Why you shouldn't "self-Medicate."

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:51 am

Diogenes wrote:i'm having a hard time understanding

I want me some of that dandruff decapitation.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:29 am

And, speaking of wrinkled leathery skin, I've seen long term snow skiers that have demolished their faces.

And I know many of them, but neither of them looks like Popeye the sailor plus pimples.

TDPerk · Post by **TDPerk** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:04 pm

"And what makes you think it won't turn out like China?"

I know it won't turn out like China because when recreational drugs were unregulated, it already didn't turn out like China.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:48 pm

D Tibbets wrote:I don't think Charley Sheen is a good example. Which is the before and after photo? He has been a drug (at least alcohol) abuser for a long time. Also, again the photo technique plays a role, the lighting (from below) and the white balance of the second photo changes the appearance considerably.

And, speaking of wrinkled leathery skin, I've seen long term snow skiers that have demolished their faces.

Dan Tibbets

The Charlie Sheen pictures were meant as a joke. The one on the Right is indeed claimed to be a Charlie Sheen mug-shot. I happened to find the two pictures already juxtaposed in a similar manner as the previous before and after shots of drug addict mug shots, so I thought it would be amusing to throw Charlie Sheen up there in a similar pose.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:59 pm

TDPerk wrote:"And what makes you think it won't turn out like China?"

I know it won't turn out like China because when recreational drugs were unregulated, it already didn't turn out like China.

So you really don't want to bother looking at the duration and penetration of drugs in China so that you can ACCURATELY compare them with the far shorter and less ubiquitous American experience with drugs?

This is like saying a forest fire is no big deal because our campfire hasn't caused us any problems.

China's drug problem began around 1756 and didn't really end until after the 1930s. Do you honestly think that the United States would fair better if people were selling very addictive drugs for 174 years?

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:08 pm

I think the bigger issue here is what exactly is meant by "legalizing drugs".

1. Some would seem to hold to let it go total free market, like alcohol. Either full on total free access, or limited by age.

2. Some others would seem to argue access via medical professional supervision only, but "legal".

3. On addition others would maintain to keep addictive drugs as controlled substances or outright illegal. More of the same if you will.

I personally agree that the current system of regulation has its challenges, but given the above three choices, I see little difference between options 2 and 3. With the exception they provide the potential for allowing some substances as proscribable, that currently are not.

Option 2, still causes a black market, as some folks are not going to want to deal with medical professionals, nor accept supervised use or counceling. There will also be others that want stuff they can't get. So the black market will be alive and free to function as it has been. Arguable are the levels involved. But, I personally think that it will be not much different.
In regard to free market option 1. I still see a black market potential similar to underage drinking that goes on with alcohol now. And we all know that under age drinking is not a probelm at all.
Seperately, the fundamental fact remains, certain drugs generate physical dependancies, that are in turn the reason they are known as addictive substances. I for one, am not willing to let either of my young children to walk into the corner store and buy a "special" popsicle, because they really like it, and then deal with the aftermath of probable and eventual addiction. I would certainly hope that it is claimable on my famliy health insurance, cause I sure know I don't want to pay for it if society has determined it is all good, but I don't. Plus, I probably could not afford it in any event given I do not qualify for social assistance programs due to my life failure of having a real job.

TDPerk · Post by **TDPerk** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:14 pm

Diogenes, America has a far longer experience with the use of drugs such as alcohol and marijuana as uncontrolled substances--in the sense of current regulatory regime--than the country has undergone the blight of Prohibition. Because we have seen no improvement in addiction rates with Prohibition, I expect no worsening of the situation with ending it. And I should not.

Put simply, you have yet to make the case China has anything to tell us at all which contradicts the history we have already experienced.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:58 pm

TDPerk wrote:Diogenes, America has a far longer experience with the use of drugs such as alcohol and marijuana as uncontrolled substances--in the sense of current regulatory regime--than the country has undergone the blight of Prohibition.

Alcohol and especially Marijuana are not nearly as addictive/destructive as is opium. Not even close. So we've been shot at with a pea shooter while Chinese society was shot at with a Cannon.

TDPerk wrote: Because we have seen no improvement in addiction rates with Prohibition, I expect no worsening of the situation with ending it. And I should not.

If you consider a stabilization of an infection to be "no improvement" then you are not properly aware of the nature of the danger you face. The NORMAL untreated response of a patient is to steadily get worse. (Like China did.) It is only through the effective use of Anti-Virals (War on Drugs.) that the patient is even able to maintain his viral load at the current low level of 2%.

China could mount no immune defense until it had destroyed the profit margin for the British (source of new infection) by flooding the market with cheap opium. Once the British agreed to stop supplying opium, it was possible to slowly regain control of the widespread addiction in China. (of course it took a dictator to eradicate it.)

Even so, I still argue that the massive drug addiction is probably very significant in China's inability to defend itself from the much smaller nation of Japan in the 1930s. Infrastructure and Economic activity that should have happened didn't, because the nation was too mired in the slothfulness and dependency of drug addiction. There is a reason why China was referred to as "The sick man of Asia."

TDPerk wrote: Put simply, you have yet to make the case China has anything to tell us at all which contradicts the history we have already experienced.

I feel that I have. I have yet to see a compelling argument that contradicts my argument. I fear that my inability to convince stems more from (with respect) a lack of knowledge and comprehension by those who do not yet understand it than from any inherent flaw that it may have.

In any case, I have yet to see someone SHOW me a flaw in it.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Mar 08, 2011 12:52 am

Do you really don't want to bother looking at the duration and penetration of drugs in China so that you can ACCURATELY compare them with the far shorter and less ubiquitous American experience with drugs?

Drugs were legal in America for longer than they have been illegal. Heroin was over the counter for about 20 years and opiates in general were quite available for at least 100 years if not longer depending on shipping.

And how else do we know that the problems will be small and transient?

Opiate use in America involved about 2% of the population pre-prohibition. Post prohibition? About 2%.

So in exchange for prohibition and its costs we get about the same proportion of users plus a crime problem. I think we could better those results (reduce the crime problem) for nothing.

Anyway - the real problem is not drugs. It is divorce.

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

Maybe if we put the police to work fighting divorce we would have fewer drug problems. (that is sarcasm for the uninitiated)

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Tue Mar 08, 2011 9:23 pm

Chests of Opium brought into China

That 2% of the population sure increased their usage between 1700 and 1840!

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Tue Mar 08, 2011 9:33 pm

Who would have thought that 2% of the Chinese could go from 200 chests of opium per year to 40,000/year?

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Tue Mar 08, 2011 9:55 pm

If the previous two pictures are too subtle, perhaps this one is clearer as to the trend.

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:59 pm

Run to the hills, alcohol is about to be legalized again!

Who cares about China. It's apples and oranges as gun prohibition is in countries like France. Guns aren't part of their culture (no such things as second amendment and no such cultural compatibility) and legalized guns would never work without a fairly long and chaotic period of acclimatization. So what. France isn't the USA. Nevermind China.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Wed Mar 09, 2011 1:33 am

If yuo want to know more, this link is a good resource for what your government thinks.

http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs38/38661/movement.htm

This link will also point you at other data and info.

One of the interesting arguments that still goes on today is the actual estimate of current drug use (by type) and production levels. This is also then argued into what the current import and stockpile trends are.
The bottom line is that not even the traffickers are sure as to how much is produced, transported, stockpiled, and sold nationwide in the US. Mostly because they tend to talk to each other with bullets.

You will notice great disparity between many sources as to the actual demand volumes and consumption rates verses availability and production.

http://justf.org/blog/2011/03/03/fuzzy- ... ics-report

Another good resource pointer to start with for current trending is this link, pay particular attention to the stats and chart at the end.

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/new ... 20910.html

It would seem that history has given us better hindsight into China's travails than we currently have for our own. However, in our current situation the last few years have been trending for the better vice worse (more or less) in regards to availability and user rates.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Wed Mar 09, 2011 7:18 am

I said nothing about China. Legalization might be very bad for China. Odds are that it will change very little in the US because our criminals supply just about every one who wants the stuff. And they avoid a lot of unnecessary paper work as well.

Divorce leads to drugs:

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

Maybe outlawing divorce would help with the drug problem.

===

But I do like your reasoning

1. Before prohibition 2% of the American population was involved with opiates
2. Since prohibition 2% of the American population has been involved with opiates
3. Thus if we stop prohibiting, in time everyone will become addicted.

QED