The Democrat's 2012 Victory Plan

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Wed Oct 05, 2011 5:39 am

I simply find your belief that legalization will not cause skyrocketing addiction to be baffling. We even have the real world example of China

Well I have a more recent real world example tried in this very country. America pre-1914. 1.3%

We also have the current example where supply is plentiful and distributed by criminals. They will sell to anyone - no questions asked. 1.3%

But I get it. You have very little self control and currently don't have a skag connection and fear that if you do you will be unable to control yourself. And you assume your fellow citizens are just like you. Only about 1.3% of them.

And in exchange for your fears a SWAT team kills an innocent every other month or so. Too bad for them, eh? And innocents killed in gangsta warfare? Only about 3 to 6 a day. And you are a smart guy. You can stay out of THOSE neighborhoods. Sucks to be THEM though.

The corruption of our police? Collateral damage. And the lack of respect for the laws engendered? Collateral damage. And the hypocrisy of having dope head presidents while the war on the little people continues? Collateral damage.

It is just a matter of time before we let the medical profession deal with medical problems.

palladin9479 · Post by **palladin9479** » Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:30 am

Prohibition doesn't work, we have nearly 100 years of evidence showing it. The perfect example is the prohibition of Ethyl hydroxide. The Mafia made their money off it, setting up specialized distribution channels to support the illegal trade of Ethyl hydroxide products. They would conduct gang warfare on rival gangs (family's) for control of distribution rights in various territories. The over consumption of Ethyl hydroxide cause's humans to do very stupid things, it impairs judgement and results in countless deaths every year. There would be street battles, gang assassinations and entire wars fought over this stuff. Police officers were corrupted from the money involved in Ethyl hydroxide trade. They were corrupted to ignore the act whenever possible, and sometimes to assist the gangs direction in profiting from their trade.

Then suddenly Ethyl hydroxide prohibition ended. It was legal to manufacturer, distribute and sell Ethyl hydroxide in the open. This had the dramatic effect of nearly instantly shutting down the black market Ethyl hydroxide trade and depriving the gangs of their primary source of income. They were forced to move on to more dangerous things like Opiates. And the gangs that originally profited in Ethyl hydroxide trade eventually withered up and now are a shadow of their former selves. Instead we have new gangs who make their money off the trade in illegal drugs, the same as the old ones.

You want to save a crap ton of cash and solve lots of issues at once? End prohibition of cannabis. Allow the regulated legal manufacture and distribution of cannabis. You'll get brand names and manufacture controls immediately. You'll have safety warnings and content restrictions. Instead of a gang member making the product from various untested ingredients in the back room, you'll get production specialists making the product from tested and regulated materials. Instead of gun battles in the street over distribution rights you get companies competing against each other to attract market share.

And before and idiots get on about exactly what THC is let me correct you right here and now. Both Ethyl hydroxide and Nicotine are more addicting and more damaging to your health then Tetrahydrocannabinol. Ethyl hydroxide is easy to over dose on and will result in death or severe brain damage. It interferes with rational judgement and results in heightened emotional responses, including deep depression, extreme anger, and potentially violent behavior. Nicotine is an extremely addictive substance that leads to expensive long term medical problems. It forms a physical addiction that has proven to be extremely difficult to overcome. Tetrahydrocannabinol on the other hand has no known negative medical effects. It induces an extremely relaxed and sedate state, no severe emotional reactions, no depression, no angry or potentially violent behavior. It's physically impossible to over dose on Tetrahydrocannabinol, several toxicity studies have shown this. It forms no physical addiction, no chemical requirement in the brain. As of now there are no known negative medical side effects. The closest you get is an intense appetite after ingestion. At worst there is a case for expensive lung cancer assuming has similar properties to tobacco.

Or put another way, a man has never smoked a joint then gone home and beat his wife and kids. A young college student has never killed themselves by over dosing on MJ. The same can't be said for Ethyl hydroxide which has caused both the wife beating and the student death and is still doing that as we speak.

Supporting a continued prohibition on THC means you MUST support a prohibition on Ethyl hydroxide, and should support a prohibition against Nicotine. Any other conclusion that involved supporting the prohibition of one yet not another violates rationality and is illogical. And I do believe this is a site where rationale, reason and logic are respected and admired.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Wed Oct 05, 2011 11:08 am

At worst there is a case for expensive lung cancer assuming has similar properties to tobacco.

Seen in vitro. Not in vivo. Statistical studies show a small protective effect. And I would be just as appalled at a government that made you take it for its protective effect as I am appalled by the current regime.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:59 pm

rjaypeters wrote:
Diogenes wrote:...It is probably number 26th on the list of things facing our nation which I worry about.
You have a list? May we see it?

Sure. Primarily regarding Federal government.

1. Financial stability.
a. Control Spending.
b. Reduce the size of government.
c. Pay down national debt.
d. Balanced budget amendment.
e. Constrain government(s) to their proper function.
f. Require everyone to pay taxes.
g. Reduce conflicts of interest with govt. employees.
h. Simplify the tax system.
i. Re-organize the tax collection system.
i. Restore negative feedback system for taxes/spending.
j. Reduce unnecessary and burdensome regulations.

2. Legal stability.
a. Impeach liberal judges.
b. Throw out wrongly decided precedents.
c. Pursue corruption in government.
d. Enforce the 14th amendment.
e. Punish governmental lawbreakers like everyone else.
f. Reform some legal methodology.
g. Restore convicted rights.
h. Reduce tolerance for frivolous cases.
i. Teach basic law in schools.
j. Streamline appeals.
k. Accelerate capitol punishment in cases with overwhelming proof.
l. Require Supreme court Super Majorities to change long standing status quo.
m. Enforce property rights.
n. Enforce Federalism.

3. Economic stability.
a. Prevent monopolies.
b. Rebuff crony capitalism.
c. Eliminate government financing of businesses.
d. Maintain/Increase Oversight of financial institutions/practices.
e. Maintain necessary oversight/regulation of businesses involving interstate commerce.
f. Maintain sound monetary policy.
g. Wean ourselves from Fiat currency.
h. Reduce government interference with businesses.
i. Establish tu quoque import standards/tariffs.
j. Enforce property rights.

4. Social stability.
a. Stop financing irresponsible behavior.
b. Stop interfering with Individual state's policies.
c. Stop legislating bad morality.
d. Provide appropriate safety net. (States)
e. Enforce the Second Amendment.
f. Teach self reliance in schools.
g. Convert to voucher system for education.
h. Interdict/Punish/Isolate criminals.
i. Reform Prison system.
j. Enforce property rights.

5. Governmental Stability.
a. Repeal/rewrite bad Constitutional amendments.
b. Re-establish Republican principles and the rule of law.
c. Teach and promote Federalism.
d. Reform the tax code/system/collections.
e. Educate elected officials. (Federalism)
f. Require legislative/judicial super majorities.
g. Reform the Voting system.
h. Prosecute abuses.
i. Review existing laws.
j. Eliminate/reduce useless/detrimental departments. (TVA, REC, etc)

6. Foreign/World Stability.
a. Protect American National Interests.
b. Pursue American enemies Aggressively.
c. Do not "sell out" allies.
d. Trade fairly with other nations.
e. Stop subsidizing Foreign defense indolence.
f. Reduce American Foreign presence.
g. Ignore/Reject U.N.
h. Promote American Principles.
i. Reduce/stop Official interference in other nations domestic affairs.
j. Cooperate in prosecuting/eliminating international Terrorists/criminals/pirates.

7. Defense Stability.
a. Maintain a strong body of armed forces.
b. Maintain/pursue technology advantages.
c. Look for/address threats pre-emptively.
d. Teach Civics/Duty in Schools.
e. Be circumspect in promises made.
f. Keep promises to those who fight and for whom are fought.
g. Eliminate "social" experiments on Military forces.
h. Maintain Meritocracy in the ranks.

And so on. If I keep writing, I'll eventually get to "26. License/regulate/prohibit drug users." , but like I said, it isn't very important in the overall scheme of things in my opinion.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:22 pm

MSimon wrote:
I simply find your belief that legalization will not cause skyrocketing addiction to be baffling. We even have the real world example of China
Well I have a more recent real world example tried in this very country. America pre-1914. 1.3%

The Sampling period is too small. Opiates were not of significant ubiquity till the late 1800s. We were just getting started on a China like trend when Legislative prohibition nipped it in the bud.

MSimon wrote:
We also have the current example where supply is plentiful and distributed by criminals. They will sell to anyone - no questions asked. 1.3%

You make an argument that 1.3% of the population is perfectly willing to engage in recreational illegal behavior, but this is not an argument that drug addiction will not swell in a permissive environment.

MSimon wrote:
But I get it. You have very little self control and currently don't have a skag connection and fear that if you do you will be unable to control yourself. And you assume your fellow citizens are just like you. Only about 1.3% of them.

Not at all. I am of the belief that no one is fire proof. The Chemical reaction to Heroin is (for most people) just as dangerous as the Chemical reaction to fire. It burns people up.

MSimon wrote:

And in exchange for your fears a SWAT team kills an innocent every other month or so. Too bad for them, eh? And innocents killed in gangsta warfare? Only about 3 to 6 a day. And you are a smart guy. You can stay out of THOSE neighborhoods. Sucks to be THEM though.

Everybody can see the victims. The prevented victims are not seen. It is like a lighthouse in this regard. You only see the wreckage of the small number of ships it did not save, not the larger number of ships that it did.

MSimon wrote: The corruption of our police? Collateral damage. And the lack of respect for the laws engendered? Collateral damage. And the hypocrisy of having dope head presidents while the war on the little people continues? Collateral damage.

It is just a matter of time before we let the medical profession deal with medical problems.

If you open the floodgate to addiction, it will become a social/economic/national security problem, as near as I can tell. I guess at that point I would have to move it up on my importance list.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Wed Oct 05, 2011 5:45 pm

palladin9479 wrote:Prohibition doesn't work, we have nearly 100 years of evidence showing it. The perfect example is the prohibition of Ethyl hydroxide. The Mafia made their money off it, setting up specialized distribution channels to support the illegal trade of Ethyl hydroxide products. They would conduct gang warfare on rival gangs (family's) for control of distribution rights in various territories. The over consumption of Ethyl hydroxide cause's humans to do very stupid things, it impairs judgement and results in countless deaths every year. There would be street battles, gang assassinations and entire wars fought over this stuff. Police officers were corrupted from the money involved in Ethyl hydroxide trade. They were corrupted to ignore the act whenever possible, and sometimes to assist the gangs direction in profiting from their trade.

Then suddenly Ethyl hydroxide prohibition ended. It was legal to manufacturer, distribute and sell Ethyl hydroxide in the open. This had the dramatic effect of nearly instantly shutting down the black market Ethyl hydroxide trade and depriving the gangs of their primary source of income. They were forced to move on to more dangerous things like Opiates. And the gangs that originally profited in Ethyl hydroxide trade eventually withered up and now are a shadow of their former selves. Instead we have new gangs who make their money off the trade in illegal drugs, the same as the old ones.

You want to save a crap ton of cash and solve lots of issues at once? End prohibition of cannabis. Allow the regulated legal manufacture and distribution of cannabis. You'll get brand names and manufacture controls immediately. You'll have safety warnings and content restrictions. Instead of a gang member making the product from various untested ingredients in the back room, you'll get production specialists making the product from tested and regulated materials. Instead of gun battles in the street over distribution rights you get companies competing against each other to attract market share.

And before and idiots get on about exactly what THC is let me correct you right here and now. Both Ethyl hydroxide and Nicotine are more addicting and more damaging to your health then Tetrahydrocannabinol. Ethyl hydroxide is easy to over dose on and will result in death or severe brain damage. It interferes with rational judgement and results in heightened emotional responses, including deep depression, extreme anger, and potentially violent behavior. Nicotine is an extremely addictive substance that leads to expensive long term medical problems. It forms a physical addiction that has proven to be extremely difficult to overcome. Tetrahydrocannabinol on the other hand has no known negative medical effects. It induces an extremely relaxed and sedate state, no severe emotional reactions, no depression, no angry or potentially violent behavior. It's physically impossible to over dose on Tetrahydrocannabinol, several toxicity studies have shown this. It forms no physical addiction, no chemical requirement in the brain. As of now there are no known negative medical side effects. The closest you get is an intense appetite after ingestion. At worst there is a case for expensive lung cancer assuming has similar properties to tobacco.

Or put another way, a man has never smoked a joint then gone home and beat his wife and kids. A young college student has never killed themselves by over dosing on MJ. The same can't be said for Ethyl hydroxide which has caused both the wife beating and the student death and is still doing that as we speak.

Supporting a continued prohibition on THC means you MUST support a prohibition on Ethyl hydroxide, and should support a prohibition against Nicotine. Any other conclusion that involved supporting the prohibition of one yet not another violates rationality and is illogical. And I do believe this is a site where rationale, reason and logic are respected and admired.

To summarize in simpler terms, Marijuana<Alcohol~Heroin<Tobacco, & Money = success!

I wish you guys would try these ideas out on a smaller country (lab rat) before trying them out on us.

Teahive · Post by **Teahive** » Wed Oct 05, 2011 10:38 pm

Diogenes wrote:I simply find your belief that legalization will not cause skyrocketing addiction to be baffling. We even have the real world example of China

When did the legalization cause skyrocketing addiction in China?

Diogenes wrote:The Opium exports to china didn't seem to trend downward. Obviously there is something wrong with the Chinese. That of course wouldn't happen to us. We could legalize opium etc. and our usage would go DOWN.

Why did it not happen in many other countries?

Shipments of opium to China went up because the circumstances supported it. Including, but not limited to, the fact that opium prohibition from 1729 onwards made smuggling opium into China very profitable for the British.

palladin9479 · Post by **palladin9479** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:10 am

As I've already said, proof exists today of exactly what will happen.

When the alcohol prohibition ended there wasn't sky rocketing "addiction" to alcohol. THC doesn't form a physical addiction, it's actually less addicting the nicotine and alcohol.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 2:40 pm

Teahive wrote:
Diogenes wrote:I simply find your belief that legalization will not cause skyrocketing addiction to be baffling. We even have the real world example of China
When did the legalization cause skyrocketing addiction in China?

Diogenes wrote:The Opium exports to china didn't seem to trend downward. Obviously there is something wrong with the Chinese. That of course wouldn't happen to us. We could legalize opium etc. and our usage would go DOWN.
Why did it not happen in many other countries?

Shipments of opium to China went up because the circumstances supported it. Including, but not limited to, the fact that opium prohibition from 1729 onwards made smuggling opium into China very profitable for the British.

I am afraid I will just have to let go of this discussion. You are saying things that make not the slightest bit of sense to me. By 1900 China had a MASSIVE addiction problem. If you cannot see this, and explain why the same thing wouldn't happen to us, I see no further point in beating on this horse.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 2:54 pm

palladin9479 wrote:As I've already said, proof exists today of exactly what will happen.

When the alcohol prohibition ended there wasn't sky rocketing "addiction" to alcohol. THC doesn't form a physical addiction, it's actually less addicting the nicotine and alcohol.

Proof exists today? Only if you say that the effects of Alcohol and the Effects of Hard Drugs are exactly equal. I don't believe that to be the case. The closest thing we have to a real world experiment with the legalization of hard drugs is China, and that turned out TERRIBLE.

Teahive · Post by **Teahive** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 8:45 pm

Diogenes wrote:By 1900 China had a MASSIVE addiction problem. If you cannot see this, and explain why the same thing wouldn't happen to us, I see no further point in beating on this horse.

I am not denying that China had a massive addiction problem. What I'm asking you is to show evidence that this addiction problem was caused by legalization of opium rather than by a wide combination of circumstances (including the earlier prohibition of opium and the power gained by the British opium traders).

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 10:32 pm

Teahive wrote:
Diogenes wrote:By 1900 China had a MASSIVE addiction problem. If you cannot see this, and explain why the same thing wouldn't happen to us, I see no further point in beating on this horse.
I am not denying that China had a massive addiction problem. What I'm asking you is to show evidence that this addiction problem was caused by legalization of opium rather than by a wide combination of circumstances (including the earlier prohibition of opium and the power gained by the British opium traders).

In my opinion the primary cause of the addiction in China was the widespread AVAILABILITY of the addicting substance.

hanelyp · Post by **hanelyp** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:20 am

When comparing alcohol and other mind altering drugs for addiction, keep in mind that unlike most mind altering drugs ethanol doesn't bind to neural receptors. Given that change in activity I'd not be surprised to find a vast difference in addiction profile.

palladin9479 · Post by **palladin9479** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 7:01 am

hanelyp wrote:When comparing alcohol and other mind altering drugs for addiction, keep in mind that unlike most mind altering drugs ethanol doesn't bind to neural receptors. Given that change in activity I'd not be surprised to find a vast difference in addiction profile.

True, except the one I'm comparing it to is THC, which we already know how it works. There is no addiction formed with THC, unlike Nicotine which does form a physical addiction. THC is actually extremely mild compared to alcohol, really alcohol is a poison and your body treats it as such. It's completely illogical for someone to support prohibition against THC but support the legal sale of Alcohol. And I tend to ignore illogical people.

palladin9479 · Post by **palladin9479** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 7:22 am

Diogenes wrote:
palladin9479 wrote:As I've already said, proof exists today of exactly what will happen.

When the alcohol prohibition ended there wasn't sky rocketing "addiction" to alcohol. THC doesn't form a physical addiction, it's actually less addicting the nicotine and alcohol.
Proof exists today? Only if you say that the effects of Alcohol and the Effects of Hard Drugs are exactly equal. I don't believe that to be the case. The closest thing we have to a real world experiment with the legalization of hard drugs is China, and that turned out TERRIBLE.

I really know I shouldn't feel the trolls, but here goes.

Your using a straw-man argument, and you know it. At no point in time did I mention legalizing all Schedule I drugs. The only one I specifically mentioned was THC due to it being a major source of expense and a potential source of tax income.

Now your next response will be to attempt to link it with Cocain / Heroin due to it being a Schedule I substance. I will now defeat that argument before you can make it.

Define "hard drugs", what exactly is the requirement for a substance to be considered so detrimental to society that it need be banned? Knowing this requirement is essential to the debate as otherwise your just making vague and emotionally charged statements.

Does a "hard drug" need to be extremely addictive? Nicotine fits that category, along with caffeine and even gambling.

Does it need to form a physical addiction that cause's negative withdrawal symptoms? Nicotine does that, as does caffeine and a host of
other legal substances.

Does it need to cause physical damage to the human body? Ethyl hydroxide cause's immense damage to the human body, it's a toxin and a human can easily ingest a lethal dose. Every year many young college students kill themselves at parties by over dosing on Ethyl hydroxide.

Does it need to alter the mind enough for the human to cause destructive behavior? Ethyl hydroxide not only cripples the judgement of the human, it exasperates their emotional state leading to depression and violent angry behaviors. Every year people die due to someone operating a motor vehicle while their judgements are impaired via consumption of Ethyl hydroxide. Every year people get angry and physically injure people due to over consumption of Ethyl hydroxide.

THC doesn't fall into any of those categories for danger, yet our favorite recreational drug Ethyl hydroxide does. If THC is a Schedule I drug, so should be Ethyl hydroxide.

Now on to the root of the issue, that you have no actual argument and instead just throw around emotionally charged language. Not a single statement you've made is founded in logic or rational. It's just a bunch of political talking points backed up with cherry picked historical snippets. The mass poverty and poor economy in China had more to do with their problem then the legalization of opium.

Now I know your going to reply to this with some angry posts, attempt red hearing and false dichotomy. Go on and on about "drugs are bad" and "destroys society". All without actually answering the above questions I asked. The more you post the more I'm convinced you'd be a model politician.