't have people for. Lets not waste time with these silly, failed bullshit arguments about how it is WoD's fault that Cannabis is stronger, when you know you WANT the Cannabis to be stronger!

Guess what? House cats are stronger too. Spinach is stronger. Perfume is stronger. Water is purer. The coffee is stronger. Lipstick is redder, and Stroganoff has never been so beefy tasting. So what? What does that have to do with all the suffering caused by your drugs?
"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:
Why Are Illegal Drugs Stronger Than They Used to Be?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... 0e1dwHei-Q



It seems reasonable to assume that this is part of the reason, but most phenomena are the vector sum of multiple factors.


Even if economic forces weren't driving the need to increase potency, human desire to have more potent drugs would still operate.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

hanelyp
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: Latest drug addict loons.

Post by hanelyp »

Apart from that, there were widespread and common religion based disdains for the use of mind altering substances among the general populace.
A widespread social disdain for vice can in large measure substitute for police enforcement. Because cultural opposition is in decline more intrusive police measures are needed to suppress drug use to a given level. Curious that those so disdainful of police enforcement against vice are also so critical of social disdain, unless they are somehow blind to the societal harm perpetrated by the vice.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

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:
Why Are Illegal Drugs Stronger Than They Used to Be?


It seems reasonable to assume that this is part of the reason, but most phenomena are the vector sum of multiple factors.


Even if economic forces weren't driving the need to increase potency, human desire to have more potent drugs would still operate.
Than beer should have been displaced by whiskey long ago (as it was largely during alcohol prohibition for reasons discussed in the link). Or for that matter tobacco; sure we would both agree that nicotine is ferociously addictive. Has the nicotine content for tobacco spiked upward 20X plus fold during the last 40yrs?. Don't actually know but I strongly doubt it. Could the reason be that a legal consumer won't choose/be compelled toward higher concentration if they actually know what they are buying? That physiology/psychology of addiction works just fine if the end user isn't aware his intoxicant is being spiked against his will. Also a legal licensed provider (tobacco, alcohol) is subject to laws and regulations on concentration/allowed "additives" they are obliged to follow; a illegal drug dealer isn't.
Last edited by williatw on Sat May 16, 2015 6:01 am, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Latest drug addict loons.

Post by williatw »

hanelyp wrote:A widespread social disdain for vice can in large measure substitute for police enforcement.

More than a substitute for "police enforcement" it is an actually better alternative. Education and yes social censure is far more effective tool in reducing tobacco consumption than punitive laws incarceration would have been. Somehow if one is addicted to nicotine it is a medical problem requiring treatment (nicotine patches etc.); nobody seems to have an issue with that. And without expanding the power and scope of the government and without doing damage to our Constitution & civil liberties and without creating a gulag mentality.

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

Re: Latest drug addict loons.

Post by williatw »

GIThruster wrote: Lets not waste time with these silly, failed bullshit arguments about how it is WoD's fault that Cannabis is stronger, when you know you WANT the Cannabis to be stronger!

Yeah....just like smokers "want" their highly addictive nicotine content higher in their cigarettes; and yet somehow the nicotine percentages in smokes hasn't apparently increased 20X times in the last 40yrs; while pot has, a coincidence I am sure having nothing to do with one highly addictive substance being legal (tobacco) & the other not being legal (pot--WOD).

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

Re: Latest drug addict loons.

Post by Diogenes »

hanelyp wrote:
Apart from that, there were widespread and common religion based disdains for the use of mind altering substances among the general populace.
A widespread social disdain for vice can in large measure substitute for police enforcement. Because cultural opposition is in decline more intrusive police measures are needed to suppress drug use to a given level. Curious that those so disdainful of police enforcement against vice are also so critical of social disdain, unless they are somehow blind to the societal harm perpetrated by the vice.


This is exactly right. People who grasp the concept realize, just as that Chinese Student at Harvard realized " If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police."


http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/g ... u_take.php


Our system of governance was designed with the assumption that most of us would properly govern ourselves.
‘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:
williatw wrote:
Why Are Illegal Drugs Stronger Than They Used to Be?


It seems reasonable to assume that this is part of the reason, but most phenomena are the vector sum of multiple factors.


Even if economic forces weren't driving the need to increase potency, human desire to have more potent drugs would still operate.
Than beer should have been displaced by whiskey long ago.

Both are still available. The fact that some people want stronger, does not preclude the fact that some people don't. Plus beer is cheaper, which is a factor for some people.



williatw wrote: Or for that matter tobacco; sure we would both agree that nicotine is ferociously addictive. Has the nicotine content for tobacco spiked upward 20X plus fold during the last 40yrs?. Don't actually know but I strongly doubt it.

No, I think you have this wrong. My recollection is that manufactures were at one time doing everything they could to raise the nicotine level. Why wouldn't they? More Nicotine, more addictive. More customers buying their product.



This is the positive feedback loop of drug addiction.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Post Reply