mvanwink5 wrote:Diogenes,
I am going out on a limb here and posit that you know your assignments of responsibility are in trouble, but because you see such misery and hurt caused by inappropriate drug use, you think that stretching responsibility out will force others into participating in stopping the drug abuse.
Not sure what you are talking about. It is in the best interest of a nation to not allow people to play with dangerous pathogens such as Ebola or Yersinia pestis. I view drugs similarly to dangerous pathogens.
They (drugs) have a relatively slow incubation rate, and the symptoms can often be lived with, and some people can even recover, but the ugly truth is that many will die from it, and in the meantime kill or injure and infect other people.
If allowed to fester and grow, the disease will encompass 50% of the population, just as it did in China. I just don't think you comprehend this.
mvanwink5 wrote:
So when MSimon points out the collateral damage caused by the approach you're suggesting, and further suggests that such an approach hasn't reduced the drug abuse, you are resorting to lashing out.
Obviously you are new to this discussion. Simon points out that the addiction rate was 2% 150 years ago, and that today the addiction rate is still 2% despite the fact we spend 25 billion (a pittance compared to other expenditures) on it every year. He regards this as evidence that it is impossible to eradicate and that the money is being wasted.
I have repeatedly pointed out that the normal spread of the drug addiction in a nation looks like this.
Chests of Opium imported into China.
To attain a stationary condition against a constant force requires the expenditure of ENERGY. (Seems like I wouldn't have to be pointing this out to physics types, but some people don't seem to comprehend this.)
That addiction is held down to 2% of the population is the result of the War on Drugs. Cut the brake lines and we will look like China did in 1905 with a 50% addiction rate.
mvanwink5 wrote:
My point would be that there are no easy or simple solutions, but wrong solutions don't work.
There are easy solutions, but we don't have the inclination to use them. China eradicated it's drug addiction problem by executing dealers and addicts. After awhile, nobody wanted to play with them any more. The same solution would work in this country, but most people think that goes too far, and as long as the addiction rate stays around 2%, nobody is going to accept a draconian solution.
Should the addiction rate climb to say 25%, people may very well reconsider this simple method of solving the problem. As it is, the Drug War keeps things from getting so bad as to have people demanding an actual and permanent solution.
Here's what it looks like in Singapore. (Where they KILL YOU if they catch you with drugs.)
“According to the 2008 World Drug Report by the United Nations office on drugs and crime 8.2% of the UK population are cannabis abusers; in Singapore it is 0.005%. For ecstasy, the figures are 1.8% for the UK and 0.003% for Singapore; and for opiates – such as heroin, opium and morphine – 0.9% for the UK and 0.005% for Singapore. We do not have traffickers pushing drugs openly in the streets, nor do we need to run needle exchange centres,” he said.
mvanwink5 wrote:
Just so you know, I am not a debater and I surely am not an evangelist trying to convert your views, I do see there are clear problems, I just don't agree with your proposed solutions, which clearly aren't working.
That would be a neat trick, because i've proffered no solutions to the problem. I have only pointed out that legalizing is the exact opposite of a solution.
mvanwink5 wrote:
There are solutions that aren't simple, aren't guaranteed 100% effective, but short of dealing with the cause, which is likely biological, the problem likely can't be fixed to your or my satisfaction.
Just my point of view, and best regards
People familiar with engineering realize that reality seldom lends itself to 100% effectiveness. Superconductivity is one of the exceptions.
We must simply design for an optimal non-loss rate, not for perfection.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —