The War On People In Pain

[MSimon]

Seriously though, it has been noted that child abuse is a self perpetuating problem, with abuse victims abusing their own children, usually after self medicating WITH ALCOHOL. This can be used to show that self medication WITH ALCOHOL aids in perpetuating the abuse cycle, and that logially, one way to break the cycle is to remove the self medication WITH ALCOHOL.

FIFY

[Helius]

Alcohol is a psychoactive drug for which Society applies heavy negative social sanction for it's use. Society applies heavy sanction against it's sale, but most negative sanction is against it's "leaf node" end users.

If you want to reduce drug use "MADD" demands the methods that work; Their primary target is the end user, not the breweries or distillers.

Traditional Prohibition failed because they "treated" suppliers; We're making the same mistake with other drugs. If we applied Prohibition to the end user, it would have the effect of reducing drug use and also reducing sales.

There was at time, a couple of decades back, when a beer in the hand went well on a long car trip. Due to the restrictive methods of MADD, this is now seen by many as both risky and immoral. Leaf node negative sanction works.

[MSimon]

Alcohol is a psychoactive drug for which Society applies heavy negative social sanction for it's use. Society applies heavy sanction against it's sale, but most negative sanction is against it's "leaf node" end users.

If you want to reduce drug use "MADD" demands the methods that work; Their primary target is the end user, not the breweries or distillers.

Traditional Prohibition failed because they "treated" suppliers; We're making the same mistake with other drugs. If we applied Prohibition to the end user, it would have the effect of reducing drug use and also reducing sales.

There was at time, a couple of decades back, when a beer in the hand went well on a long car trip. Due to the restrictive methods of MADD, this is now seen by many as both risky and immoral. Leaf node negative sanction works.

Targeting the end user is just as stupid as targeting the mfg and distribution system.

If you want to get people to quit using pain relievers

TARGET THE PAIN

What? You have no cure yet for most of it? Medical ethics (well it used to have some) says keep them comfortable - i.e. give them their pain relief.

Target people in pain. Yeah. That is the ticket. We can force them to give up their pain. Or at least drive it underground. Say. Isn't it underground already?

You might be amused by this one:

Vets confounded by dueling medical pot rules

One agency says you can use it if you need it. Another says we will bust your a$$.

[MSimon]

Mothers Against Drunk Driving has clearly become not simply anti-drunk driving or even anti-impaired driving, but anti-alcohol. MADD’s temperance orientation expresses itself in many ways, as seen in Is MADD Neo-Prohibitionist?

III. MADD’s Use of “Science”

Unfortunately, Mothers Against Drunk Driving often uses junk science to promote its agenda. For example, a very brief three-page study by MADD former vice president Ralph Hingson made a statistical assertion in support of MADD’s policy agenda that the U.S. Department of Transportation had been unable to establish after 15 years of careful research. Even after the General U.S. Accounting Office issued a report to Congress insisting that the Hingson claim was "unfounded," MADD continues to quote the unsubstantiated estimate as scientific fact. 9

To learn more about MADD’s misuse science to promote its agenda, visit MADD, Junk Science, and the Misuse of Science.

http://alcoholfacts.org/CrashCourseOnMADD.html

Summary

MADD's original goal was an enormously important one -- to reduce drunk driving and the deaths and injuries that it causes. However, as its founder observed, the group has become neo-prohibitionist. As a former MADD chapter president explains, it's "a big corporation" and "all about money." Unfortunately, what began as a dedicated volunteer group of caring women has become a largely indifferent self-serving bureaucracy.

Go to the link to find the links mentioned.

[williatw]

By Diogenes logic, we should be prohibiting guns as well as they kill people. Perhaps we should prohibit cars because they contribute to 100% of all car accidents *gasp*. Or maybe the H2O Hoax is legit and should be prohibited? (Sarcasm)

That's a childish comparison. We need guns BECAUSE they kill people. If we didn't have guns, those that did would enslave us.

We can survive without alcohol, but we cannot survive without guns. If you are going to make a ridiculous comparison, your Dihydrogen Monoxide argument which kills 3,308 people per year is much better. On the other hand, we need that stuff too.

I don't trust too much of what Diogenes says these days. His methods are to recite the usual propaganda from the uninformed blogs that fit his specific view of the world.

You are just annoyed because when I say alcohol kills 11,000 people per year, I happen to be right.

I can't help but view him as a grumpy old white man too busy telling kids to get out of his lawn and retelling stories of the good'ol'days before any social equality movements. This is not to say that he is a grumpy old man, but that I have trouble picturing anything else.

I don't mind being pictured that way. When I was a child, I lectured grown ups, and now that I am a grown up I lecture "children"!

Well on the subject of guns..it does seem we are finally starting to get our 2nd amendment rights back. I am a proud CCW holder in Ohio which like Texas has a limited Castle Doctrine(applies to your vehicle & home and I think business not sure). Wish ohio would like Texas expand it to "stand your ground laws"(no duty to retreat anywhere you have a lawfull right to be) and to apply it to your right to defend property with deadly force if need be like again Texas has. I wonder if hypothetically if we came down full square on the right of the property owner (say the owner of a store in a bad neighborhood) to use deadly force if neccessary to stop a crime in progress against street gang member stealing/destruction of property what effect that would have on crime.

[choff]

Well on the subject of guns..it does seem we are finally starting to get our 2nd amendment rights back. I am a proud CCW holder in Ohio which like Texas has a limited Castle Doctrine(applies to your vehicle & home and I think business not sure). Wish ohio would like Texas expand it to "stand your ground laws"(no duty to retreat anywhere you have a lawfull right to be) and to apply it to your right to defend property with deadly force if need be like again Texas has. I wonder if hypothetically if we came down full square on the right of the property owner (say the owner of a store in a bad neighborhood) to use deadly force if neccessary to stop a crime in progress against street gang member stealing/destruction of property what effect that would have on crime.

Guns aren't all bad.

http://www.standard.net/stories/2011/12 ... ing-victim

[AcesHigh]

By Diogenes logic, we should be prohibiting guns as well as they kill people. Perhaps we should prohibit cars because they contribute to 100% of all car accidents *gasp*. Or maybe the H2O Hoax is legit and should be prohibited? (Sarcasm)

That's a childish comparison. We need guns BECAUSE they kill people. If we didn't have guns, those that did would enslave us.

no, YOURS was the childish comparison.

by your logic, normal people should have access to nuclear weapons, grenades, biochemical weapons, cluster bombs, etc.


you are as intelligent as your hero
[youtube]yDgSR2wtPrc[/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDgSR2wtPrc

[MSimon]

By Diogenes logic, we should be prohibiting guns as well as they kill people. Perhaps we should prohibit cars because they contribute to 100% of all car accidents *gasp*. Or maybe the H2O Hoax is legit and should be prohibited? (Sarcasm)

That's a childish comparison. We need guns BECAUSE they kill people. If we didn't have guns, those that did would enslave us.

no, YOURS was the childish comparison.

by your logic, normal people should have access to nuclear weapons, grenades, biochemical weapons, cluster bombs, etc.


you are as intelligent as your hero
[youtube]yDgSR2wtPrc[/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDgSR2wtPrc

Aces,

Actually - everyday access to bioweapons is not far off. Grenades are a black market item. Not popular in the US at this time.

And nukes? You better have some big time cash and a team of handlers.

OTOH D wants to treat us all as children - you can be trusted with guns but that dope stuff - well only doctors can be trusted with that stuff it is so dangerous. And not even most doctors. Or most people in pain.

My attitude: People might as well learn to live in the actual environment around them and it is awash in guns AND drugs. It is just that we have turned the drug thing into a profit center for criminal cartels. Prohibition is working so well that the vegetables included represent 10% of world trade - last I looked.

That is a lot of $$$ for something that is supposedly prohibited.

[Diogenes]

Well on the subject of guns..it does seem we are finally starting to get our 2nd amendment rights back. I am a proud CCW holder in Ohio which like Texas has a limited Castle Doctrine(applies to your vehicle & home and I think business not sure). Wish ohio would like Texas expand it to "stand your ground laws"(no duty to retreat anywhere you have a lawfull right to be) and to apply it to your right to defend property with deadly force if need be like again Texas has. I wonder if hypothetically if we came down full square on the right of the property owner (say the owner of a store in a bad neighborhood) to use deadly force if neccessary to stop a crime in progress against street gang member stealing/destruction of property what effect that would have on crime.

Texas is doing things right. Eventually, after exhausting all other possibilities, the rest of the nation will quit being so childish and start following Texas' lead.

I used to do quite a bit of campaigning for Gun Rights, and it has never ceased to amaze me that it took over 200 years for the Supreme Court to finally figure out that the right to keep and bear arms was always intended to be an individual right, such as freedom of speech, or the press.

Even so, our Supreme court has four IDIOT\CORRUPT judges that do not believe in the supreme individual right. Hopefully we will survive as a nation long enough to get rid of them (IMPEACH!) and other such judges.

[Diogenes]

By Diogenes logic, we should be prohibiting guns as well as they kill people. Perhaps we should prohibit cars because they contribute to 100% of all car accidents *gasp*. Or maybe the H2O Hoax is legit and should be prohibited? (Sarcasm)

That's a childish comparison. We need guns BECAUSE they kill people. If we didn't have guns, those that did would enslave us.

no, YOURS was the childish comparison.

by your logic, normal people should have access to nuclear weapons, grenades, biochemical weapons, cluster bombs, etc.


you are as intelligent as your hero
[youtube]yDgSR2wtPrc[/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDgSR2wtPrc

A yapping poodle makes more sense. I'm not going to bother with you.

[williatw]

Actually - everyday access to bioweapons is not far off. Grenades are a black market item. Not popular in the US at this time.

And nukes? You better have some big time cash and a team of handlers.

OTOH D wants to treat us all as children - you can be trusted with guns but that dope stuff - well only doctors can be trusted with that stuff it is so dangerous. And not even most doctors. Or most people in pain.

My attitude: People might as well learn to live in the actual environment around them and it is awash in guns AND drugs. It is just that we have turned the drug thing into a profit center for criminal cartels. Prohibition is working so well that the vegetables included represent 10% of world trade - last I looked. Regulate the concentration of the harder drugs, pot probably much less so, leave it up to the states.

That is a lot of $$$ for something that is supposedly prohibited.

If I had my druthers...I would legalize & regulate. Get the feds(disband ATF & DEA) out of it kick it back to the states. They could regulate as they saw fit. Thinking since concentration seem to be the critical factor for irreversible addiction for all the drugs including alcohol, thats what I would regulate. Imagine a product called "Herox" that is say 3.5% heroin cut with something safe. Similar regs for cocaine or even meth. Sold only at state licensed liquor stores, user required to register with state, etc. Saw that Ken Burns special on Prohibition..remember it said in the early parts that while beer & wine had been around since biblical times the really big problems didn't start untill the 1700's when they started distilling alcohol to make whiskey and other hard liquors. You went from beer(3% alcohol) or wine(maybe 10%) to whiskeys that could be better than 100 proof. Prohibition failed obviously our modern strategy is to make wine and especially beer easy to get, hard liquor legal but harder to get.

[Diogenes]

That's a childish comparison. We need guns BECAUSE they kill people. If we didn't have guns, those that did would enslave us.

no, YOURS was the childish comparison.

by your logic, normal people should have access to nuclear weapons, grenades, biochemical weapons, cluster bombs, etc.


you are as intelligent as your hero
[youtube]yDgSR2wtPrc[/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDgSR2wtPrc

Aces,

Actually - everyday access to bioweapons is not far off. Grenades are a black market item. Not popular in the US at this time.

And nukes? You better have some big time cash and a team of handlers.

OTOH D wants to treat us all as children - you can be trusted with guns but that dope stuff - well only doctors can be trusted with that stuff it is so dangerous. And not even most doctors. Or most people in pain.

You misstate my position. I daresay that guns probably kill a lot fewer of their users than do drugs.

My attitude: People might as well learn to live in the actual environment around them and it is awash in guns AND drugs. It is just that we have turned the drug thing into a profit center for criminal cartels. Prohibition is working so well that the vegetables included represent 10% of world trade - last I looked.

That is a lot of $$$ for something that is supposedly prohibited.

This argument reminds me of the liberal argument against the death penalty. One of their arguments is that it costs too much.

Yes, it costs to much because LIBERAL B@STARDS keep running the costs up by FIGHTING IT! As far as I'm concerned, every death penalty opponent should be required to PAY THAT BILL (for incarceration) all by themselves.

The Drug war could be won if you just raised the costs of getting caught so high that none could afford it. Shoot enough drug dealers and the problem will eventually stop. (Again, it worked in China.) What makes it cost so much is people not willing to punch a few tickets to stop it.

[Diogenes]

Actually - everyday access to bioweapons is not far off. Grenades are a black market item. Not popular in the US at this time.

And nukes? You better have some big time cash and a team of handlers.

OTOH D wants to treat us all as children - you can be trusted with guns but that dope stuff - well only doctors can be trusted with that stuff it is so dangerous. And not even most doctors. Or most people in pain.

My attitude: People might as well learn to live in the actual environment around them and it is awash in guns AND drugs. It is just that we have turned the drug thing into a profit center for criminal cartels. Prohibition is working so well that the vegetables included represent 10% of world trade - last I looked. Regulate the concentration of the harder drugs, pot probably much less so, leave it up to the states.

That is a lot of $$$ for something that is supposedly prohibited.

If I had my druthers...I would legalize & regulate. Get the feds(disband ATF & DEA) out of it kick it back to the states. They could regulate as they saw fit. Thinking since concentration seem to be the critical factor for irreversible addiction for all the drugs including alcohol, thats what I would regulate. Imagine a product called "Herox" that is say 3.5% heroin cut with something safe. Similar regs for cocaine or even meth. Sold only at state licensed liquor stores, user required to register with state, etc. Saw that Ken Burns special on Prohibition..remember it said in the early parts that while beer & wine had been around since biblical times the really big problems didn't start untill the 1700's when they started distilling alcohol to make whiskey and other hard liquors. You went from beer(3% alcohol) or wine(maybe 10%) to whiskeys that could be better than 100 proof. Prohibition failed obviously our modern strategy is to make wine and especially beer easy to get, hard liquor legal but harder to get.

I saw bits and pieces of that special. I noticed biases in it that render it as propaganda rather than an even handed analysis. One of the most common biases in it was the continuous use of the word "thirsty" when referring to someone who wanted to get drunk.

"Thirsty" is a misleading term implying that someone is being deprived of a necessary bodily need as opposed to being deprived of a buzz. The usage of such a word misleads and sanitizes the narrative.

Apart from that, the "documentary" continuously asserted that prohibition was not possible, as opposed to exploring (in depth) alternative means by which it might have been implemented which would not have produced the ill effects which occurred.

I have often pointed out that if the current war on tobacco keeps going, we will eventually see the end of smoking or other tobacco usage. Slow steady attrition may eventually create a defacto prohibition of tobacco usage. If it does, then we will know that prohibition of alcohol\drugs is not a faulty concept, it was just implemented in a faulty manner.


As for your idea about legalizing it, I have also suggested several times the idea of a "drug/alcohol" license. (Such as a check box on a drivers license.) For those that can do it responsibly, it would grant them the indulgence they want. For those that cannot, it would enable them to be regulated out of the usage.

[MSimon]

Kids do drugs. And they have sex.

But I get your point D. People can be trusted with guns. But plants? We have to outlaw them.

Unfortunately the tides are against you because prohibition ALWAYS accomplishes the opposite of what it claims to accomplish.

Fighting the cartel SYSTEM makes the cartels stronger. I do not deny that you can for a time defeat individuals and some of the cartels. But since warring on them increases their profits although it may take down individual cartels it strengthens the cartel SYSTEM.

We didn't defeat the alcohol cartel system in America by taking out Al Capone on tax evasion charges. We did it by making it unprofitable for the CARTELs to operate. And experience shows you can't do that by fighting them harder. That only increases the SYSTEM's profits. We killed the alcohol cartels by legalizing.

The war on children has created a cohort that will in time end the war.

In any case the cartel system has so corrupted our legal system that neither your nor my methods for ending the war are going to prove very effective in the short run. However, you do have an advantage over me in one respect. The cartels will be on your side. Their profits depend on it.

[MSimon]

D,

It looks like you will be getting the war you wanted. Evidently after Iraq/Afghanistan the Army wants something to do. A war with Mexico looks like just the ticket.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/mexico ... affrey.htm

BTW the Taliban appears to have won in Afghanistan. We are leaving. They are not. I expect the cartels will win in Mexico too. Because fighting them makes their SYSTEM stronger.

====

I like your idea about getting a license to indulge. We used to have one of those for sex. And it seemed to work tolerably well - until people decided that they didn't need a license. And now the system is well on the way to breaking down. Perhaps irrevocably. I expect your "indulgence" idea will go the same way if implemented.

When some one figures out a way to make viruses/bacteria excrete THC, or amphetamines, or opiates you will have lost without recourse. It is just a matter of time. The more pressure you put on plants the more effort that will go into developing biologicals.

In this age there is no way to keep people from getting what they want. And if pain relief is at the core of drug use then you will find it near impossible to stop. Because the demand for pain relief is very inelastic.

====

The tighter you squeeze the more surely what you want will slip from your grasp.

Nature has a way - after much pain and suffering - of bringing the squeezers to a premature end. Often ignominious too. We have a saying for that even. "How the mighty have fallen."