Ronald Reagan, the Greatest President Of My Lifetime

[Betruger]

I don't know which offends peoples sensibilities more, the suggestion of the Chinese solution(kill all the users) or my suggestion(eradicate the crops). The drug war in Mexico has reached a state of violence where either the drug cartels overthrow the government or the government wipes out the cartels using marshall law or unconstitutional means.

But just imagine, if all the coca crops and marijuana crops suddenly failed, wiped out. Overnight, the Mexican drug cartels and government are left with no money to kill for and nothing to seize control of. What do they use as a motivation to keep up the carnage, crisis solved.

Also, just imagine, the effect on society if after a few weeks of withdrawal pains, the entire population was 100% stone cold sober. Has anyone ever considered the collective subconsious effect that drug abuse currently has on societal values and public perceptions. Instead of trying to medicate national problems away, all of a sudden everyone wants to confront them head on, because its the only coping option left to them.

That's just a band aid. What it sounds like you're after is further on: Remove not the drugs but the neurochemical need for them.

[IntLibber]

In one neighbourhood in my city, every single night the firefighters and ambulance services resurrect at least one addict turning blue from an OD. In that one neighbourhood are 1000 government programs for the poor and addicted. If it wasn't for the efforts of these people you would have at least one more dead heroin addict every day 365 days a year, all in an area of probably less than 50,000 residents.

If you were giving these drugs to baby Harp seals Greenpeace would be all over you. If these were animals the SPCA would take half of them to animal shelters and euthanize the other half, but these are humans, so nobody cares.

When some maniac goes berserk with a machine gun we don't legalize it with the expectation fewer people will be killed from tolerance of berserkers.

If all the illegal drugs were eradicated, then addicts would suffer from going cold turkey for a few weeks at most, then they'd start coming back to life. For every addict that is self medicating to deal with personal suffering, there are another ten for whom drugs cause the personal suffering.

The legalization crowd are running a version of 'THE BIG LIE.' They think that if they keep repeating it people will be shocked into submission. The BC Marijuana party has never drawn more than 5% of the vote, even less from an alliance with the Green Party, this in one of the most laid back liberal places on earth. If you can't make it legal here, good luck anywere else.

In those US neighbourhoods that do make it legal you're going to see one crowd of people moving out and another sort of crowd moving in, goodbye property values.

Dude, medical marijuana is legal in 17 states now, and that number is growing with each election. 13 states have decriminalized personal use.

More than 60 US and international health organizations support medical marijuana use.

At present, enforcement of ineffective marijuana laws costs the taxpayers a minimum of $10 billion dollars per year. With legalization, regulation, and taxation, you turn an economic drain into a revenue source that funds programs for treatment of those who fall into misuse.

The whole "change your neighborhood" argument is a typical scare tactic. Didn't happen with booze did it? They said the same thing then about relegalizing alcohol.

[Betruger]

And the evils of alcohol (as someone upthread referred to via article detailing alcoholic violence, etc) IMHO are also no such thing. Alcohol simply brings out what was already there. It doesn't create monsters out of healthy personalities. I'm no doctor or specialist, but not once in all my slightly above average first-hand experience with drunks have I seen such an effect.

[Tom Ligon]

Alcohol lowers inhibitions, so it may only unleash an inner monster, but that monster may stay well bottled up if the normal inhibitions of a disciplined mind hold.

I had an all-too-close relationship with a nasty drunk growing up. Sober he was rational and not violent, prone to be hyper-critical and almost impossible to please. Drunk he would hit. Give me the inhibitions.

For years I was a tee-totaller because I was afraid I'd end up like that. Then I discovered I hate even being tipsy

[WizWom]

http://blog.mpp.org/prohibition/netherl ... /05262009/
An interesting bit about the crime problem in the Netherlands - or, rather, the lack of one.

[choff]

Funny, but I don't see the fall off in crime along the US/Mexico border vis a vis drugs. Bootlegging along the BC/US border is almost a time honored tradition. Perhaps because geographically production/distribution is separate from consumption you don't see the problems, I do.
Now, if legalization is extended beyond personal possesion you may see the business model in Northern Mexico move directly to your neighbourhood. If this were to happen, it will be extremely fortuneate than firearms are easily accessible to the ordinary citizenry, as they will become essential to survival!
Bear in mind that in describing problems local to my area I often lump all of them together, not just marijuana. Ironically, where I grew up there was a high percentage of Dutch immigrants. The local population is now almost a reflection of world population distribution.
In a survey of ethnic and racial groups by local police, it was found that the criminal element is an identical percentage in each. We had if fact one organization called the UN gang, proof that all the people of the world can come together in a common cause.

[WizWom]

Now, if legalization is extended beyond personal possesion you may see the business model in Northern Mexico move directly to your neighbourhood. If this were to happen, it will be extremely fortuneate than firearms are easily accessible to the ordinary citizenry, as they will become essential to survival!

You know, I don't see much crime involved with Tobacco farming in Virginia. Hemp (and pretty good Pot) is really easy to farm, and when all you need to do is sell it to a buyer for a company, where's the crime?

You are being REALLY silly.

[Diogenes]

"The legalization crowd". You're not talking with a crowd here. You're talking with a few people who don't group-think: TallDave, Tom Ligon, MSimon, myself, and others who'll forgive me for (or be grateful that) I forgot.

You are a component of "the legalization crowd." Please inform your other members that your arguments were badly defeated in this forum and that you'll have to think up new ones in order to further your agenda.

If all the illegal drugs were eradicated, then addicts would suffer from going cold turkey for a few weeks at most, then they'd start coming back to life.

If all people were as informed about drugs as they are about AIDS and other STDs (to paraphrase T.Ligon: why don't we just ban random and/or infectious sex?

We used to do exactly that before society went to hell. People did it anyway, but not at the same scale. Stigma is a positive force in society.

Then again that's not a good analogy either: it takes two to tango), if drugs were designed and produced in quality and legalized comprehensively as guns are, if the neurochemistry was understood as it eventually would be in legalized circumstances (moreso than under prohibition), you would have a country (not Canada, the specific context is the USA here) dealing with drugs at least as well as it does now with the dysfunctional "war on drugs".

It is only dysfunctional in the minds of those people who don't want it in the first place. Compared to what would happen without the war on drugs (China circa 1906) the war on drugs is the lesser of two evils.

For every addict that is self medicating to deal with personal suffering, there are another ten for whom drugs cause the personal suffering.

Personal responsibility.

Let them eat cake. (it over looks the fact that they can't. )

If you can't make it legal here, good luck anywere else.

Again right and wrong isn't up for vote or peer pressure. A major tenet of the authentic USA is an inherent casualty of drug prohibition as we have it.

Theoretical right and wrong is established by the theory one is advocating. De Facto right and wrong (the kind they will punish you for) is indeed decided by a byzantine consensus method. You get your guys in office, IF they remain true to your beliefs, you can get them to pass laws that reflect your beliefs.

[Diogenes]

Man, has this thread drifted.

Diogenes, Choff, etc, please note that I'm opposed to the use of recreational drugs, detest even being tipsy, and can think of a long list of drugs that are life-destroyers. I was raised learning the horror stories in a society carrying on a war on drugs, bodies on the street at least weekly. It would never have occurred to me that our strategy was wrong ...

... until I read an old interview with Barry Goldwater, of all the unlikely sources.

Now that had to make me stop and think.

While I have never been a big Barry Goldwater fan, I would be interested in reading whatever it was that changed your mind. Do you have a link?

The thinking ain't over. I said to Diogenes a page or two back that I was not convinced we should do this with heroin and a relatively long list of other hard drugs with very bad reputations.

This debate may be tedious, but it is worth having.

The Chinese case was that the drug dealers were the British. One government to another, the Chinese could ask the British to cut it out. I would propose that in our current situation, you can ask the drug cartels as nicely as you please to cut it out and you are not going to have any response, except maybe uproarious laughter. The drugs will continue to flow unless you are prepared to get really, really nasty. Unconstitutionally so.

There have been some failed attempts to have legal drug distribution. Methadone was supposed to un-hook heroin addicts, but turned out to be more addictive than heroin.

Cigarettes contain a drug possibly more addictive than opiates, nicotine. In WWII the army passed out cigs by the boatload, literally. The Chinese government has a tobacco monopoly, and was pushing them on the population. The US is now actively discouraging their use and is pushing consumption down. China may just be figuring it out.

We've already talked about booze. It is used by maybe 80% of the population. It is taxed, regulated, and even the makers encourage moderation. In the early history of this country, in some areas, I've seen reports of alcohol abuse levels in the adult male population that probably topped that 27% of adult male opium addicts in China. Somehow we beat that.

They are not of equal vileness. Opium is a far harder nut to crack than is alcoholism.

Heroin was the big threat when I was a kid. It faded into the background as other drugs came to prominince. LSD was in for a while. Cocaine. Crack. PCP. Meth. A whole bunch that have come and gone so fast we never learned their names. They come and go. Some have shown some staying power. At the moment some of the worst are actually legal drugs illegally obtained, especially Oxycontin, which makes addicts so desperate they make heroin addicts look tame.

The users do not care that it is illegal or dangerous. There is only one way to change this. Change public attitudes. We have done it before.

If attitudes are changed, the drug dealers are out of business.

A major component of public attitude is official sanction. Many people accept the fallacy of authority and adjust their opinions accordingly. As a result, it is quite important what the "Official" position is in regarding attempts to stigmatize something.

I don't know how we'll end up dealing with it, but it seems pretty likely that MaryJane is gonna be legalized, at least in selected states, with some level of regulation. Thats going to be the test case. It will be complicated by claims that MJ is actually beneficial. I would point out the same claims were originally made of tobacco.

If these guys would argue that the "Federal Government" has no business enforcing drug laws because such laws are outside the constitutional mandate of the Federal government, they might have a much more persuadable argument. No, they argue that people have a "right" to get doped up, and that includes the most vile and destructive drugs ever discovered. A much less sympathetic argument.

[Diogenes]

I don't know which offends peoples sensibilities more, the suggestion of the Chinese solution(kill all the users) or my suggestion(eradicate the crops). The drug war in Mexico has reached a state of violence where either the drug cartels overthrow the government or the government wipes out the cartels using marshall law or unconstitutional means.

But just imagine, if all the coca crops and marijuana crops suddenly failed, wiped out. Overnight, the Mexican drug cartels and government are left with no money to kill for and nothing to seize control of. What do they use as a motivation to keep up the carnage, crisis solved.

Also, just imagine, the effect on society if after a few weeks of withdrawal pains, the entire population was 100% stone cold sober. Has anyone ever considered the collective subconsious effect that drug abuse currently has on societal values and public perceptions. Instead of trying to medicate national problems away, all of a sudden everyone wants to confront them head on, because its the only coping option left to them.

I postulate that whenever a challenge to the government (from whatever cause) reaches some threshold level, the government will completely ignore such things as "rights" and "constitution" etc. because it will be at that point fighting for it's life.

As Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and other constitutional requirements, so would any other government once it's wrath is sufficiently aroused. If the Mexican government takes no action, it will be overthrown. Perhaps the Narco-Gangs would make better leaders anyway. At least they know how to fight.

[Diogenes]

Regarding this business of free will, during my high school years I had the misfortune of watching people using a variety of drugs for the very first time. My impression was that most of these people couldn't even define free will. The clique leader would just do it when offered and the rest would follow without a moments thought or hesitation. A flock of sheep would look like a debating society in comparison. Same with tobacco, they'd see their parents and parents friends smoking and just go over and start themselves, the adults wouldn't even react.

Advertisers have understood this herd mentality in humans for at least a hundred years. All they have to do is put it on the market, advertise, get some movie star to do it and voila. Most people actually mistrust people who show hesitancy and aren't impulsive. In one high school study, the students were given pictures of criminals, atheletes and nerdy kids. When told to rate them in terms of popularity, the atheletes were on top, criminals second, nerds dead last.

Unfortunately, mankind is more motivated by social pressure than reason.

[Diogenes]

From my experience, Logic is the method that works the worst!

The conclusions from your experience are wrong. Emotion isn't random or chaotic. It's based on the same premise as reason: causality. Reason and emotion stem from the same thing. Someone who refuses to admit plain sense doesn't make that sense any less true; another fallacious argument. I mean what a ridiculous argument. If not reason (no matter how incorrect the reasoning), what's the basis for something being accepted as "true"? It's always causality, logic, reason. It doesn't matter what the flavor is.

If you think the argument is ridiculous, the fault lies in you more than the argument. Hitler made accusations and repeated them. He made speeches that roused the crowds. There was no thinking going on. Just feeling. The unimpressed people in the crowd went along with the rest because the impressed people were vociferous and determined.

Our current precident is built on fluff and nonsense. No thinking person would have rallied to his banner, but he was magic to those "feeling" people. Now that we see the consequences of electing a nothing, the spell is starting to break. The argument that reason wins in an exchange with emotion is what is ridiculous.

...
I'm not arguing any more. It's a waste of time. You don't make sense.

Wrong on both counts. *MY* arguing with you is not a waste of time because onlookers can see that your position is being challenged, which is a good thing. Too often, people spreading bad memes go unchallenged and the memes stick, much to the detriment of society.

As for me not making sense, this is a subjective perspective. You equate the condition of not being able to understand or follow my arguments to them not makings sense. The arguments do in fact make sense, and are inherently consistent, but they are not simple and easy to grasp. If they were, they would be far more pervasive than they are currently.

You sound like someone who hasn't been out of America or was impermeable to those outsider insights; a major handicap. There's fallacious bits all over your posts and I'm no grammar teacher with a correction fetish.

Fallacy of logic is independent of grammar. You have found no fallacies in my arguments, you simply mistake that which you cannot follow for being wrong.

There's nothing to gain from this: you don't make policy, I don't either, policy makers aren't reading this; and above all I'm not learning anything from arguing with you. Except pretty good evidence that a good part of Americans want a new country that's not true to the founding principles.

Yes, your side. You think the founders were a bunch of Libertarians. They weren't. They were motivated in most part by an understanding of the needs of civil society as they perceived them from an explicitly Christian perspective. Thomas Jefferson proposed a law requiring castration for sodomy.

Like I said, not very Libertarian.

E.G.

Cholera would have killed most people. This guy got away with it. Do you think he understood how reckless it was before he did it?

GEE I DON'T KNOW. How could you possibly know, nowadays, that drugs are dangerous?

Well, for newbies, they have to actually see drugs F*ck up other people. Nobody believes, or takes to heart all the admonishments by their parents and the authorities. The only way most of them really understand is to stare misery in the face and realize that "there but for the grace of God go I." Unfortunately, too many of them are drawn into the maelstrom before they get a chance to truly understand the danger.

My argument all along is that these people simply never understand the danger of what they are dealing with. You say they could, and I say they could but don't.

[TallDave]

"Shameless lying"

I wasn't referring to you specifically. I had in mind "Reefer Madness" and the study that claimed to find "brain damage" in monkeys from cannabis use (which was later withdrawn as completely wrong, but apparently that didn't stop them from showing it to me in 4th grade).

In any case, you are arguing that having 27% of adult males in America addicted to drugs is oki doki. I

I'm fine with 27% of adult males doing whatever they like in the privacy of their own homes. I'm not in favor of spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to try to make them do what you or I think is better for them through the use of state violence.

Back when we had 25% of Americans out of work, we called it the "Great Depression." I can't imagine why the Chinese would object to that!

Why do you assume they weren't working? Addicts are generally quite capable of functioning normally, if you don't criminalize their addiction. See William Stewart Halsted, the father of modern surgery.

This debate can be distilled to one fairly simple question: do you allow people to make their own mistakes, as long as they are harming only themselves, and criminalize only direct harm to others, or do you criminalize bad choices even in situations where they have no effect on anyone else?

[Diogenes]

I don't know which offends peoples sensibilities more, the suggestion of the Chinese solution(kill all the users) or my suggestion(eradicate the crops). The drug war in Mexico has reached a state of violence where either the drug cartels overthrow the government or the government wipes out the cartels using marshall law or unconstitutional means.

But just imagine, if all the coca crops and marijuana crops suddenly failed, wiped out. Overnight, the Mexican drug cartels and government are left with no money to kill for and nothing to seize control of. What do they use as a motivation to keep up the carnage, crisis solved.

Also, just imagine, the effect on society if after a few weeks of withdrawal pains, the entire population was 100% stone cold sober. Has anyone ever considered the collective subconsious effect that drug abuse currently has on societal values and public perceptions. Instead of trying to medicate national problems away, all of a sudden everyone wants to confront them head on, because its the only coping option left to them.

That's just a band aid. What it sounds like you're after is further on: Remove not the drugs but the neurochemical need for them.

The drugs are evolved plant toxins that are similar chemically to compounds required by our physiology to function. These plant toxins mimic similar hormones in our bodies for the purpose of KILLING us. To remove the neurochemical need is to kill us, because it is inherent in our biological functions. (that's why the drugs work. We have binding sites for them.)

[Diogenes]

And the evils of alcohol (as someone upthread referred to via article detailing alcoholic violence, etc) IMHO are also no such thing. Alcohol simply brings out what was already there. It doesn't create monsters out of healthy personalities. I'm no doctor or specialist, but not once in all my slightly above average first-hand experience with drunks have I seen such an effect.

It doesn't always "bring out what is already there." I know for a fact that there are people with great coordination and judgment. Give them sufficient alcohol, and they are uncoordinated and irresponsible.