Libertine is Dangerous.

[ladajo]

Scott,

I agree, wikipedia is generally not an ideal source, but they do cite within the links I provided the actual research papers with data. It's hard not to use a source that cites all relevant text to the subject at hand and a waste of time to re-write others' research.

That is more or less how I see wikipedia and normally use it thus with the exception of the bolded parts. Going to the research and supporting analysis is so I can consider and form my own thoughts. Sometimes I agree with the findings, sometimes I do not. In the short, wikipedia can be a useful gateway. I also have developed some other methods and sources for certain types of research, and at work have wonderful access to many formal sources and repositories. All that, and a decent library in my office here at home, and I have plenty of references for a wide variety of topics.

You have piqued my curiosity on how the Harrison Act was implimented by the courts. I have found many times where a legislation came to life under certain pretenses, only to be enacted on down different path(s). I have not looked at Harrison in that context, and maybe should have already given the debates here.

[ladajo]

ladajo wrote:
In this and your previous arguments that you see decriminalization as an answer, as well as that you are against prohibition would seem to infer that you do think alcohol is a "drug" and drugs should be treated similarly.

No. The only reason I go on about alcohol is to point out the hypocrisy in the prohibitionist stance. Even Diogenes knows that to have a hardline prohibitionist stance on all recreational drugs except alcohol is hypocritical.

You do understand that Alcohol is under prohibition? It is no longer a blanket prohibition, but a prohibition none-the-less. It is also criminalized. If you do not use or distribute according to the law, it is a criminal act.

I see that as an attempt by society to manage the risk.

I understand that, but those arguments should be applied to all drugs *including* alcohol. When this is done, many prohibited drugs come out as posing less subjective and societal harms than alcohol. Equally some - heroin, crack, meth, tobacco - come out worse.

Also worth mentioning: any utilitarian calculus should not only consider harms, but also any associated goods. All drugs have some benefits, even where they are grossly outweighed by their harms.

I would posit that your calculus is based on the current "status quo". This is the cornerstone of Diogenes argument. I also posit that some drugs will fall out with risks that are too high for anything but blanket control (prohibition). The addiction rates are a key component in the argument. That is for voluntary use, what is the percentage chance per person that will a.) try, b.) continue use and c.) become addicted where being addicted is defined by not only personal harm, but harm to others and society. And, in this addiction, a level of loss of free will is established based on pyschological and physiological components. I currently believe that while a.) and b.) may be greater for Alcohol, c.) is a much greater number per person for "drugs".
Please note that I continue to use the terms "alcohol" and "drugs" as we have discussed, in an observance to societal perceptions.

As for the pyschological and physiological components. In my view it is physiological results that bring about pyschological needs. Going more beyond that rapidly leads to fundamental discussions being well debated in other circles about "what is self". I do not think it matters here. drug intake, causes physical interference in brain, creating both physical changes (tolerance, mechanism disruptions), and in turn conscious and unconscious behavioral changes. Baseline: Chemicals impact thinking.

I have always said that I do not have the answer. I have also always said that doing away with prohibition and blanket de-criminalization is not the right answer. I have also always said that the current system is not working, probably "holding the line" at best (given cost and impacts), but I also say that I do not yet see a viable alternative.

My personal past experiences not only in my direct family, but for a number of years professionally, in a number of places around the world, tell me that it is really a big problem without any easy answer. I see two vectors to explore, the profit motive and user demand. Niether of which in my opinon have a magic "press me" button to instantly fix.

[Diogenes]

Note to self.


"The Broken Window theory" as applied to crime.


Apply the same theory to social custom... "Drug tolerance", is "broken windows" tolerance, and will do to the culture what broken windows do to a Neighborhood.

[CKay]

You do understand that Alcohol is under prohibition? It is no longer a blanket prohibition, but a prohibition none-the-less.

Yes, of course - but notice I used the phrase hardline prohibitionist stance, which is certainly not what we have with alcohol.

I also posit that some drugs will fall out with risks that are too high for anything but blanket control (prohibition).

That would be a value judgement - not something that can be objectively proven either way. And, though I could be persuaded otherwise, there is no drug that I know of which poses significant enough risks to non-users to justify (and here justify is a value judgement of my own) the criminalisation and punishment of users. For me, punishing - causing harm to - those who have caused no harm is both an injustice and probably not the least harmful way of dealing with the problem anyway.

As for the pyschological and physiological components.

Yes, it is a lazy shorthand. The mind is an emergent phenomena of a physical thing; psychological effects are a special case of physiological effect. However, the term psychological is useful, because it specifies those effects that are of the mind, and because the mechanisms of physiological dependence and psychological dependence are qualitatively different. Information is involved in mind, so the psychological effects of drug addiction - memories, desires, cravings etc. - can remain active long after other purely physiological effects have disappeared.

And, just as non-drug addictions can be purely of the mind - gambling, for instance - I see no reason why a drug addiction can't be similarly of the mind.

I will, however, concede this: though I still believe that cocaine addiction is heavily weighted towards psychological effects, there is likely some degree of a purely physiological component.

I have always said that I do not have the answer.

Yep, same here. I am only expressing an opinion that's neither provably right, nor wrong. And it's not an opinion about which I am absolutely certain...


Anyhow, this discussion long since became a dreary adversarial affair, where we both just look for the tiniest holes in one another's argument to pick at or, failing that, present distorted version of those arguments (hey, at least I'm willing to own up to my strawmen). Not to say that I haven't got the time to respond to every point in your rather long posts. So that's it from me, for now. If you think that means you've won the debate - fill yer boots! He who types the longest is teh winnar!


Btw this:

in this addiction, a level of loss of free will is established

There. That would've been the next little hole I'd have picked at... (the concept of free will is bollox, imo)

[williatw]

Note to self.
"The Broken Window theory" as applied to crime.
Apply the same theory to social custom... "Drug tolerance", is "broken windows" tolerance, and will do to the culture what broken windows do to a Neighborhood.

Don't understand why posters keep arguing either the current system or one of total legality. If drugs and I am including heroin and crystal meth were legal they would almost certainly be heavily regulated. Legal heroin or meth would probably be a product sold at licensed facilities like state liquor stores heavily diluted. Legal heroin might be a product called "herox" 3.5% heroin or less. Users required by the state to be registered users(so if the cops pull you over they know what to test for). You have to be over 21, depending on the drug how much you can buy at one time etc. It is ridiculous to suggest it would be done any other way. After all if it were legal and unregulated then you could sell pure crystal meth at Wal-Mart next to the chewing gum. Obviously that wouldn't happen the 40% or so who would be adamantly opposed to legalizing it wouldn't magically disappear just because they were out-voted by the 60%. They would force the regs on it. To suggest otherwise is just a complete fantasy.

[Skipjack]

I cant see meth ever getting legal. It is way to dangerous. Besides the damages to the users, it is also damaging to others, as users get psychotic and violent on it.
I could see a Portugese model for most other drugs (no punishment for users, but for sellers) and a highly regulated model for pot (dutch system).

[CKay]

I cant see meth ever getting legal. It is way to dangerous. Besides the damages to the users, it is also damaging to others, as users get psychotic and violent on it.

Hmm, yeah, from what I hear (there isn't much meth over here) it sounds pretty crazy.

That was one drug I had in the back of my mind when I said I could be persuaded otherwise in my last post.

[williatw]

I cant see meth ever getting legal. It is way to dangerous. Besides the damages to the users, it is also damaging to others, as users get psychotic and violent on it.
I could see a Portugese model for most other drugs (no punishment for users, but for sellers) and a highly regulated model for pot (dutch system).

What if legal crystal meth was some product "methox" say 2% pure(cut with something safe), and heavily regulated as to selling and buying. Would such a low concentration make people psychotic and violent?

[CKay]

What if legal crystal meth was some product "methox" say 2% pure(cut with something safe), and heavily regulated as to selling and buying. Would such a low concentration make people psychotic and violent?

Nah, they'd just take 50x more, or as much as it took to get the effect they wanted. Or someone would work out how to purify the 2% cut.

[Teahive]

I hear you about peer age currency, but what do you make of this?
These numbers clearly state to me: In the aggregate, the more education completed, indiciates a significantly higher (7% building to ~15% <=17+13/2>) chance a given person will have used drugs.

adults aged 18 or older who had not finished high school had the lowest rate of lifetime illicit drug use (38.9 percent)

the lifetime rate among high school graduates (46.4 percent)

those with some college (56.2 percent)

those who were college graduates (52.0 percent)

Granted peak lifetime use occurs in the 20's, so that may speak to the "some college" bit. But remember, we are specifically looking at high school drop outs, verses continued in the education system. My hypothesis was based on seeking correllation for more education equals more chance to have tried drugs. Obviously, being in the education system is providing more opportunity (remember we are talking voluntary use), and I postulated on a possible "why" that could fit. Education is a left institution, the left is supportive of use, education breeds willingness to be aware of things around you, educated folks read, watch video media, etc more than uneducated ones. The media is also a left institution. The left is supportive of use (still). So layer one, the education system could be supportive of use (or at least open to use), the media could be the same. Layer two is educated people partake of more exposure to media. Not a large leap I think to consider that more education could lead to a higher chance of using drugs (lifetime) given the two layers of <we'll say> non-opposition stance prevalence in the education system and media system, especially when considering that education brings more exposure to both.
What do you think?

My exposure to US media is too limited for me to judge the slant there, though characterising the media as a whole as a left institution seems odd to me.

The numbers unfortunately don't paint a complete picture. Based purely on anecdotal evidence, I would speculate that the campus environment which brings together a large number of young people is in itself a breeding ground for experimentation. I'd say it's natural for them to question authority and be curious (with those seeking higher education probably being more curious than others). A lack of opportunity seems unlikely, and students usually have few responsibilities that would hold them back. At the same time, those who could serve as negative examples don't stay very long. I don't think it takes outside influence to make drug experimentation in such an environment more prevalent.

On the whole, though, I'd say that lifetime use is pretty irrelevant, and even the monthly figures don't give much indication of how many cases are actually a problem to society.

They would force the regs on it. To suggest otherwise is just a complete fantasy.

I agree, the only realistic "legalisation" I can see is regulation of some drugs similar to alcohol, while others would become prescription drugs. The most dangerous ones would not get regulatory approval for sale, but could be used in medical research.

[Betruger]

My exposure to US media is too limited for me to judge the slant there, though characterising the media as a whole as a left institution seems odd to me.

That is the characteristic trend.

[ladajo]

And, just as non-drug addictions can be purely of the mind - gambling, for instance - I see no reason why a drug addiction can't be similarly of the mind.

Interesting you say this. There are several informative studies out that discuss self-induced addiction. It starts as a psychological attempt to fill an amorphous need, playing a video game, watching sopa operas, gambling, etc. Which then manifests physiologically in the pain pleasure mechanism, which in turn re-enforces the process. There are serious parallels to drug induced addiction physical mechanisms. Very interesting stuff. Another interesting point that has come out is the long lasting physiological disruptions in the normal mechanisms that can persist for very long periods. One of the weird effects of coke for instance, is that an addict can "get off" and go clean from heavy usage. Then a number of years later, take one hit on a whim (as it were) and drop dead as his body overreacts to the dose. Weird.

As for who wins or loses, I never looked at our discourse that way. I looked at it as an educational opportunity for both of us. I learned from you, and I hope you from me (acidic as it may have been a couple of times).

On your last, please know that the comment on free will was not in the first cut. I added it on after thought, and curiously enough was thinking at the time you would call it out for some reason (that I did not know at that point).

For the record, I do not think we actively strawmanned each other. It seemd to be more a seeking to draw out each others meanings. In my experience, actual strawman fights are much more extreme than any exchange we had. Maybe it is a tolerance issue...

[williatw]

What if legal crystal meth was some product "methox" say 2% pure(cut with something safe), and heavily regulated as to selling and buying. Would such a low concentration make people psychotic and violent?

Nah, they'd just take 50x more, or as much as it took to get the effect they wanted. Or someone would work out how to purify the 2% cut.

If I purify 50X times more at how many times greater cost that would have to be passed on to the end user. So if I am a meth user why would I willingly pay many times the legal amount with the resulting financial and legal burden? Even though I could use the dilute form maybe cut with something to dampen the worse effects cheaply and legally. What percentage of people buy 70 or even 100 proof whiskey where it is legal and then distill it down to pure ethanol? Not worth the time or trouble. If "herox" or "methox" was cheap and legal what percentage of users would take the time or trouble to deal with the illegal stuff? How much moonshine gets sold in counties where the legal quality controlled relatively safe alcohol can be purchased much more cheaply?

[CKay]

What if legal crystal meth was some product "methox" say 2% pure(cut with something safe), and heavily regulated as to selling and buying. Would such a low concentration make people psychotic and violent?

Nah, they'd just take 50x more, or as much as it took to get the effect they wanted. Or someone would work out how to purify the 2% cut.

If I purify 50X times more at how many times greater cost that would have to be passed on to the end user. So if I am a meth user why would I willingly pay many times the legal amount with the resulting financial and legal burden? Even though I could use the dilute form maybe cut with something to dampen the worse effects cheaply and legally. What percentage of people buy 70 or even 100 proof whiskey where it is legal and then distill it down to pure ethanol? Not worth the time or trouble. If "herox" or "methox" was cheap and legal what percentage of users would take the time or trouble to deal with the illegal stuff? How much moonshine gets sold in counties where the legal quality controlled relatively safe alcohol can be purchased much more cheaply?

Honestly, it wouldn't work.

The analogy with alcohol isn't a good one - it's a very different drug to a stimulant like meth or coke. Users of stimulants do so purely to reach a desired level of intoxication, so they will consume as much as it takes to get that result. The purer it is the better. Given a choice between this very dilute, legal, but practically useless 2% stuff and an illegal but much purer supply, they would undoubtedly choose the latter. Or if the cost/effort made it worthwhile and someone could figure out how to do it, they'd just purify the 2% stuff.

[CKay]

I do not think we actively strawmanned each other.

Everybody does it without realising it. Some way more than others (that's not directed at you).

the comment on free will was not in the first cut. I added it on after thought, and curiously enough was thinking at the time you would call it out for some reason

No worries - the notion of free will is a proper can of worms. Very wriggly, tangled up ones at that.