Page 1 of 4

Is The Drug War A Symptom Of A Sick Society

Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 1:24 pm
by Jccarlton
Interesting piece on the drug war:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/war-on ... onsidered/
The more I look at the war on drugs and its effects the more I see it as asymptom of the results of Progressivism and Socialist policies. Drugs are not the sickness. They are a symptom of a society that is making itself sick. Just look at drug and alchohol use in the old Communist bloc.

Re: Is The Drug War A Symptom Of A Sick Society

Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 3:40 pm
by Diogenes
Jccarlton wrote:Interesting piece on the drug war:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/war-on ... onsidered/
The more I look at the war on drugs and its effects the more I see it as asymptom of the results of Progressivism and Socialist policies. Drugs are not the sickness. They are a symptom of a society that is making itself sick. Just look at drug and alchohol use in the old Communist bloc.

When I was in High School, I read a lot of Science Fiction\Fantasy. A Friend of mine who read just as much as I did called it "Escapism." A means of taking oneself away from the mundane, or in the case of the soviet empire, the ugly and tragic.

Drugs actually do a better job for a short while, but with far more severe consequences. What all these advocates of Legalized drugs are overlooking is that this Idea has been tried before, with catastrophic consequences. As I've said before, the costs of Fighting the drug war are nothing compared to the costs of NOT fighting the drug war.

The problem with the "Drug War" is we fight it the way we fought the Vietnam War. A constrained and continuous series of holding actions, and nothing to really defeat the enemy conclusively.

Re: Is The Drug War A Symptom Of A Sick Society

Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 3:46 pm
by djolds1
Diogenes wrote:When I was in High School, I read a lot of Science Fiction\Fantasy. A Friend of mine who read just as much as I did called it "Escapism." A means of taking oneself away from the mundane, or in the case of the soviet empire, the ugly and tragic.

Drugs actually do a better job for a short while, but with far more severe consequences. What all these advocates of Legalized drugs are overlooking is that this Idea has been tried before, with catastrophic consequences. As I've said before, the costs of Fighting the drug war are nothing compared to the costs of NOT fighting the drug war.

The problem with the "Drug War" is we fight it the way we fought the Vietnam War. A constrained and continuous series of holding actions, and nothing to really defeat the enemy conclusively.
Winning the Drug War w/o legalization is easy.

Target demand. Lock up the addicts.

The problem is that every addict is some voting mother's Precious Johnny, and it is ever so easier to demonize the "Drug Lords" that a huge illegal market will eternally generate.

The only way to stop the Drug Lords from endlessly bubbling up from beneath is to eliminate the illegal market. Either legalize the market, or eliminate or segregate the consumers who patronize that market.

Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 5:33 pm
by MSimon
Winning the Drug War w/o legalization is easy.

Target demand. Lock up the addicts.
Given that 5% to 15% of Americans use illegal drugs regularly we are going to need a hell of a gulag.

We are going to need a hell of a police state. And what happens when new addicts come along? Oh. I get it. You believe drugs cause addiction. No they don't. Only about 10% (or less) of those who try heroin get addicted. So it isn't the substance. Maybe the problem is not the drugs. Maybe it is something else:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2004/09/heroin.html

From years of study of the medical literature my conclusion is that the #1 cause of addiction in America is child abuse and the resulting PTSD.

So how exactly will locking up all addicts eliminate child abuse?

Oh yeah. Defacto legalization is already here in some venues:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... ntana.html

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... rooms.html

Prosecutors can't get enough people who believe in the drug war to even seat juries in some venues. BTW the venue in question in the above articles is Missoula, Montana.

It is over.

and

The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise by Milton Friedman

BTW the Drug War was started by social conservatives back when they were in cahoots with Progressives. Alcohol Prohibition arose out of the same coalition. Another social engineering program gone bad.

Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 5:41 pm
by ladajo
We could use the Chinese cost saving approach and just shoot them. Not sure if that is cheaper than bulldozing mass pits, and just burying them. I think the Nazi's had some success in cost control as well...

The answer I think is more on the lines of a culture that does not seek fantasy escape from the reality of life. Of course, that is a mucher longer term solution, and greatly contested in method of execution. :twisted:

Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 5:52 pm
by MSimon
The problem with the "Drug War" is we fight it the way we fought the Vietnam War. A constrained and continuous series of holding actions, and nothing to really defeat the enemy conclusively.
It is way worse than Vietnam. And it is not the constraints on the police that are the problem.

It is that most of the people fighting the war and supporting it have clue zero about the cause of addiction. Ignorance parading as erudition. Most amusing.

We are killing flies one at a time and in bunches while leaving the garbage dump (child abuse) untouched.

It is really sad that so many here who decry the lies of the MSM fall for them hook line and sinker (uncritically) when the Liars support their pet projects.

BTW I'm still looking for the Drug Prohibition Amendment to the Constitution. For all you rock ribbed Constitutionalists.

I do have one big consolation. The medical profession gets it (mostly). It is just a matter of time until the rest of the population catches on. Heck. Even the police are catching on:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... ource.html

Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 6:42 pm
by ladajo
The problem with the "Drug War" is we fight it the way we fought the Vietnam War. A constrained and continuous series of holding actions, and nothing to really defeat the enemy conclusively.
So what you are saying is that you have no real idea how the Vietnam War was fought?

Have you ever heard of CORDS, APC, CAPs, MATs, MTTs, HES? Why Nixon was able to conduct the Linebacker Raids? The culmulative effects of all of the above? Do you know who Robert Komer was? How about the Jason studies done during Vietnam?
The greatest tradgedy of the time was the failure to culminate to victory. The parts were in place, progress was being made. It was winnable, even with our combat troops withdrawing, we still intended to support the South. Unfortunately, this thing called Watergate happened. No more support, no more threat of more Linebacker. Granted, given all that, you would more or less have a North/South divide like Korea, but given that was our entry, and somewhat exit goal, that is a win.

Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 7:08 pm
by MSimon
ladajo wrote:
The problem with the "Drug War" is we fight it the way we fought the Vietnam War. A constrained and continuous series of holding actions, and nothing to really defeat the enemy conclusively.
So what you are saying is that you have no real idea how the Vietnam War was fought?

Have you ever heard of CORDS, APC, CAPs, MATs, MTTs, HES? Why Nixon was able to conduct the Linebacker Raids? The culmulative effects of all of the above? Do you know who Robert Komer was? How about the Jason studies done during Vietnam?
The greatest tradgedy of the time was the failure to culminate to victory. The parts were in place, progress was being made. It was winnable, even with our combat troops withdrawing, we still intended to support the South. Unfortunately, this thing called Watergate happened. No more support, no more threat of more Linebacker. Granted, given all that, you would more or less have a North/South divide like Korea, but given that was our entry, and somewhat exit goal, that is a win.
I beg to differ with you about victory. We had it in '73. Then when the war restarted in '75 we refused to support our allies.

Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 7:37 pm
by MSimon
ladajo wrote:We could use the Chinese cost saving approach and just shoot them. Not sure if that is cheaper than bulldozing mass pits, and just burying them. I think the Nazi's had some success in cost control as well...

The answer I think is more on the lines of a culture that does not seek fantasy escape from the reality of life. Of course, that is a mucher longer term solution, and greatly contested in method of execution. :twisted:
Ah. Drugs as fantasy escape.

So if you have a broken leg and want pain relief you should be denied your fantasy escape? A bit harsh.

Now what if the pain is in the brain? PTSD say. Deny those kind of folks fantasy escape? It is how you get black markets. Because the pain will not be denied.

====

Now there is no way we can afford to imprison 5% to 15% of the population. So your point about elimination is a good one.

Let us start at the low side. Say 5% of a population of 310 million. About 15.5 million people. To cleanse the population of that many drug users you need to bury about 42,500 people a day to do the job in a year.

A five year plan seems more workable. About 8,500 a day. And if we can get the error rate to .1% only 8 or 9 innocents a day will get buried. That is only 3,100 a year. Not too bad. Of course if the error rate is 1% 31,000 errors a year will be made. As small price to pay to eliminate those deserving of it. One error is a tragedy. 31,000 errors a year is a statistic.

Besides - since addiction has a genetic component according to the NIDA we will be eliminating defectives from the gene pool. Think of the benefits to future generations. I just don't see what so many have against Margaret Sanger.

There is no social problem that can't be solved with sufficient application of force. Let us get to it. And if bleeding heats complain? Proof that they are defective and need to be added to the mix. That will shut them up. Permanently.

The problem I see is that Americans in general don't have the guts to do what is required. We must find a way to give them the required courage.

Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 7:41 pm
by ladajo
Bad wording on my part in that sentence. I agree.
Victory was ours to have in 72/73. I would not say we had fully won at that point though. Winning yes, won no. We had not yet reached the culminating point, although the pieces were set, and it was arguably inevitable. The Paris Accords of Jan, '73 probably could have been a little more agressive on our terms, but it did set the proper stage. Preceded by the June '72 arrest of the Watergate team, leading to Nixon's resignation 9 August, '74 cleared the deck for the North Vietnamese. An unexpected turn of events for them to be sure. At the signing in Paris, they clearly thought that it was a stalemate, that may be playable to a later victory. However, the unforeseen in Jan ' 73 Watergate intervention prevented viable support by Nixon as promised in the accord and direct promise. Thus the Soviets in '74 on orders of magnitude stepped up re-arming the North, and Oops, the '75 invasion went mostly (some death ground defenses by some Southern units) unopposed. The other play was the south was not ready for us to pull out of pacification and leave it to them. We felt this was ofset by the fact we would use our air-power (and some ground based FAC's/Advisors) to stop any conventional attack by the North (as we had already twice).
So if you have a broken leg and want pain relief you should be denied your fantasy escape? A bit harsh.

Now what if the pain is in the brain? PTSD say. Deny those kind of folks fantasy escape? It is how you get black markets. Because the pain will not be denied.
Come on Simon, you know that there is a wide gulf between the bulk of the market in recreational users, and the medical users. It can never be argued successfully that the recreational market is created primarily by medical users sticking with the treatment. Some input yes, but not the issue. I would call that a red herring on your part. :)

Edit: added follow-on section on drugs use.

Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 1:02 am
by MSimon
At this point in time given the penalties there are not too many recreational/casual users left.

Take pot. Usage peaks at around age 20 (the high anxiety years i.e. natural PTSD) and declines quickly for a few years and slowly there after.

Alcohol is the biggest drug problem in America re: damage to society:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... rooms.html

I wonder why no one is suggesting alcohol prohibition as a solution?

In fact from a damage to society perspective it would be wise to switch alcohol addicts to pot. But that would be illegal.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... rooms.html

Ah. But it gets better. Alcohol does more damage to society than heroin.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... rooms.html

==============================

BTW I was under the impression that addicts (chronic users) were the problem.

==============================

If chronic drug use is in part genetically mediated under what social theory is punishing users a good idea? If the traumatized are the "addicts" (that is pretty well documented - you can look it up) under what social theory is punishing them a good idea?

I get it. We need to punish people who have been abused by their parents or others. Obviously they deserve it.

===============================

My friend - when the general public gets the information I have you are going to be embarrassed to admit you ever held the positions you now profess. And they will get it - sooner or later.

I guess you can always say: "I was duped by the MSM who never told the truth on the matter." Which will be funny because I will bet that you would be particularly hard on the press for their lies of omission and commission re: other subject.

Note: I got the connection between genetics and addiction a full three years before the NIDA did. From open sources. I have studied the subject in depth. To at least the same level I have studied Polywell. Have you?

And you want to take people's liberties based on what you read in the press? I'll bet you think Obama Care will lower medical costs. Why would I think that? Because the MSM says so. What more do you need?

======

OK you don't like recreational users but those with medical needs should be served. How do you tell the difference? Is there a test? Or do you just have to trust people?

Suppose my child abuse hypothesis is correct. How do you verify that? Ask the parents? Or do you just have to trust the potential user?

Now if you can't trust how do you justify access to alcohol, tobacco and firearms for the general public? Or knives for that matter.

======

I missed the Drug Prohibition Amendment to the Constitution? Could you point it out to me?

Conservatives are no more interested in the Constitution than liberals when that Constitution gets in the way of their pet projects.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... igion.html

=====

Seriously. I have discussed the subject with medical professionals. They agree with me about the self-medication nature of drug use. But they do not write about it for the most part because the Drug Gestapo (the DEA) will come after them for over prescribing pain meds. There is the house, the mortgage, and the wife to think of. So the information remains inside the medical community. But if you talk to them off the record you can get the truth.

And think of the DEA. Why would they encourage truth on the matter when their phony baloney jobs are at stake?

Even the NIDA shades the truth. They say "genetics and other factors". So why don't they tell you the other factor is trauma? Because making war on the traumatized is not a good PR tactic. They would prefer you think the "other factors" are matters of willful behavior. Then you can carry out your pogrom with a clear conscience.

Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 1:09 am
by MSimon
Here is a nice bit on the real costs of the war:

=====

During the debate, Representative Thomas Upton Sisson (D-Mississippi) most bluntly articulated the purpose of the Harrison Act: "The purpose of this bill—and we are all in sympathy with it—is to prevent the use of opium in the United States, destructive as it is to human happiness and human life."

The destruction to "human happiness and human life" by pre–Harrison Act opium and coca use has been dwarfed—by orders of magnitude—by the destructiveness of the post–Harrison Act drug trade.

The Harrison Narcotics Act paved a global road to hell. Not just for the United States (from kids slinging drugs in the Chicago projects to overdosed celebrities in Los Angeles), but for Afghanistan, where the Taliban has propped itself up on the opium and heroin trade; for Myanmar, where an abusive military dictatorship funds itself by being the second-largest source of opium poppies and a new powerhouse of meth and ketamine production; for Laos, where geography and new highways make the country an ideal smuggling nexus for everything and the locals have developed a recent fondness for meth; for the favelas of Brazil; for Morocco, where I have personally seen hillsides covered in marijuana plants "protected" by bored-looking teenagers toting around AK-47s; for the Dominican Republic, which has become a major transit point for cocaine and heroin bound for the U.S. via Puerto Rico; for Colombia, where cocaine production has paid for a brutal 40-year war between left-wing guerrillas, right-wing paramilitaries, the government, and narcos (the war has displaced 3.3 million people from their homes, or 7.2 percent of the country's population); for Ghana and Mali and other West African transshipment points for European-bound cocaine; and for pretty much every other country on the planet.

Observers such as Dominic Corva, a geographer at the University of Washington who has done extensive research on the cocaine trade, predict that as the Colombian and Mexican meat grinders become more violent, more troublesome, and less profitable, the cocaine production and smuggling market will move from Latin America to Africa.

===

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/the- ... id=6163374

A bit I particularly liked from the link:

===

A few days later, I'm talking to a retired Coast Guard captain who spent much of the 1980s working in the Gulf of Mexico busting drug smugglers. The Coast Guard, which had previously focused heavily on search-and- rescue and fisheries patrols, stumbled into the drug interdiction business by accident. "We'd go out to rescue someone," the captain says, "and there would be all this pot on board." On March 8, 1973, the Coast Guard cutter Dauntless, ported in Miami, found over a ton of marijuana on an American sailboat called The Big L. That was the beginning of the big time.

"People were generally ho-hum about search and rescue," he says. "Not that search and rescue was a ho-hum thing—it could be very dramatic—but if you brought in a big boatload of pot, it was a big news story." More importantly, it attracted serious money from the federal government, which was cranking up the drug war. "Commanders of Coast Guard vessels said to themselves, 'With drug busts, we're getting more mission recognition and more resources—and this is kind of fun!'"

He was a dedicated soldier in the drug war. "We'd get worked up about 'darn pot-smoking hippies trying to poison our schools' and all that," he says. "It was during the first Bush administration, and we just got pounded with that message." But then he found himself having to let go of crew members he liked and wanted to keep working with because they'd tested positive for marijuana. "I'd have good crew members, good sailors—good citizens who caused far fewer problems than people who abused alcohol—who, through drug testing, got caught in the net. And you begin to think, 'Well, this doesn't fit the stereotype we're hearing.' But then we'd come home from sea and watch Miami Vice and it would glamorize what we were doing, so it all fed into itself."

As his career went on, the captain—who happens to be my father, Ned Kiley, who had a 30-year Coast Guard career and retired as an O-6, the equivalent of a colonel in the army—started having quiet doubts about the ballooning bureaucracy around the drug-war industry, and the contractors and lobbyists encouraging the government to waste huge amounts of money on boats and airplanes and radar surveillance systems that weren't very useful. "Customs saw all this money and all these toys the Coast Guard was getting and wanted some, too—but they couldn't even take care of their boats. They were always broken. It was just bureaucracy run amok."

Then there were the people he was arresting at sea. "We'd get some actual bad guys," he says, most of them Americans. "Real low-life Gulf Coast types who were probably causing problems in other areas. But mostly you'd just get poor fishermen, poor Colombians, poor Hondurans. And you'd get some middle-class types who were just trying to pull some shit—we caught some poor couple's sailboat with 200 pounds of marijuana, which was a fairly small amount compared to what we were seeing."

Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:08 pm
by ladajo
Simon,
Nice cut and pastes.
Where do your points discuss the numbers of medical starters that transition to addicts verses numbers of recreational starters verses total addicts? I agree that the impetus to initiate the escapism that using provides can be varied, peer pressure, pre-exisiting stressors, psychological trauma, etc. But where is the Addict Population breakout that we are actually discussing? Another interesting tactic on your part to "overwhelm" the discussion, but while being informative, it lacks the core point.
The information points on smuggler activity and construct is VERY dated, I can assure you from personal experience. This is no longer, and has not been a little guy not really hurting anyone seeking to scrap out a meager existence thing for a LONG time. Nor was it really ever. It is a core conglomerate of businesses, with a hard core business model, that like any industry, can take advantage occasionally of its employees. But, the employees know exactly what they are into and the risks. If you have any familiarity with PANAMAX activities you would understand this point.

The boat already sailed regarding Africa/Europe, and did so a while back.

In regards to my levels of research and understanding, I not base it on internet and academic mining of the larger picture of the "Drug Nation". However I do have some professional background in studies and such that I have had to digest at work. As so much as the interdiction, and source reduction side, I have a good bit of personal professional experience.

I also have a direct understanding of the end results of the chain, given an older brother addict that subsequently shot himself in the head, and a younger sister addict that gave up a promising life starting as a straight a student and olympic level gymnast, progressing to a medical undergrad at GWU and then overlayed with pursuit of peer status (pressure). Her high school drug initiation has ruined her life, and she still struggles to this day working as a single parent waitress with a penchance for agrandisment, lying and cheating. Neither of our parents had ever even tried drugs, excepting nicotine, nor did we have any family friends on that bus. So where do they fit into your model? Mental Trauma? I struggle to see it. It appears to me to be escapism from the general pressure of life. In effect seeking an easy path.

Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:04 pm
by Jccarlton
A couple more from the front lines on the drug war:
http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/09/viole ... violence-a

http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/201 ... _of_m.html

http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/201 ... s_law.html

We seem to have some very unpleasant trends developing.

Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 11:28 pm
by MSimon
Where do your points discuss the numbers of medical starters that transition to addicts verses numbers of recreational starters verses total addicts? I agree that the impetus to initiate the escapism that using provides can be varied, peer pressure, pre-exisiting stressors, psychological trauma, etc. But where is the Addict Population breakout that we are actually discussing?
Well you could actually look up the information. Or you could have been reading the links I have provided here on the subject over the years. Or you could go to the sidebar of my blog http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/ and follow the "Addiction Articles" link and catch up. I guess you were not that interested in getting informed. Typical. Argument from ignorance seems to be the preferred style on the subject for those who support the government program. Now I know your attitude about most government programs and it is hardly positive. And yet when it comes to Drug Prohibition you seem relatively unsceptical. Funny that.

But I will give you the info here anyway.

About 20% of the population is genetically primed for addiction/PTSD. We see that in the Afghan War. About 20% come back with permanent PTSD (lasting from several years to a lifetime - depending on the severity of the trauma and the exact genetics). In the US about half of that 20% gets sufficiently traumatized by life experience (mostly child abuse) to get PTSD. Which says that about half the children in America are getting abused. But those in the 80% not genetically primed for addiction get over it. So in America we see an addiction rate of about 10% to most drugs (including alcohol). Except for tobacco where the rate runs in the neighborhood of 30% to 50%.

So one would expect that about 10% of those given opiates for other medical conditions will get addicted. Which is exactly (more or less) what we see. In the early trials of heroin (1880s I believe) ten people were given heroin and none of them got addicted so it was touted as a non-addictive pain reliever. Not a surprising result statistically. You would need to try it on 100 or 1,000 to get a valid sample. But that was back in the day when they still believed that drugs cause addiction. According to that theory a sample of ten should have been sufficient.

So my point stands. If drugs do not cause addiction then fighting drugs is a total waste of money and lives. It can never work. Ever. And yet you want to keep feeding money and lives into the maw. No wonder you prefer ignorance. Otherwise you would have to cop to supporting crimes against humanity.

As I said. When the ignorance is finally dispelled those supporting this vile government project will slink away hoping that no one remembers where the they stood on the issue. But you know - the Internet is forever.

So yes. The Drug War Is A Symptom of A Sick Society. But not in the way the person who initiated the topic imagined. The love of punishment of people who are different is normal. It is not civilized. The sickness is a reversion to pre-civilization behavior.