Talk-Polywell.org

Prohibition doesn't work:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/14/ap-th ... un+Blog%29

Progressives never learn.

Jccarlton wrote:Prohibition doesn't work:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/14/ap-th ... un+Blog%29

Progressives never learn.

Definitely a leaf node demand problem, not a "supply" problem. The market could be lopped simply by use of non-criminal negative sanction. An example would be that if a teen is found with drugs, then they don't get a driver's license until they're 21. That alone would seem to result in a double digit reduction in demand.

It's strange, but Mothers against Drunk Drivers did more for temperance than the Baptists ever had. MADD attacks use of drugs (alcohol) at the end user, not the supplier. It works.

Do you consider this view.... "Progressive"?

Helius wrote:

Jccarlton wrote:Prohibition doesn't work:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/14/ap-th ... un+Blog%29

Progressives never learn.

Definitely a leaf node demand problem, not a "supply" problem. The market could be lopped simply by use of non-criminal negative sanction. An example would be that if a teen is found with drugs, then they don't get a driver's license until they're 21. That alone would seem to result in a double digit reduction in demand.

It's strange, but Mothers against Drunk Drivers did more for temperance than the Baptists ever had. MADD attacks use of drugs (alcohol) at the end user, not the supplier. It works.

Do you consider this view.... "Progressive"?

Yes it is Progressive because it totally ignores what we know medically about drugs and why people use them.

The level of general ignorance in that regard is astounding. The medical profession has drastically changed its attitude towards drugs in the last 10 years. It will probably take another 40 years for the general population to catch up.

Let me give you the short version: people take these drugs because they need them. Now that is a simplification but it also is true. I can flood you with links if you like.

MSimon wrote:

Helius wrote:

Jccarlton wrote:Prohibition doesn't work:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/14/ap-th ... un+Blog%29

Progressives never learn.

Definitely a leaf node demand problem, not a "supply" problem. The market could be lopped simply by use of non-criminal negative sanction. An example would be that if a teen is found with drugs, then they don't get a driver's license until they're 21. That alone would seem to result in a double digit reduction in demand.

It's strange, but Mothers against Drunk Drivers did more for temperance than the Baptists ever had. MADD attacks use of drugs (alcohol) at the end user, not the supplier. It works.

Do you consider this view.... "Progressive"?

Yes it is Progressive because it totally ignores what we know medically about drugs and why people use them.

The level of general ignorance in that regard is astounding. The medical profession has drastically changed its attitude towards drugs in the last 10 years. It will probably take another 40 years for the general population to catch up.

Let me give you the short version: people take these drugs because they need them. Now that is a simplification but it also is true. I can flood you with links if you like.

Your position implies that if alcohol had zero psycho/social effect, then people would be worse off. Ahh, the vice of temperance must be avoided! Teens: If you must drink, then do so!

You have links already? This I gotta see, but don't waste your time finding new ones. Fire away a couple of your best ones though!

MSimon wrote:Let me give you the short version: people take these drugs because they need them. Now that is a simplification but it also is true. I can flood you with links if you like.

They say that a man with himself for a lawyer has a fool for a client. I think the same might be said of a man who has himself as a physician prescribing mind altering drugs.

hanelyp wrote: They say that a man with himself for a lawyer has a fool for a client. I think the same might be said of a man who has himself as a physician prescribing mind altering drugs.

Stupid, maybe; criminal, no. Felonious, yes, but that is the reason we have the problems. The felonious nature ASSURES irresponsible marketing which causes the vast majority if not the totality of the problems.