"Malum Prohibitum"

[MSimon]

ladajo,

If you look up the stats only about 10% of those why try opiates become addicted. Tobacco is more addicting at roughly 30% to 40%.

But here is the relevant stat - before opiate prohibition about 1.3% of Americans were regular users. After 99 years of prohibition what is the number. 1.3%

So prohibition hasn't changed the number in the US. Let me relink a rather long video:

LEAP's (former police officer) Peter Christ at the St Albans Rotary - discussing the futility of Prohibition (about 40 minutes):
http://youtu.be/eDCf-Et2_Mc

He argues in that video for the legalization of all drugs.

America survived quite nicely until (1914) with all drugs legal. We will manage again quite well when it happens again. The only thing prohibition is doing is supporting criminals, corrupt politicians, a large Federal Government, and banks. It IS ironic that the socialist - progenitors of the policy have given it up and now all that is left in the way of useful support are conservatives. And the Constitution conservatives refuse to do it right with a constitutional amendment.

I have yet to see an agitation for a drug prohibition amendment. So the limited government people don't really believe in limited government. Which kinda weakens their case.

===============

And D will of course chime in with China. But drugs are to a great extent interchangeable.

While Chinese were binging on opiates Americans were binging on alcohol. For the same reason - harsh economics.

In America - once the economics improved the drinking was reduced considerably.

But some people have faith in "addiction". Unfortunately for you my view has been gaining ground and yours is losing same.

And what is my view "People in chronic pain chronically take pain relievers". That seems to make more sense than "Drugs are addictive".

===============

BTW the evidence is that people prefer weaker drugs. It is prohibitions that cause drugs to get stronger.

This video says it is a matter of incentives:

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

Arguing prohibition with conservatives is like arguing economics with liberals. At least that has been my experience.

[MSimon]

Arguing prohibition with conservatives is like arguing economics with liberals. At least that has been my experience.

Let me say this about that.

Liberals argue PERFECTLY (or nearly so) the economics of prohibition. Conservatives are generally unable to do so.

And then I ask liberals to apply that analysis to the rest of their program and they suddenly get stupid.

OTOH drugs make conservatives stupid.

The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise by Milton Friedman

======================

When it is a faith magical thinking abounds. Humans is hilarious.

[williatw]

Well okay then. You don't get your libertarian purity badge!


The point still remains, if you accept the argument that any sort of "Prohibition" is futile, then by what argument can you support prohibiting one substance while allowing others?


It sounds to me as if you are saying that "prohibition" is not futile, it's just that we have a disagreement about which substances should be on the "prohibited" list. I'm down with that. I personally think Pot isn't terribly bad as compared with meth, or coke, or crack. It tends to make lazy bastards out of the people whom I know that use it, but it's far more benign than are other drugs.
I think it would be a mistake to legalize it, but it wouldn't be a tremendously horrible mistake. It would be more of "geeze, that was just dumb" mistake.
By the same token, I absolutely believe that every effort should be made to keep explosives (or dangerous pathogens) out of the hands of crazies and terrorists, and nuclear material out of the hands of Iran and other Fanatic regimes.
"Prohibitions" (really interdiction) is a necessary principle when relating to certain dangerous substances.

No I would not say I am opposed on principal (libertarian or otherwise) to any type of prohibition of anything for any reason producing any result, that would be insanely reckless. I also don't really like pot much personally, it does seem to make lazy sods out of a disproportionate number of folks I have known over the years who indulge regularly. I have early stage glaucoma, currently treating with Travatan drops, told pot is good for glaucoma, doubt if I would try it unless no other option was available, even if it were legal in Ohio. Certainty not smoked, don't want to fry my lung sacs; cancerous or not, lungs are for air not smoke. Maybe if some pill form derivative if found good for glaucoma. I concede it's probably better than hard liquor, or at least not much worse. The spiking in concentration (& contaminates) of the modern stuff doubtlessly makes it worse than what I knew as a youth; that's one of the reason I favor legalizing, to control such. It (pot or a derivative) may or may not have medicinal value, doubt if it does much when smoked. Dislike the harder drugs even more, in summation I stand by my objection to the war on drugs (prohibition), it failed like alcohol prohibition before it. We need something better like legalized strictly regulated. Here is the answer to the question you didn't ask: Would I still object to drug prohibition if it had spectacularly succeeded? No illicit drugs readily available (most people not even knowing what heroin, coke, etc. was), no evil cartels corrupting many aspects of our society, no increasing concentration, availability, no vast numbers of dead/hopelessly addicted addicts lives wasted, no mass incarceration, no mass violence and murder by the aforementioned suppliers, none of that sh%t. People just not taking it because they were told not to. Would I still object to the prohibition on the libertarian principal that I was interfering with someone's right to take what they want regardless of consequence?

Answer: Hell No

But in the real world I try to live in results are king. WOD didn't/hasn't succeeded, not likely to, and has produced results worse than other approaches might have.

And Msimon hands aren't so clean as far as being the perfect Libertarian...he has said here that he opposses "No Fault" Divorce, in cases where kids are involved (a position I agree with also).

[hanelyp]

Prohibition must be coupled with a campaign to render the drug socially unacceptable, or enforcement has an uphill battle. Tobacco had an aggressive campaign to persuade the general public that smoking was unhealthy not only for the user but those around them. The result is a dramatic drop in tobacco use rates. With pot I see an active campaign to not only make the drug acceptable, but to sell it as medicine. And no active social campaign against pot.

Enforcement need not treat pusher and user the same. The pusher is a predator. The user is a mentally ill victim. The intent of prohibition is satisfied if the user completes a reasonable rehab. Civil forfeiture and general lack of due process in "support" of drug enforcement undermine the necessary social component against drugs.

[MSimon]

The economics of prohibition:

http://talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5192

[MSimon]

Enforcement need not treat pusher and user the same. The pusher is a predator. The user is a mentally ill victim.

Now what do you do when the user and pusher are the same person. As is usually the case?

And please tell me why being in pain is a mental illness?

"People in chronic pain chronically use drugs." Well the pain is in the brain. So is PTSD a mental illness?

About 20% of the population have the genes for long term PTSD. About half those get enough trauma to initiate the "mental illness." That would make those in our armed forces who get PTSD mentally ill.

Now correlation is not causation but it is suggestive. About 10% of the American population has PTSD. About 10% of the American population are chronic drug users. Alcohol, pot, heroin, cocaine, meth, etc.

So you have to ask yourself. Why isn't more being done (besides the VA link I posted up thread) to educate people on the connection between PTSD and chronic drug use? Well it would blow out of he water the whole "drugs cause addiction" idea. And a LOT of money rides on having a significant part of the population believing that idea.

Now we could make a start with DNA testing. We don't have a test for PTSD. But we do have a DNA test for susceptibility to it.

The genetic triggers for ADD/ADHD have been identified on several chromosomes in our genome. For example ADHD (Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) is recognised as one of the conditions that is perpetuated in families with PTSD (Yehuda, 2002). It is therefore conceivable that chromosome #5 may also play a significant part in the genetic transmission of other PTSD symptoms as a succeptibility exists in this gene. Focus for physical and personality traits is not on the “gene” itself, but on a segment of gene that contains the base letters that build a specific protein.

http://www.familiesaftertrauma.org/index.php/ptsd/alias

An abstract from the NIH: PTSD and DNA Methylation in Select Immune Function Gene Promoter Regions: A Repeated Measures Case-Control Study of U.S. Military Service Members.

In addition to harming the immediate wellbeing of the child, maltreatment and extreme stress during childhood can impair early brain development and metabolic and immune system function, leading to chronic health problems. As a consequence, abused children are at increased risk for a wide range of physical health conditions including obesity, heart disease, and cancer, as well as psychiatric conditions such as depression, suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, high-risk behaviors and violence.

They are also more susceptible to developing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-a severe and debilitating stress-related psychiatric disorder-after experiencing other types of trauma later in life.

Part of the explanation is that child abuse can leave marks, not only physically and emotionally, but also in the form of epigenetic marks on a child's genes. Although these epigenetic marks do not cause mutations in the DNA itself, the chemical modifications-including DNA methylation-change gene expression by silencing (or activating) genes. This can alter fundamental biological processes and adversely affect health outcomes throughout life.

New research, published in the May 14, 2013, issue of the Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences, shows that PTSD patients who were abused as children have different patterns of DNA methylation and gene expression compared to those who were not.
Genome Advance of the Month - Child abuse leaves epigenetic marks By Roseanne Zhao, Ph.D. - NIH Medical Scientist Training Program Track 3 Scholar

What is most interesting to me is that the information is out there - I knew to look for it - but it has not reached the general public. It is almost as if the press was in cahoots with the DEA. But who could believe such a thing? Everyone here knows the press does its best to keep Americans well informed. Except in this particular case.

So hanelyp - do you favor continuing the war on abused children and their efforts to seek relief from the condition? You see - as this information gets out the kids are dropping Christianity. Why? Well would a Christian nation continue for 70 years or more to abuse abused children? You will be happy to know that I'm doing my part to get the information out:
http://classicalvalues.com/2013/12/dna- ... -children/

[MSimon]

Another good article on the subject:

Why is the hereditary factor so important? "If the risk for PTSD following traumatic exposure is associated with an underlying genetic vulnerability, it would be expected that biological relatives (family) of an individual with PTSD would have a higher risk of developing the disorder following trauma exposure than similarly traumatized non-relatives. Family studies of PTSD have demonstrated this finding. Specifically, PTSD diagnosis was more frequent in adult children of Holocaust survivors with PTSD as compared to children of Holocaust survivors without PTSD (Yehuda et al., 2001). A similar finding has been reported in adult children of Cambodian refugees whose parents had PTSD (Sack et al., 1995 )."

http://www.examiner.com/article/ptsd-an ... a-part-1-1

The underlying molecular mechanisms of PTSD are not known. Epigenetic factors - inherited and acquired modifications of DNA and histones that regulate various genomic functions occurring without a change in nuclear DNA sequence - could offer new insights about PTSD. Profiling during the triggering and development of PTSD using cDNA microarrays has shown differential gene expression signatures in cytokines between PTSD patients and controls. An epigenetic mechanism, DNA methylation may play a significant role in the pathophysiology of PTSD, since the process is intrinsically linked to the regulation of gene expression. We carried out a systematic investigation of DNA methylation patterns in the promoter regions of a group of cytokines and in genomic repetitive elements, in soldiers prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) or Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) deployment/PTSD diagnosis, and post deployment/PTSD diagnosis, and an appropriate group of controls. We carried out this study in DNA extracted from serum samples housed at the Department of Defense Serum Repository (DoDSR). Understanding the differential roles of promoter regional methylation and repetitive element methylation in PTSD will fuel novel therapeutic approaches to PTSD therapy, particularly since modifications in DNA methylation can potentially be reversed. The results of this small molecular epidemiology study will lay the foundation for future epigenetic studies based on the longitudinally collected serum samples (multiple samples per service member) housed at the DoDSR, a vast resource of bio-specimens which can be linked to detailed demographic, deployment, and medical data.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a550878.pdf

I consider it highly ironic that the current wars may eventually put an end to the drug war.

[MSimon]

The Road to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Begins at the Intersection of DNA and Childhood Trauma
It is my guess that when we start looking into drug "abusers" we will find the DNA connection and child abuse. I have been making the child abuse/genetics connection for years based on anecdotal evidence alone. We now have a way to begin testing that hypothesis.

So who wants to continue making war on abused children?

I have lefties who read my blog. I'm going to make sure they run with this information. Because politics is war. And I want badly for Nixon to lose this war. SOB.

May I suggest that those of you who favor prohibition contact your friends and tell them to give it up. Before the politics bites you in the arse.

Update video Limbic System: Hallucinations, PTSD

More videos: Cannabis For PTSD

[Diogenes]

ladajo,

If you look up the stats only about 10% of those why try opiates become addicted. Tobacco is more addicting at roughly 30% to 40%.

Even accepting your stats, why would we want to destroy 10% of our population?

[Diogenes]

Arguing prohibition with conservatives is like arguing economics with liberals. At least that has been my experience.

Well Simon, this is absolutely true. You just happen to be on the nonsensical side of the argument.


You arguing with conservatives about legalizing drugs is exactly like a Liberal arguing economics. It's based on magic pixy dust and fantasy land with no conception of real world consequences.


Once more, I will point out that if you restricted your argument to just legalizing pot, you would have a more reasonable position. It is your insistence that people have a RIGHT to take ANY drug that simply cannot be supported by the evidence or philosophical theory.

[Diogenes]

Dislike the harder drugs even more, in summation I stand by my objection to the war on drugs (prohibition), it failed like alcohol prohibition before it. We need something better like legalized strictly regulated. Here is the answer to the question you didn't ask: Would I still object to drug prohibition if it had spectacularly succeeded? No illicit drugs readily available (most people not even knowing what heroin, coke, etc. was), no evil cartels corrupting many aspects of our society, no increasing concentration, availability, no vast numbers of dead/hopelessly addicted addicts lives wasted, no mass incarceration, no mass violence and murder by the aforementioned suppliers, none of that sh%t. People just not taking it because they were told not to. Would I still object to the prohibition on the libertarian principal that I was interfering with someone's right to take what they want regardless of consequence?

Answer: Hell No

You are measuring success and failure by the wrong standard; the notion that success only equals 100% eradication. No, success equals no change in the addiction rate. i.e. flat line.


With the tools available to law enforcement to fight the war on drugs, a continuous 2% usage/addiction rate is the best that can be obtained. Mao Tse Tung achieved a 0% rate, but Americans would not tolerate the methods he used to achieve it.


As I have pointed out before, the NORM for drug addiction in the absence of interdiction is an exponential (logistical) growth function.


This is what FAILURE in the drug war would look like.

But in the real world I try to live in results are king. WOD didn't/hasn't succeeded, not likely to, and has produced results worse than other approaches might have.

The only result of which I can conceive other than holding usage at some low rate is to allow it to increase in the manner it normally would in the absence of a counteracting force.

In engineering designs there are often losses. Some losses are simply unavoidable, or perhaps fail a cost vs benefit analysis to eliminate them. In the War on drugs, the perpetual 2% addiction rate is the equivalent of normal and usual losses within the constraints of the existing system.

Now if we decided to wipe out the Colombian drug lords, and actually fight it like it was a real war, we might reduce that 2% down to something much smaller. But we don't want to, so we must live with the losses.

[paperburn1]

Sometimes I wonder if a better tack would be let them have all the hard drugs they want/ lifestyle they want and just take away the protectionism that helps them survive , after 30 years the natural selection thing would sharpen it focus and we would have a more defined society. the intervening times would be horrible but society would probably come out better. but then we still would have the problem of where to draw the lines and what we would do/ not do for general culture protection.

[ladajo]

ladajo,

If you look up the stats only about 10% of those why try opiates become addicted. Tobacco is more addicting at roughly 30% to 40%.

Even accepting your stats, why would we want to destroy 10% of our population?

According to NIDA, 1 in 8 High school seniors report use of prescription opiates without a prescription. 7 of 10 opiates users mix it with other stuff like pot or alcohol. Is your "10%" number based on total exposure, to include medical prescriptions? If so would seem a bit bogus. Maybe a lot bogus.



But drugs are safe to use, and they do not influence behavior right?

Opiate use and addiction is linked to at least 50 percent of the major crimes in the United States; at least half of all suspects arrested for violent crimes (homicide, assault, etc.) were under the influence of opiates when arrested.

In 2006, approximately 20.4 million Americans aged 12 or older were current (past month) illicit Opiate users

According to my research, illicit heroin use results in about a 23% addiction rate. On top of that you would need to add in the prescription pain killer opiate phenomina sweeping the nation over that last decade. I woudl suspect that the rate number is higher with that included. Rate being defined as "continued use/tried it".

I think you cherry pick and fudge numbers routinely in order to press your argument. I have caught you out many times.



http://www.caron.org/knowledge-library/ ... iate-stats

[ladajo]

William,
To help you along in your understanding of opiate and drug entry into the US it is framed simply;

An argument can be made as follows;

Asians had high use of opiates and it was a well known drug.
As Asian trade and culture interacted with Europe, so was introduced Opiate Dens.

Asians also brought Opiates with them when they came to buil dthe railroads here in america.

Recognizing the usefulness as a painkiller, american doctors started experimenting with it on patients.
By the civil war, it became a common use medicine, but also became a common means of addiction. (Look this one up)
Doctors and scientists then tried to come up with "non-addictive" variants. It did not work.

Come the turn of the Century, it was widely recognized how destructive opiates and other drugs could be to a population group.
This resulted in a rapid crack down and national laws by 1910.

The US still struggles with this, as we value free choice and will. However, the dealing side of things uses this against us. Witness the surging marketing of marijuana as perfectly safe and medicinal. Just now studies are coming out about addiction rates, and life damage. All this is no accident given the baby boomers proclivity for drug use. They also are happy to sell it to each other and younger folks to help finance their own habits.
Voting block bias moves with the population group.

[williatw]

You are measuring success and failure by the wrong standard; the notion that success only equals 100% eradication. No, success equals no change in the addiction rate. i.e. flat line.
With the tools available to law enforcement to fight the war on drugs, a continuous 2% usage/addiction rate is the best that can be obtained. Mao Tse Tung achieved a 0% rate, but Americans would not tolerate the methods he used to achieve it.
The only result of which I can conceive other than holding usage at some low rate is to allow it to increase in the manner it normally would in the absence of a counteracting force.

By your metric of comparison drug use in China at the height of the opium addiction, we could be executing 500,000 people a year every year and live in a police state and you can say, "Well that's better than half the adult pop., hopeless opium addicts, so therefore it is a success". I am measuring it by the side effects/cost of that holding usage at 2%. It not even clear that the WOD is responsible for our staying at your "2%" figure, that's a supposition, not a fact. And by whether other measures might have achieved equal or better results at lower costs (monetary and societal). That 2% figure, does it apply to Europe? They don't mass incarcerate there pop. at nowhere near the level we do. Drugs are still yes technically illegal there most places even if say pot is effectively decriminalized, but they didn't go all paramilitary. They didn't go all hard ball on the WOD as we did, so how come their pop. isn't half opium/heroin/cocaine addicts? Could it be they put more emphasis on treatment of drug addiction and prevention, rather than treating addicts (especially minority addicts) as criminals? And also your 2% figure must mean continuous usage of hard drugs, the percentages of people who have at least tried drugs including pot is closer to 50%.

From MSimon link; 1st part:

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

.74% THC content in 1974 to 13.01% in 2009. That is about and 18X increase in potency in 35yrs. An usage rates of this drug of choice to most users, the biggest focus of our WOD (at least if incarceration/arrest rates are our guide) remains in the neighborhood of 50% at least having tried it. How is that for an exponential progression? If you keep that up long enough you will end up with something like crack/meth/heroin. Only in this case it is something people actually use in large numbers. The WOD you claim has kept usage rates for hard drugs down to 2%, but pot which was the focus of the WOD and most people's drug of choice is still as commonly used, in the range of 50% who have at least tried it. Here is my supposition, the WOD is a failure, most people stuck to pot because most just weren't that interested in hard drugs to start with, the WOD had little effect on their behavior.