Talk-Polywell.org

You don't need to shout, and the fastest way to a police state is to give the police more power.

If you don't have powerful police, you cannot have a police state.

If you disagree with this assertion (as I am not backing it up with studies and references yet) you should come up with a compelling argument to the contrary rather than displaying such an unbecoming lack of self-control.

randomencounter wrote:You don't need to shout, and the fastest way to a police state is to give the police more power.

Apparently you don't realize that this message thread is a parody of MSimon's Message thread "Liberty is prone to misuse." He used large letters and bolding, so I used large letters and bolding. capisce?


The way to give the police more power is to create and/or tolerate more criminals. Where do you think the police are spending all their time? SCREWING AROUND WITH DRUG ADDICTS BREAKING LAWS!

randomencounter wrote: If you don't have powerful police, you cannot have a police state.

Right, and if the addicts would stop giving them reasons for continuously requesting new officers, we would all be a lot happier. Unfortunately addicts simply cannot and will not control their behavior.

randomencounter wrote: If you disagree with this assertion (as I am not backing it up with studies and references yet) you should come up with a compelling argument to the contrary rather than displaying such an unbecoming lack of self-control.

At the moment you haven't convinced me you are really worth debating. I have been unimpressed by your interjections into the discussion so far. Simon and I have been arguing this stuff for years, and you newbies come along and think you are bringing up some concept that we hadn't considered previously.

Simon says drug prohibition is bringing a police state, I say drug addiction is bringing a police state. Addicts steal because they are too f*cked-up to work.


China had massive drug addiction and thereafter collapsed into a massive police state. I think the same thing will happen to any nation that allows the free use of dangerous drugs.

I may not be worth your time, and I saw the threads in reverse order (as you have probably guessed by now).

I've seen the arguments and cases you are both using, him mostly dependent on the US Prohibition case currently, and you mostly on the Chinese problems when the English were pushing heroin into their country.

The problem with using either one as a basis lies in the details.
http://www.kew.org/plant-cultures/plant ... story.html indicates that the first importation to China was in the 16th century. Without digging too much deeper right now it appears that it was made illegal two centuries later, and another hundred years and two wars passed before China was in the sorry state you describe.

Strangely enough, the Arabian states did not succumb to the lure of opium even though they were the ones to discover its narcotic effects according to that article.

What was the difference then, between the Arabian states and China (and indeed India where it was being grown)?

It clearly cannot have been that the drug itself was somehow different when it crossed the border into China. Were the Chinese intrinsically more susceptible to the addictive effects of opium than the Indians and Arabs? Doubtful.

Translated documentation from 16th-18th century China is not commonly available, but we are looking at centuries of opium availability throughout Asia where the exponential addiction trend you note from China did not happen despite a lack of laws controlling it for most of that time.

This makes the Chinese case an anomaly itself that needs an explanation beyond "opium is an addictive drug".


As far as US prohibition goes, alcohol is trivial to make so it was doomed from conception. You have to outlaw leavened bread to even make it slightly challenging to get a decent batch. It was doomed to failure. It takes a religious prohibition in the Islamic countries to keep consumption down among the faithful, and that only works because having it as an article of faith makes it a voluntary restriction for most Muslims.

randomencounter wrote:I may not be worth your time, and I saw the threads in reverse order (as you have probably guessed by now).

I've seen the arguments and cases you are both using, him mostly dependent on the US Prohibition case currently, and you mostly on the Chinese problems when the English were pushing heroin into their country.

Very good, and why were the English pushing opium into China? It's because at that time China was a very wealthy place. They had Silk, porcelain, Jade, and various other products coveted by the European markets. The English pushed opium into China for the same reason that Willie Sutton robbed banks.



"That's where the money is."


So why wouldn't people want to do the same thing here in America? After all, "That's where the money is." How would we avoid the fate of China?

randomencounter wrote:
The problem with using either one as a basis lies in the details.
http://www.kew.org/plant-cultures/plant ... story.html indicates that the first importation to China was in the 16th century. Without digging too much deeper right now it appears that it was made illegal two centuries later, and another hundred years and two wars passed before China was in the sorry state you describe.

Strangely enough, the Arabian states did not succumb to the lure of opium even though they were the ones to discover its narcotic effects according to that article.

And what would they sell the English (biggest growers and producers) in exchange for their opium? Coconuts? Camel dung? Know what happens to a broke junkie? Nothing! And they can't stand it! They just keep on jonesing and looking for something to steal.

Nothing strange about the Arabs being too broke to afford English Opium. We, on the other hand, have money.

randomencounter wrote:
What was the difference then, between the Arabian states and China (and indeed India where it was being grown)?

Arabia explained above. India was under British Control at the time, and the average Indian was more or less broke too. Not the Maharaja's of course, but everyone else. As for the British Controlling it... not a good idea to let your workers get a craving for your product.

randomencounter wrote:
It clearly cannot have been that the drug itself was somehow different when it crossed the border into China. Were the Chinese intrinsically more susceptible to the addictive effects of opium than the Indians and Arabs? Doubtful.

Nope. Humans share the same chemical reactions, so the Indians and Arabs were just as predisposed to addiction. The difference is, they couldn't produce the kind of money the British wanted for their product.

randomencounter wrote: Translated documentation from 16th-18th century China is not commonly available, but we are looking at centuries of opium availability throughout Asia where the exponential addiction trend you note from China did not happen despite a lack of laws controlling it for most of that time.

You mean despite the discovery of codified laws. For all we know, it was part of their common law, and as such wouldn't necessarily have been written down. Perhaps they lacked the ability to obtain it in such great quantities? The British effectively ran Industrial sized factories which cranked this stuff out by the thousands of tons.

randomencounter wrote: This makes the Chinese case an anomaly itself that needs an explanation beyond "opium is an addictive drug".

You are over simplifying. There are two aspects. Addictive properties, and availability. The drug supplied the first, and the British supplied the second.

randomencounter wrote:
As far as US prohibition goes, alcohol is trivial to make so it was doomed from conception. You have to outlaw leavened bread to even make it slightly challenging to get a decent batch. It was doomed to failure. It takes a religious prohibition in the Islamic countries to keep consumption down among the faithful, and that only works because having it as an article of faith makes it a voluntary restriction for most Muslims.

You don't really put any effort into thinking the problem through. A ban on alcohol might very well be possible if it is incrementalized. Look at what has been happening to Tobacco, another such product that is very easy to obtain and highly addictive.



They have been raising taxes, generating propaganda, and filing lawsuits on and against tobacco to the point where it's usage is showing a continuous decline. I suspect they will stop short of running it into the ground because the state itself has become addicted to tobacco dollars.

As with gambling, the state considers it a virtue when they profit from it.

The Arabs *invented* the use of opium as a drug before the English even had an empire.

Opium flourished in the Arab world, as in Islam opiates were not proscribed in the same way as alcohol. In the 7th century, the Islamic cultures of western Asia had discovered that the most powerful narcotic and medicinal effects could be obtained by igniting and smoking the poppy's congealed juices.

The history of opium poppy use is relatively recent in South Asia. Arab trade and the expanding world of Islam are assumed to have introduced knowledge of the opium drug to the Indian subcontinent by the 12th century. The first records of its cultivation appear in the 15th century and refer to Malwa as a centre of production. The Sanskrit words ahiphena and the Hindi afin are derived from the Arabic word ofyun to denote opium.

This is from a simple history of the substance.

As far as alcohol vs. tobacco, you do realise you are comparing a drug that is only growable in a limited geographic area and requires extensive land and preparation to one that can be grown in a college dorm room anywhere in the world with nothing more than access to sugar and raw bread dough?

You grow tobacco for profit, you can grow alcohol because you want alcohol.

randomencounter wrote:The Arabs *invented* the use of opium as a drug before the English even had an empire.

Opium flourished in the Arab world, as in Islam opiates were not proscribed in the same way as alcohol. In the 7th century, the Islamic cultures of western Asia had discovered that the most powerful narcotic and medicinal effects could be obtained by igniting and smoking the poppy's congealed juices.

The history of opium poppy use is relatively recent in South Asia. Arab trade and the expanding world of Islam are assumed to have introduced knowledge of the opium drug to the Indian subcontinent by the 12th century. The first records of its cultivation appear in the 15th century and refer to Malwa as a centre of production. The Sanskrit words ahiphena and the Hindi afin are derived from the Arabic word ofyun to denote opium.

This is from a simple history of the substance.

I put no importance on this fact. The Chinese discovered gunpowder. They used it to make pretty and festive fireworks. The Europeans used it to blow down ships and defensive walls.

Again, the English ran industrial sized production facilities for the drug.

randomencounter wrote:
As far as alcohol vs. tobacco, you do realise you are comparing a drug that is only growable in a limited geographic area and requires extensive land and preparation to one that can be grown in a college dorm room anywhere in the world with nothing more than access to sugar and raw bread dough?

You grow tobacco for profit, you can grow alcohol because you want alcohol.

Pot is likewise ubiquitous, but most people refrain from imbibing it. Don't discount the effect of official sanction against something. It might not suppress all of it's use, but it certainly suppresses most of it.

randomencounter wrote:we are looking at centuries of opium availability throughout Asia where the exponential addiction trend you note from China did not happen despite a lack of laws controlling it for most of that time.

Your sample is too large. Someone doped up on opium can stumble along behind a plow, but they can't count out change in a Wawa. Modern industrialization creates environments that drug addicts cannot adapt to, so all your samples need to be of industrialized cultures.

GIThruster wrote:

randomencounter wrote:we are looking at centuries of opium availability throughout Asia where the exponential addiction trend you note from China did not happen despite a lack of laws controlling it for most of that time.

Your sample is too large. Someone doped up on opium can stumble along behind a plow, but they can't count out change in a Wawa. Modern industrialization creates environments that drug addicts cannot adapt to, so all your samples need to be of industrialized cultures.

Low tech societies are not more simple, a large portion of the advantage of tech is it reduces the amount of work people need to do.

Work that hopeless, lazy drug addicts are apparently incapable of.

Now, if you were to have made the argument that the necessarily more demanding times caused people to die before they could succumb to drug addiction in the modern view, you *might* have an argument there.

randomencounter wrote:The Arabs *invented* the use of opium as a drug before the English even had an empire.

My friend has reminded me that taking drugs would have been regarded as against Islam.

randomencounter wrote:

GIThruster wrote:

randomencounter wrote:we are looking at centuries of opium availability throughout Asia where the exponential addiction trend you note from China did not happen despite a lack of laws controlling it for most of that time.

Your sample is too large. Someone doped up on opium can stumble along behind a plow, but they can't count out change in a Wawa. Modern industrialization creates environments that drug addicts cannot adapt to, so all your samples need to be of industrialized cultures.

Low tech societies are not more simple, a large portion of the advantage of tech is it reduces the amount of work people need to do.

That's nonsense. Farmers in Afghanistan stumble around behind plows while stoned out of their minds. So stoned one cannot however make change in a Wawa.

I dunno where you got the notion that low tech societies are not more simple but you're completely wrong. Fact is, the entire status of "adolescent" did not exist until the industrial age. Before the industrial age, what we now call adolescents were considered adults. They are no longer specifically because the demands of industrialization forced the distinction. This same difference between what you're calling high and low tech societies is why in our past, people were routinely married just after reaching puberty but are no longer, and the marriage age keeps moving further back to reflect the needs of more complex societies.

Diogenes wrote:

randomencounter wrote:The Arabs *invented* the use of opium as a drug before the English even had an empire.

My friend has reminded me that taking drugs would have been regarded as against Islam.

There are differing interpretations of the prohibition, some say that it is a prohibition specifically against alcohol, others that it is a more general prohibition against intoxication. Islam is far from a monolithic religion.

The refining process for opium bears a strong resemblance to that for hashish, which was commonly and openly used by some Muslim sects where recreational use was tolerated in recognition of it's medicinal benefits.

They had the poppies, they invented the technique, as a society they were not crushed by it.

My conclusion from this is that it isn't as simple as "legal addictive drugs => societal decline into a police state". In fact, even in the worst case you only get the police state if you try to stop individuals from taking the drugs by police force rather than by individual persuasion. Border interdiction and only criminalizing the trade of drugs that are causing societal problems makes it harder to quell the problem completely but avoids the police sticking their noses where they don't belong.

randomencounter wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

randomencounter wrote:The Arabs *invented* the use of opium as a drug before the English even had an empire.

My friend has reminded me that taking drugs would have been regarded as against Islam.

There are differing interpretations of the prohibition, some say that it is a prohibition specifically against alcohol, others that it is a more general prohibition against intoxication. Islam is far from a monolithic religion.

The refining process for opium bears a strong resemblance to that for hashish, which was commonly and openly used by some Muslim sects where recreational use was tolerated in recognition of it's medicinal benefits.

Yeah, the Assassins, whom the Mongols wiped out. Getting them "high" was how they were controlled and induced to go Assassinate Kings in disfavor with the Assassin lords. The Word "Assassin" was derived from hashish. Yup, drugged up mind controlled robots who are sent to kill other people is not a good example for you to bring up.

randomencounter wrote: They had the poppies, they invented the technique, as a society they were not crushed by it.

You just aren't going to let this notion go, are you? I have already explained how very different were the economic incentives between China (Wealthy) and Arabia (not having anything worth selling them drugs for) and likewise how it is against their religion, and still you seem to think that Arabia is proof that drugs won't wipe out a society.

Is it worth my time to once more explain this to you? I don't think so. If you can't wrap your mind around it the first time, I'm not sure that giving you a second bite at the apple will be worth the trouble.

randomencounter wrote:

My conclusion from this is that it isn't as simple as "legal addictive drugs => societal decline into a police state".

Your conclusion based on a weak and false understanding of the available information. Interestingly enough, a conclusion that you want, and that you had prior to even being appraised of the situation. (You had to do research on China's Opium usage before you could even respond to me.) What you are doing is called "Rationalization." You are subsequently reasoning around annoying facts to reach the conclusions that you wanted in the first place.

randomencounter wrote: In fact, even in the worst case you only get the police state if you try to stop individuals from taking the drugs by police force rather than by individual persuasion. Border interdiction and only criminalizing the trade of drugs that are causing societal problems makes it harder to quell the problem completely but avoids the police sticking their noses where they don't belong.

Again, how can you claim such a thing when it is legal drugs that utterly destroyed China and consequently turned them into a police state? Have you no knowledge of how other "legalized" drug experiments have turned out in the past?

"It's a disaster . . . I saw whole families infected with AIDS . . . I saw children, 12-year-olds, shooting up . . . I saw 16-year-old women prostituting to get money for their drug habit."

With those words, Dr. Neil Solomon voiced his reaction to the infamous "Needle Park" in the center of Switzerland's largest city, Zurich. The park was created as a haven to provide drug addicts with clean needles to prevent the spread of AIDS, but has become Europe's drug supermarket and, because of that, is expected to be closed early next year.

And despite the problems the legalization did not lead to a police state.

You are trying to wriggle out from your initial assertion here.

randomencounter wrote: They had the poppies, they invented the technique, as a society they were not crushed by it.

What were they crushed by? What explains how backward they are in general?