Prohibition and Bath Salts

[Stubby]

everybody pays some sort of tax even if it is just a sales tax.

'or other tax' closes a lot of loop holes that experience has shown, get used to disenfranchise.

[ladajo]

And how do you counter stuff like this?

State board recommends legalizing medical marijuana
http://www.dailyiowan.com/[b]2010/02/18[/b]/Metro/15701.html

Officials from the Iowa Board of Pharmacy voted unanimously to recommend that the state Legislature legalize the use of medical marijuana on Wednesday.

Well, you simply point out that once again you misrepresent, this time with a posting from 2010, making it look like it is from now.

[GIThruster]

THC is not hallucinogen, it does not create hallucinations.

"The term "psychedelic" is used interchangeably with "psychotomimetic" and "hallucinogen",[3] thus it can refer to a large number of drugs such as classical hallucinogens (LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, etc.), empathogen-entactogens (e.g. MDMA), cannabinoids, and some dissociative drugs (e.g. Salvia divinorum and ketamine)."

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen

THC is a cannabinoid. You can find them linked through the Hallucinogen piece.

But really no one should have to show Cannabis is an hallucinogen. If you're too stupid to know or too dishonest to admit this is true, you do not belong in adult discussions of the subject.

[GIThruster]

Still, I think the numbers would be useful to have. Even if it only means going in with eyes (more) wide open

But that's not what it means. It means you've drawn an arbitrary standard and once you endorse it, someone will then bicker about it despite it is arbitrary and there is nothing to gain.

You need to reconsider the lifeboat example of how using raw metrics goes wrong in specific situations, especially those of values conflicts. Too, you'll find it instructive the point behind the illustration you're noting from "The Wrath of Kahn" which was, that rationally, Spock believed the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one; but his comrades at arms all rationally believed the opposite. What was Roddenberry's point here? Simply that certain situations do NOT avail themselves to simplistic utilitarian equations. These situations invariably involve values conflicts. This is why the question you're asking cannot give you the answer you seek--because this situation cannot be reduced to a logical dispute. It is a values dispute.

And I'll note to you, this is the same dispute we have over drug use. People like simon believe in the rights of the individual so much they're willing to completely sacrifice society as a whole. Others believe that society's rights, or the good of "the many", always outweighs individual freedom. Socialism and communism are such positions.

Sensible people recognize that the truth is somewhere between. Hence some recreational drugs are legal and others are not. A swing to either extreme would be. . .extreme! and hurtful to all involved.

[williatw]

Still, I think the numbers would be useful to have. Even if it only means going in with eyes (more) wide open

But that's not what it means. It means you've drawn an arbitrary standard and once you endorse it, someone will then bicker about it despite it is arbitrary and there is nothing to gain.

You need to reconsider the lifeboat example of how using raw metrics goes wrong in specific situations, especially those of values conflicts. Too, you'll find it instructive the point behind the illustration you're noting from "The Wrath of Kahn" which was, that rationally, Spock believed the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one; but his comrades at arms all rationally believed the opposite. What was Roddenberry's point here? Simply that certain situations do NOT avail themselves to simplistic utilitarian equations. These situations invariably involve values conflicts. This is why the question you're asking cannot give you the answer you seek--because this situation cannot be reduced to a logical dispute. It is a values dispute.

And I'll note to you, this is the same dispute we have over drug use. People like simon believe in the rights of the individual so much they're willing to completely sacrifice society as a whole. Others believe that society's rights, or the good of "the many", always outweighs individual freedom. Socialism and communism are such positions.

Sensible people recognize that the truth is somewhere between. Hence some recreational drugs are legal and others are not. A swing to either extreme would be. . .extreme! and hurtful to all involved.

Don't think MSIMON or myself and many others here believe that the war on drugs is an example of the needs of the many being served that is at best a pretension on the part of the prohibitionists. The power needs of the drug traffickers corrupting our legal system and government are what are being served. The damage to our constitution and civil liberties of this unprecedented expansion of governmental powers as it wages war against our own citizens is a greater threat than the drugs is probably what most anti-prohibitionists believe. Doubt if the relatives of the 50K plus dead Mexicans in the last few years think that the needs of the many are being served by the war on drugs.

[Diogenes]

everybody pays some sort of tax even if it is just a sales tax.

'or other tax' closes a lot of loop holes that experience has shown, get used to disenfranchise.

Sales taxes finance State and Municipal expenditures, but not Federal expenditures. Currently it is the Federal expenditures which are most out of control. (Unless you live in a financially insane state like California.) If someone doesn't pay Federal Taxes, they shouldn't be voting in Federal Elections.



Representation without Taxation constitutes a broken negative feedback loop, meaning the system won't self-regulate properly. Negative feedback is a pretty universal method for getting a complex system to work properly.Without it, Overspeed/Underspeed, oscillations and erratic behavior are virtually assured.

[GIThruster]

Don't think MSIMON or myself and many others here believe that the war on drugs is an example of the needs of the many being served. . .

Individuals want access to recreational drugs. It is their individual liberty that is being supported by any supposed "right" to access such drugs.

Society at large has a vested interest to not have to cope with the outcome of a doped up majority. Prohibition has always been supported rightly or wrongly by the contention that it is in society's vested interest to prohibit use of recreational drugs because of the way they're abused and their consequences.

Protestations about things like how crime works do not alter these foundational issues. If you have a problem with how the DEA pursues drug enforcement, that is a debate for enforcement, not the basic issue itself.

You can blather about the details all you like, but the point is, we here have a values conflict that cannot be resolved by assigning arbitrary numbers to a complex dynamic. If you're off blathering about the details of enforcement, you're not looking at the real issue. If you're assigning arbitrary numbers you are not looking at the real issue either. These are both red herrings. THE issue is the conflict between individual liberty and the needs of society.

If you believe the needs of society should always win out, you should become a socialist prohibitionist. If you believe the freedom of the individual should always win out, you should withdraw from society altogether for you do not understand the basis if all social contract. If rather than either of these two extremes, you can learn to live with tension in an adult manner, then you can be involved with discussions that actually come to this issue without seeming hopelessly out of touch, like simon.

I'll be very straight forward with my values. People like simon do not have a right to sit at home and get high every day for decades, while sucking off society like as parasites, and failing to support themselves and their families. It is because simon is addicted to recreational drugs that he has been a parasite these last 14 years and this is evidence enough that the individual freedom he seeks is far too much freedom for him to make reasonable use of.

[williatw]

I'll be very straight forward with my values. People like simon do not have a right to sit at home and get high every day for decades, while sucking off society like as parasites, and failing to support themselves and their families. It is because simon is addicted to recreational drugs that he has been a parasite these last 14 years and this is evidence enough that the individual freedom he seeks is far too much freedom for him to make reasonable use of.

I don't think people have a right to sit at home and live off of other people's tax dollars whether they get high, drink Chardonnay wine or sit around all day contemplating their navel. I don't particularly care what they do or don't do with their money provided they are working for it. As I have stated here several times before as far as I am concerned if you are of working age & able bodied if you want to be paid by the tax payers, you should be required to work 8hrs a day 5 days a week for at least minimum wage. The same caveat for getting food stamps or living in government paid housing. On the point of the potheads I have known personally they tend toward lazy indolence. I have had the misfortune to know a few mean drunks, would have to say if I were forced to choose, I prefer the company of the former to the later, though I don’t pal around with either much.

[palladin9479]

THC is not hallucinogen, it does not create hallucinations.

It is my understanding that it can if the circumstances are right.

What are those circumstances? My take is naive user and very strong pot. But my information is anecdotal.

Like alcohol though it is my understanding that most users do not wish to get into that condition.

====

Now if your point is that neither one drink nor a few puffs of pot will get users or dabblers in that condition I concur.

And if your further point is that the vast majority of prohibitionists are not familiar with the voluminous literature on the subject and only read lurid press reports I would also concur.

I think I have "met" one prohibitionist in my whole life who knows the literature as well as I do. Clayton Cramer. - The gun guy. You can look him up.

We do come to different conclusions based on a common knowledge base. I can respect that. Most folks with that level of knowledge are in the anti-prohibition camp. As I am.

The vast majority of prohibitionists argue from ignorance. And it shows. It is one of the reasons they are losing the argument with the general public.

A lie may make it around the world seven times before the truth gets out the door. But eventually the lie falls flat from exhaustion.

The toxicology of THC doesn't induce hallucinations, not even if you injected yourself with so much pure THC that it caused an overdose. That's a different class of psychoactive substances entirely, LSD, Meth, X and their ilk. THC is similar to Opium as a CNS depressant and pain killer only much safer, less side effects, no withdrawal and non-addictive. It's one of the most benign substances naturally grown, which is what is so crazy about the prohibitionist logic. Your could extract the THC out and embed it into a pill that would replace the high priced prescription drugs Percaset, Oxycotin, Vallium, Tylenol-3, and pretty much any codine based pain-killer / anti-anxiety medication. This is the primary reason for it to remain a Schedule I substance while Cocain is a Schedule II substance. THC is simply too cheap to mass produce and would result in a sudden drop in Pharma profits if it became too accessible. As long as everyone is forced to use expensive Opium based medication then Pharma can continue to rake in big profits from the sale of those medications.

[Teahive]

Prohibition has always been supported rightly or wrongly by the contention that it is in society's vested interest to prohibit use of recreational drugs because of the way they're abused and their consequences.

[...]

You can blather about the details all you like, but the point is, we here have a values conflict that cannot be resolved by assigning arbitrary numbers to a complex dynamic. If you're off blathering about the details of enforcement, you're not looking at the real issue. If you're assigning arbitrary numbers you are not looking at the real issue either. These are both red herrings. THE issue is the conflict between individual liberty and the needs of society.

Emphasis mine.
Before you come to the latter dilemma you first have to look at the issue of whether prohibition of a specific substance actually serves the needs of society in the way claimed.

[rj40]

Still, I think the numbers would be useful to have. Even if it only means going in with eyes (more) wide open

But that's not what it means. It means you've drawn an arbitrary standard and once you endorse it, someone will then bicker about it despite it is arbitrary and there is nothing to gain.

You need to reconsider the lifeboat example of how using raw metrics goes wrong in specific situations, especially those of values conflicts. Too, you'll find it instructive the point behind the illustration you're noting from "The Wrath of Kahn" which was, that rationally, Spock believed the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one; but his comrades at arms all rationally believed the opposite. What was Roddenberry's point here? Simply that certain situations do NOT avail themselves to simplistic utilitarian equations. These situations invariably involve values conflicts. This is why the question you're asking cannot give you the answer you seek--because this situation cannot be reduced to a logical dispute. It is a values dispute.

And I'll note to you, this is the same dispute we have over drug use. People like simon believe in the rights of the individual so much they're willing to completely sacrifice society as a whole. Others believe that society's rights, or the good of "the many", always outweighs individual freedom. Socialism and communism are such positions.

Sensible people recognize that the truth is somewhere between. Hence some recreational drugs are legal and others are not. A swing to either extreme would be. . .extreme! and hurtful to all involved.

OK, I think I am closer to understanding you. Maybe. At a certain point, once minds are made up and based primarily on a value judgment, the numbers, at best, don't matter. And may even add to the arguing - without adding to the hope of a solution. Closer?

[palladin9479]

Prohibition has always been supported rightly or wrongly by the contention that it is in society's vested interest to prohibit use of recreational drugs because of the way they're abused and their consequences.

[...]

You can blather about the details all you like, but the point is, we here have a values conflict that cannot be resolved by assigning arbitrary numbers to a complex dynamic. If you're off blathering about the details of enforcement, you're not looking at the real issue. If you're assigning arbitrary numbers you are not looking at the real issue either. These are both red herrings. THE issue is the conflict between individual liberty and the needs of society.

Emphasis mine.
Before you come to the latter dilemma you first have to look at the issue of whether prohibition of a specific substance actually serves the needs of society in the way claimed.

My own analysis came up with a "it depends" answer. One must weight the cost (financial and social) of maintaining prohibition vs the cost of regulated free-market (pharma / medication) vs cost of non-regulated free-market (open recreational use).

For some things the cost of prohibition is small relative to the cost of open use, for others the cost of prohibition is orders of magnitudes more. The difference tends to align with the severity of the side effects. Heroine, Methamphetamine's, LSD and Pixie Dust all have severe unregulated costs with small comparable small prohibition costs. This is mostly due to their relatively small user base (key word is relative). Conversely substances like THC, Ethanol, Nicotine and Caffeine have small unregulated costs with prohibitionist costs that are orders of magnitude greater (just try to imagine enforcing a prohibition on Nicotine or Caffeine).

We have hard proof of this with the historical evidence from the Prohibition of Ethanol vs the ending of Prohibition. Eventually it was just cheaper, both economically and socially, to make the stuff legal with a few requirements (age of consumption / locations allowed to sell) then to try to win a war against your own citizens.

I'm a pragmatist, toilet paper is more valuable to me then other peoples morale, political or religious beliefs. From a purely objective viewpoint THC will eventually be legalized. The conditions are the same as the Prohibitionist-era. The states attempt at policing a single substance has reached such an expensive level that it no longer justifies the cost associated with it.

There will be those who, just like then, rail against the "Devils Rum" as some sort of moral monster and destroyer of worlds. They will create hyperbole by distorting facts and trying to turn the debate into a subjective morale one. Their rallying cry will be "FOR THE CHILDREN!!!", which incidentally is the same rallying cry used by their bitter enemies in pursuit of equally progressive reforms. The only difference I can see is one prefers the progressive reforms of the past while another seeks to create progressive reforms in the future. Who would of ever thought there would be a day that hardline conservatives would be defending progressive legislation created by hardline democrats 40 years ago (80 for when the push started).

[palladin9479]

For anyone who may be wondering, their are actual definitions and conditions to what each schedule level is.


Schedule I

Schedule I substances are those that have the following findings:

The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.[26]

No prescriptions may be written for Schedule I substances, and such substances are subject to production quotas by the DEA.

Schedule II

Schedule II substances are those that have the following findings:

The drug or other substances have a high potential for abuse
The drug or other substances have currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, or currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions
Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.[26]

Except when dispensed directly by a practitioner, other than a pharmacist, to an ultimate user, no controlled substance in Schedule II, which is a prescription drug as determined under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 USC 301 et seq.), may be dispensed without the written prescription of a practitioner, except that in emergency situations, as prescribed by the Secretary by regulation after consultation with the Attorney General, such drug may be dispensed upon oral prescription in accordance with section 503(b) of that Act (21 USC 353 (b)).

Schedule III

Schedule III substances are those that have the following findings:

The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.[26]

Except when dispensed directly by a practitioner, other than a pharmacist, to an ultimate user, no controlled substance in schedule III or IV, which is a prescription drug as determined under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 USC 301 et seq.), may be dispensed without a written or oral prescription in conformity with section 503(b) of that Act (21 USC 353 (b)).

Schedule IV

"Placement on schedules; findings required Schedule IV substances are those that have the following findings:

The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III
The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States
Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III[26]

Control measures are similar to Schedule III. Prescriptions for Schedule IV drugs may be refilled up to five times within a six month period.

Schedule V

Schedule V substances are those that have the following findings:

The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV
The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States
Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.[26]

No controlled substance in schedule V which is a drug may be distributed or dispensed other than for a medical purpose.[35]

By all currently available information, THC should be a Schedule IV substance, Schedule III at most (assuming GIT / D's assertions).

It has a known medical use and is prescribed by certified medical practitioners. That immediately takes it off the Schedule I list. It has low toxicity and no physical dependency issues, that immediately takes it off the Schedule II list. Everything underneath that is various levels of how dangerous it's side effects are. As we know it's side effects we can easily assign it to one of those bottom three, or in the case of two states just say "screw it" and handle it the same way we do ethanol.

[GIThruster]

OK, I think I am closer to understanding you. Maybe. At a certain point, once minds are made up and based primarily on a value judgment, the numbers, at best, don't matter. And may even add to the arguing - without adding to the hope of a solution. Closer?

Yes. Numbers that don't come to the issue distract from the issue. This is what paladin and simon specialize in, is pretending to be scientific when in fact they're citing bogus studies that tell us the opposite of what common sense and experience tells us. When you have jokers like paladin around, there's not much room left for real discourse. He's thrown the doors open wide to pure fabrication and other nonsense.

Seriously, what do I care that there are some medical practitioners who think dope is a good thing? There are plenty of medical practitioners who think acupuncture is a good thing, despite there is no evidence of anything there past a placebo effect. I'll grant that smoking dope makes you hungry, but there are plenty of things that can do that. We don't honestly believe the debate about Cannabis concerns those who need to eat better do we? It's about scumbags who want to get high, who are systematically misrepresenting their position for their own twisted reasons.

Same with all the arguments about how expensive the war on drugs is. What a bunch of bullshit. Just how many people do we suppose the DEA employs? And how many police officers in all other forms of service would we not need if there were no war on drugs? None! Not a single cop would lose his job if Cannabis were made legal today. Almost no drug users go to prison, contrary to popular belief. It is dealers who go to prison. Anyone else brought up on drug charges is usually involved in a crime. Yet there are these bogus arguments about trillion dollar expenses that are just pure fabrication.

Seriously, simon and paladin are playing fast and loose with the facts. Not much point in engaging them when they are both so full of shit.