skipjack,
Drugs are already freely available in the US. Please explain why restricting that availability will improve the situation.
I do propose modest restrictions: age limits for drugs not prescribed by doctors. And that is it.
Are you aware of the diversion problem for legal opiates in the US? It is impossible to keep drugs in the restricted channels. The best that can be hoped for is some modest restriction in the flows. Given that what we have is not working I propose no further waste of lives and treasure.
Your "several decades" means at 2,000 innocents a year times 20. Read Milton Friedman on the subject.
The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise by Milton Friedman
He explains that it is morally wrong to kill those 2,000. And I have not even mentioned the 8,000 a year in the trade killed. We cut that to zero and the life expectancy in the US will look a lot better since those dying are young - mostly. Why our stats might better than Austria's if we ended prohibition categorically.
And - if drugs do not cause addiction - which I take it you have accepted - what is the point of waiting?
Addiction Is A Brain Disease
Simon,
The FARC is old news. They, and most other "insurgent" groups are all but done in Colombia. Two years ago when I was in Cartegena with 14 Metric Tons of pure Coke we had seized, I was worried about a FARC grab. Last year when I was in Tumaco, I was not so much worried about the FARC. I was more worried about local drug gangs.
The FARC is on the down and out in the last few years. Uribe (met the guy, he is pretty cool) did a great job. He did not do it by legalizing drugs either.
The FARC is old news. They, and most other "insurgent" groups are all but done in Colombia. Two years ago when I was in Cartegena with 14 Metric Tons of pure Coke we had seized, I was worried about a FARC grab. Last year when I was in Tumaco, I was not so much worried about the FARC. I was more worried about local drug gangs.
The FARC is on the down and out in the last few years. Uribe (met the guy, he is pretty cool) did a great job. He did not do it by legalizing drugs either.
The drug war is a funny thing. If you break up the big operations the business fragments into a multitude of smaller operators. The business does not go away.ladajo wrote:Simon,
The FARC is old news. They, and most other "insurgent" groups are all but done in Colombia. Two years ago when I was in Cartegena with 14 Metric Tons of pure Coke we had seized, I was worried about a FARC grab. Last year when I was in Tumaco, I was not so much worried about the FARC. I was more worried about local drug gangs.
The FARC is on the down and out in the last few years. Uribe (met the guy, he is pretty cool) did a great job. He did not do it by legalizing drugs either.
In fact you allude to that:
So FARC which for years gained from prohibition is dying out. The reason is explained in the Reuters link on Colombia. The followers were hoping for socialism and instead they got involved in the most cut throat capitalist business in the world.I was more worried about local drug gangs.
The decline of FARC will make no difference to the drug trade.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
It will certainly help if you are in no hurry. I'd rather do more at once to save the lives of the 20,000 to 40,000 innocents who will die in America while we wait for full enactment of your policies.Skipjack wrote:Msimon,
you have not said anything that proves that my proposal would not work. All you have been bringing forth are ramblings about the drug war and that so many are dying. You have not brought a single plausible argument that says why my proposal will not help ending the drug war.
In any case these things have a life of their own in this country. Once the dam is broken with the end of pot prohibition the rest of the prohibitions will not be far behind.
See the video link I posted on another thread for further elucidation.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
The average FARC troop did not give a crap about socialism. That was purely rhetoric by the founders to give themselves an excuse.MSimon wrote:skipjack,
Drugs are already freely available in the US. Please explain why restricting that availability will improve the situation.
I do propose modest restrictions: age limits for drugs not prescribed by doctors. And that is it.
Are you aware of the diversion problem for legal opiates in the US? It is impossible to keep drugs in the restricted channels. The best that can be hoped for is some modest restriction in the flows. Given that what we have is not working I propose no further waste of lives and treasure.
Your "several decades" means at 2,000 innocents a year times 20. Read Milton Friedman on the subject.
The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise by Milton Friedman
He explains that it is morally wrong to kill those 2,000. And I have not even mentioned the 8,000 a year in the trade killed. We cut that to zero and the life expectancy in the US will look a lot better since those dying are young - mostly. Why our stats might better than Austria's if we ended prohibition categorically.
And - if drugs do not cause addiction - which I take it you have accepted - what is the point of waiting?
You mean Reuters was misinforming me? I'm shocked.ladajo wrote:The average FARC troop did not give a crap about socialism. That was purely rhetoric by the founders to give themselves an excuse.MSimon wrote:skipjack,
Drugs are already freely available in the US. Please explain why restricting that availability will improve the situation.
I do propose modest restrictions: age limits for drugs not prescribed by doctors. And that is it.
Are you aware of the diversion problem for legal opiates in the US? It is impossible to keep drugs in the restricted channels. The best that can be hoped for is some modest restriction in the flows. Given that what we have is not working I propose no further waste of lives and treasure.
Your "several decades" means at 2,000 innocents a year times 20. Read Milton Friedman on the subject.
The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise by Milton Friedman
He explains that it is morally wrong to kill those 2,000. And I have not even mentioned the 8,000 a year in the trade killed. We cut that to zero and the life expectancy in the US will look a lot better since those dying are young - mostly. Why our stats might better than Austria's if we ended prohibition categorically.
And - if drugs do not cause addiction - which I take it you have accepted - what is the point of waiting?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
And it was rhetoric shed quickly as the money piled up.
The fracturing of FARC has ceated a vacuum that smaller splinters and new players have tried to move into. But they are less successful, and certainly pursue it with a different strategy than the "Total Dominance" approach of the FARC. The end result is now legitimate government is establishing access and activities in support of the populace, literally taking responsibility for the people, like they should.
The mere fact that I could stand in the street in Tumaco, where as 5 years (or even less) ago, I would not have lasted 5 seconds speaks to that.
More and more folks are turning on the growers and dealers, and pushing them out. It is a slow grind for sure, but it is working. The other major improvement that I see is the dedicated effort to prevent access to drugs for the addicted, and ween them off. Interestingly, once heavy drug use burden areas are now productive communities with the withdrawal of the narcos. It does not speak in support of your ideas, but it is what I have seen in person, and not just in Colombia, but other countries in the region as well. These experiences, as well as the own issues in my family give me pause to be extra crictical when considering your thoughts and ideas.
You can rant and say I am ignorant based on your internet mining, but I in fact base my perceptions on real life experiences both at the source end of the drug chain, in the middle of it, and at the end with the users here in the US.
Your claim that addicts are a result of pre-disposition I do not believe. I have seen people chosen purely by chance and turned into addicts simply by forcing drugs on them. That alone gives me great doubt about your ideas. I also have personally seen what folks are like as people before, during, and after sustained drug use. In general, I would not characterize it as positive. The negative change in ability to make judgemental decisions being the primary impact. The scary thing for me is how they are oblivious to the change as well. For example, one of the FARC's fun tactics was to take village leaders and elders and turn them into addicts so they became either puppets or non-players. Sometimes they woudl hook entire towns and make them all growers. Didn't even have to pay them. It was not uncommon to find some of these folks dead after they had wandered off mentally fried and unable care for themselves longer. Literally dying by the side of the road or in the jungle of dehydration.
I find great pause with your positing that drugs do not cause physical harm, and in that say that free access should be given. I have physically seen otherwise.
I am still curious to your solution to the social problem of drug disposed folks that refuse health care to address the root issue of the disposition? The way it get it, you are arguing that by free access, there will be less addicts, no health or social issues as a result of use, and no crime. In all, it will be roses all around.
If I could I would take you down to South America and show you some communities where free access was given...it was certainly not roses.
The fracturing of FARC has ceated a vacuum that smaller splinters and new players have tried to move into. But they are less successful, and certainly pursue it with a different strategy than the "Total Dominance" approach of the FARC. The end result is now legitimate government is establishing access and activities in support of the populace, literally taking responsibility for the people, like they should.
The mere fact that I could stand in the street in Tumaco, where as 5 years (or even less) ago, I would not have lasted 5 seconds speaks to that.
More and more folks are turning on the growers and dealers, and pushing them out. It is a slow grind for sure, but it is working. The other major improvement that I see is the dedicated effort to prevent access to drugs for the addicted, and ween them off. Interestingly, once heavy drug use burden areas are now productive communities with the withdrawal of the narcos. It does not speak in support of your ideas, but it is what I have seen in person, and not just in Colombia, but other countries in the region as well. These experiences, as well as the own issues in my family give me pause to be extra crictical when considering your thoughts and ideas.
You can rant and say I am ignorant based on your internet mining, but I in fact base my perceptions on real life experiences both at the source end of the drug chain, in the middle of it, and at the end with the users here in the US.
Your claim that addicts are a result of pre-disposition I do not believe. I have seen people chosen purely by chance and turned into addicts simply by forcing drugs on them. That alone gives me great doubt about your ideas. I also have personally seen what folks are like as people before, during, and after sustained drug use. In general, I would not characterize it as positive. The negative change in ability to make judgemental decisions being the primary impact. The scary thing for me is how they are oblivious to the change as well. For example, one of the FARC's fun tactics was to take village leaders and elders and turn them into addicts so they became either puppets or non-players. Sometimes they woudl hook entire towns and make them all growers. Didn't even have to pay them. It was not uncommon to find some of these folks dead after they had wandered off mentally fried and unable care for themselves longer. Literally dying by the side of the road or in the jungle of dehydration.
I find great pause with your positing that drugs do not cause physical harm, and in that say that free access should be given. I have physically seen otherwise.
I am still curious to your solution to the social problem of drug disposed folks that refuse health care to address the root issue of the disposition? The way it get it, you are arguing that by free access, there will be less addicts, no health or social issues as a result of use, and no crime. In all, it will be roses all around.
If I could I would take you down to South America and show you some communities where free access was given...it was certainly not roses.
Capitalism will do that to you.And it was rhetoric shed quickly as the money piled up.
In terms of "fighting drugs" there has been no diminution of supply.The fracturing of FARC has ceated a vacuum that smaller splinters and new players have tried to move into. But they are less successful
In fact as the video posted here shows
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... s-out.html
the diminution of success may have nothing to do with the break up of FARC and more to do with the natural effect of supply and demand factors.
You did watch the video didn't you? The officer in question was heavily involved in Central and South America. In fact he also earned his Hell Angels colors. You know what that means don't you? The dude was serious.
It wonders me that the right which is normally excellent on how economics works gets real stupid when it comes to drugs. And the left which normally finds it impossible to apply economic thinking to their issues is exquisite when it comes to the economics of prohibition. It is truly a wonder.
=====
You know I post links which deal with the science of "addiction", the economics of prohibition, etc. (technical stuff) and it is more than obvious that neither you nor a number of other posters have ever read them.
You wouldn't do that if the subject was physics. Why does the mention of drugs make you incurious?
Another wonder.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I've heard some arguements that the drug war in the U.S. was really about maintaining a monopoly. Certain drug cartels were allied with the government and the rivals were the ones that got all the attention from law enforcement. Accordingly the invasion of Panama was caused by a shift in alignment in the U.S. from Medellin to Cali.
CHoff
We have free access to drugs in America. It is provided by criminals.If I could I would take you down to South America and show you some communities where free access was given...it was certainly not roses.
As I have stated frequently. Legalization will not solve the drug problem. It will do what ending alcohol prohibition did - end a portion of the crime problem.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
OK. I propose we make it legal to SELL the stuff. That will eliminate "no cost". Of course considering that most of the stuff is an agricultural product it is not going to cost much. Pot for instance would be about as costly as hot house tomatoes. A few dollars a pound. And for the typical user (an ounce a month or so) a pound is a years supply. Extravagantly about a dollar a month. I have read that the going price in Calif of top grade weed is about $45 for 1/8th ounce ($360 an oz - $6,000 a lb - retail). A lot of arbitrage available there if you are willing to take the risk.ladajo wrote:Dude,
There is a big difference in "Free Access" in america provided by criminals to the actual no cost free and even forced access in other places.
As to forcing people to do things - it is against my libertarian principles and should be punished. Severely.
I think the Drug War is another proof that the nanny state doesn't work. And is VERY expensive.
BTW did you watch the video?
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... s-out.html
Given your experience I think you will find it very interesting.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Yes, I know who he is. I have watched the video, and seen other material that he has generated.
He is not advocating free access as you have seen to be.
He is advocating controlled access as a function of government health, not law enforcement. I agree with his points, but disagree with the simplicity he seems to proclaim. The man difference I see between the comparison to alcohol is ease of addiction, and ease to break the habit.
The other issue I see is how to mandate the care of those who refuse it?
He alludes to the mandating of the health care professional to provide fixes based on mandatory rehab attempts. But what of the ancillary issues, where you have now declared addicts with social positions (parents, teachers, etc) or community responsibilities such as law enforcement or government. What do you do with them?
I fundamentally agree that either driving up the cost of business, or undercutting the profit is a usefull tool. The approach so far has been an attempt to drive up the expense (a very Clauswitizian and Jomini approach BTW), whereas the attempt to undercut has not been taken.
This is a pure profit business, it costs the growers effectively nothing to produce the product as he has said. You can go to Cartegena as a tourist, and find some clown on the street willing to sell you a brick for $500 or even less. What you do with it is your business and problem. he is walking away with significant profit as does not care.
So yes, I agree, and have also thought for a while that undercutting is an approach to try. But I also think it should be done in conjunction with driving up expense as well. Burn both ends of the candle the growers are holding.
He is not advocating free access as you have seen to be.
He is advocating controlled access as a function of government health, not law enforcement. I agree with his points, but disagree with the simplicity he seems to proclaim. The man difference I see between the comparison to alcohol is ease of addiction, and ease to break the habit.
The other issue I see is how to mandate the care of those who refuse it?
He alludes to the mandating of the health care professional to provide fixes based on mandatory rehab attempts. But what of the ancillary issues, where you have now declared addicts with social positions (parents, teachers, etc) or community responsibilities such as law enforcement or government. What do you do with them?
I fundamentally agree that either driving up the cost of business, or undercutting the profit is a usefull tool. The approach so far has been an attempt to drive up the expense (a very Clauswitizian and Jomini approach BTW), whereas the attempt to undercut has not been taken.
This is a pure profit business, it costs the growers effectively nothing to produce the product as he has said. You can go to Cartegena as a tourist, and find some clown on the street willing to sell you a brick for $500 or even less. What you do with it is your business and problem. he is walking away with significant profit as does not care.
So yes, I agree, and have also thought for a while that undercutting is an approach to try. But I also think it should be done in conjunction with driving up expense as well. Burn both ends of the candle the growers are holding.
ladjo,
It was awfully simplistic to end alcohol prohibition. Alcohol is one of the most dangerous drugs known to man.
====
In any case in the court of public opinion I'm winning and you are losing. Not quickly. But the trends are inexorable.
BTW if you want to contact Russ I have his e-mail.
And you know my job is to play "bad cop" so the more reasonable "good cops" can prevail.
With me it is a nanny state thing. Once upon a time (until the advent of cocainized Negros) Americans could handle their drugs. According to the propaganda of the day the "inferior races" couldn't.
Here is part one of a five part video on the history of drug prohibition in America. It corresponds to what I have learned in my studies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Yqyx0pCIHA
the other parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx50lhkQcf0 - Two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oloobzAU-3Q - Three
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKbfXabxddg - Four
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVQoz1dFIuE - Five
Or you can read a transcript of a talk given to judges and later the FBI:
Drug War History
It was awfully simplistic to end alcohol prohibition. Alcohol is one of the most dangerous drugs known to man.
====
In any case in the court of public opinion I'm winning and you are losing. Not quickly. But the trends are inexorable.
BTW if you want to contact Russ I have his e-mail.
And you know my job is to play "bad cop" so the more reasonable "good cops" can prevail.
With me it is a nanny state thing. Once upon a time (until the advent of cocainized Negros) Americans could handle their drugs. According to the propaganda of the day the "inferior races" couldn't.
Here is part one of a five part video on the history of drug prohibition in America. It corresponds to what I have learned in my studies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Yqyx0pCIHA
the other parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx50lhkQcf0 - Two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oloobzAU-3Q - Three
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKbfXabxddg - Four
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVQoz1dFIuE - Five
Or you can read a transcript of a talk given to judges and later the FBI:
Drug War History
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.