Talk-Polywell.org

?

Already Has.



Normal growth pattern for drug usage looks like this. (Logistic growth)





Or this:





Limited War on drugs looks like this.









A line that does not cure upward is indicative of successful interference with the spread of addiction.

Now if you have an argument, it is with Cost. Costs have risen ridiculously, but that is normal for any government ran enterprise.






If you are a government bureaucrat, you might regard every increasing budgets and spending as a success, but if you are paying the bill, not so much.

But D,

As a social conservative you are working against your own interests.

What people leave out of the Weimar experience and IMO its foundation is the lack of men – killed in the war. We are doing something similar with our divorce laws. And our drug war on the Black Community.

And the 60s? Similar. Look up the M/F ratios.

When there are not enough men you get loose women. Culture dives when the M/F ratio is out of whack.

http://classicalvalues.com/2013/11/weimar-experience/

You have been conned by Progressives to be the instrument of your own downfall.

And on top of that you might want to look at this study of rats. There are no addictive drugs. Only people in pain. Remove the pain and drug use declines. This one is about opiates and how one experimenter couldn't get rats addicted no matter how hard he tried if the rats were in comfortable circumstances.

http://www.marijuanaparty.ca/article.ph ... rticle=440

Your current political difficulties stem from the fact that the younger generations have been educated by folks like me and your thought process does not adequately cover the subject. Fiscal conservatism is alive and well. Social conservatism is a dying brand. The rise of the TEAs is evidence of that. However, socons have co-opted much of that movement weakening it.

You are being handed one based on ObamaCare socialism. Don't blow it by trying to sell to the whole country your brand of Progressivism. Until the country becomes more libertarian (it is coming - see the recent Virginia race) it is unwise to put tools in the hands of your enemies.

This should be a wake up call for you:



http://classicalvalues.com/2013/11/obam ... ohibition/

If you made 'addiction' a medical question rather than a legal question you would be unbeatable. And on top of that the younger generation knows way more about the endocannabinoid system than you do.

But you have the Progressive disease. "What I think is right should be codified into law." I can think of no better way of turning 51% of the population against you than doing what this Senator suggests.

http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/senate-a ... tate-laws/

The only way to prevent abortion is with a surveillance state. And the NSA has become quite unpopular over that issue.

Speaking of rats and abortion. You are familiar with behavioral sinks (I hope). That should tell you something about reducing abortion. As it should tell you something about reducing "addiction". As long as there are large cities you will see behavioral sink behavior.

Let me put it to you directly. You can't eliminate behavioral sink behavior unless you eliminate behavior sinks.

Despite your British Opium shipment quotes here Diogenes, M. Simon does have a very valid point. When has the US federal government ever done anything in an even remotely efficient way? From my vantage point, EVERY effort of the US government to solve a problem by throwing dollars at it has only resulted in exasperating the problem. Owebeymugbecare anyone?

In Mexico, a new development in the drug war.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-576 ... ther-town/

JohnFul wrote:Despite your British Opium shipment quotes here Diogenes, M. Simon does have a very valid point. When has the US federal government ever done anything in an even remotely efficient way? From my vantage point, EVERY effort of the US government to solve a problem by throwing dollars at it has only resulted in exasperating the problem. Owebeymugbecare anyone?

I have acknowledged that current Government methodology could screw up a wet dream. Government simply is incompetent at managing costs. I do, however, regard this as a very different thing than arguing that interdiction itself is bad policy.

MSimon's point is that interdiction itself is a failure. I argue that it cannot be judged by absolutist standards. A common argument of the pro-druggies is that since they can still get drugs, the efforts to interdict them must be a failure.

The Reality is, interdiction efforts keep the market at a low level of activity. Something like 2% of the population still gets drugs, but this thin supply is by no means sufficient enough to support wide spread addiction.

To get that last 2% would require stronger methods, the sort of which the public would not tolerate. Our current status quo is a compromise for the minimum level we can achieve with the available methods. If this were a real war, we would kill the suppliers and their collaborators, and wipe out their ability to produce their product.


It isn't a real war though.

I do, however, regard this as a very different thing than arguing that interdiction itself is bad policy.

OK. Interdiction is a good policy. Forgetting the 2nd for the sake of argument - tell me why it won't work for guns.

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

Now I know you don't understand markets so let me explain something:

When you artificially restrict supply prices rise. This brings in new sellers to the market. And if the market is inelastic - total profits rise.

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

And then there is the little problem of our economic system being propped up by narco dollars.

http://usawatchdog.com/u-s-system-depen ... tin-fitts/

http://solari.com/old-articles/scoop_narco_dummies.htm

Should our economic system be dependant on criminal activity?

And of course if you do manage to totally interdict plant origin supplies there is always diversion from the manufactured supplies.

And you plan to interdict plants how? We are nearly 100 years on in the plant interdiction schemes. You would think that there might be a success story there. Nope.

And of course misunderstanding the nature of addiction you can't do anything about it because you can't attack the root cause:

http://www.marijuanaparty.ca/article.ph ... rticle=440

Now of course the totalitarians claim success. Suppose that is so (doubtful - but assume it is true) do you want a totalitarian government? Suppose the narcos buy off the totalitarians - then what?

You think that when it comes to humans you can do one thing without side effects. When was that ever true?

Can police cure addiction? Can they even keep drugs out of prisons?

MSimon wrote:

I do, however, regard this as a very different thing than arguing that interdiction itself is bad policy.

OK. Interdiction is a good policy. Forgetting the 2nd for the sake of argument - tell me why it won't work for guns.

Might just as well ask about interdicting food. Guns, like food, are a necessity. We have a right to own them and we have an ever present NEED to own them.

Beyond that, every town in the US can MAKE them with very little in the way of raw materials. It is impossible to interdict them if the public doesn't wish to cooperate.

MSimon wrote:
Now I know you don't understand markets so let me explain something:

When you artificially restrict supply prices rise. This brings in new sellers to the market. And if the market is inelastic - total profits rise.

For ordinary economics, yes, but drugs are not ordinary economics. If we actually declared war on them, we would create conditions of singularities. Conditions at which prices rise to infinity, and demand can be made to fall to zero.

Drugs are not a necessity, they are luxury items. The difference between "I want" and "I need." The Sky will not fall if people can't get high. Guns? Very different thing.

MSimon wrote:
And then there is the little problem of our economic system being propped up by narco dollars.

http://usawatchdog.com/u-s-system-depen ... tin-fitts/

http://solari.com/old-articles/scoop_narco_dummies.htm

Your links do not support your assertion. This is not surprising because the assertion is nuts. Under even the most liberal interpretation, illegal drugs cannot represent the economic activity of even oil, let alone a major portion of our economic system. Just how much economic activity can the drug addicted 2% of the population generate anyway?

MSimon wrote:
Should our economic system be dependant on criminal activity?

No, but the bulk of the problem is that much of the activity upon which our economic system *IS* dependent, is not criminal, but should be. (deficit borrowing and spending and the consequent creation of inflation.)

The activity of stealing the value from saved dollars by playing games with fiat currency ought very well be illegal, (Basically the idea equates to criminalizing the modern Democrat party.) but it is in fact, just immoral.

MSimon wrote:And of course if you do manage to totally interdict plant origin supplies there is always diversion from the manufactured supplies.

And you plan to interdict plants how? We are nearly 100 years on in the plant interdiction schemes. You would think that there might be a success story there. Nope.

Then you completely fail to understand my point in the first message I posted in this thread. Success is holding the level down to 2%. Once again, I point out that the only widespread experiment in history reveals that making them legally available results in the addiction of approximately 50% of the population over time.


The Drug war is very successful. Were it not, addiction would be 10% or more by now. We tolerate the 2% addiction because a complete cure is worse than the disease.

MSimon wrote:
And of course misunderstanding the nature of addiction you can't do anything about it because you can't attack the root cause:

http://www.marijuanaparty.ca/article.ph ... rticle=440

From your article:

The authors pointed out that despite this war on drugs, the rate of consumption was higher than ever: in 2002, 45 percent of Canadians reported having used illicit drugs in their lives, up from 28.5 percent in 1994.

Obviously, the weak Canadian response is resulting in the normal acceleration of drugs in a society. Of course this is probably just pot, so it is not as immediately dangerous as would be other substances.


As for the rest of the article, people are in Skinner boxes created by circumstance, or of their own making. There is no "Rat Park" for people in distressed circumstances. That is a utopian fantasy.

MSimon wrote:
Now of course the totalitarians claim success. Suppose that is so (doubtful - but assume it is true) do you want a totalitarian government? Suppose the narcos buy off the totalitarians - then what?

This is where you and I define terms differently. You are characterizing those functions of government which interdict drugs as being "Totalitarian", while I regard them as a normal aspect of government's overall purpose. (To keep people from hurting each other.)

MSimon wrote: You think that when it comes to humans you can do one thing without side effects. When was that ever true?

No, in fact I don't. We know what are the side effects of addiction. I have personally known several people who have lost their lives as a result of drug addiction. You seem to be the one who is ignoring side effects.

MSimon wrote: Can police cure addiction? Can they even keep drugs out of prisons?

Yes, but not with the existing methods. Optimization requires us to let that 2% go because the returns on eliminating it are not worth the investment required.