Liberty Is Dangerous

[CKay]

Hmm.. no, I've definitely had enough experience to have formed an opinion on the matter, sweeping or otherwise.

Certainly enough to know that your claim to have watched as someone had cocaine forced upon them until they became addicted is 100% pure, grade A fantasy.

Not to say that your hypocrisy regarding your ethanol habit completely undermines your credibilty.

[Teahive]

Legal Opium importation started in 1758

It did not, and it could not, because Opium was not legal in China back then.

Argue what you want, but use facts not fiction.

Why didn't you supply the correct date then?

Because you just have to follow the link you yourself provided and actually read it. I'll give you a hint: search for "Treaty of Tiantsien".

[Diogenes]

It did not, and it could not, because Opium was not legal in China back then.

Argue what you want, but use facts not fiction.

Why didn't you supply the correct date then?

Because you just have to follow the link you yourself provided and actually read it. I'll give you a hint: search for "Treaty of Tiantsien".

Why Lord? Why oh why cannot I get my point across? I'll try again.


It is my position that it is not *I* who needs the education on what happened with China and Opium. It is those who believe that the same thing wouldn't happen here that I think needs to do the reading.

Oh, and by the way, I was wrong about the date Opium was made Legal by British Guns in China. I try to make a point of admitting I was wrong when I was wrong, but again, I wasn't really concerned at the time with whether or not I had got the date correct. I thought that If I hadn't got the date correct, it might at least provoke someone to LEARN ABOUT this piece of history. (In order to rebut me.)

So you've done enough research to get the correct date. In all of your research on this subject, did you see any reason why massive addiction would not happen here just like it did in China?

[Betruger]

Once again, I do not think the current system is working. However, I also do not see a viable alternative yet. Legalization is not it. I do think that one of the most effective means to attack is the profit motive for suppliers. Either disrupt the profit chain, and/or encourage them to do something better. How is no simple task.

Getting to sound like a broken record here, but governmental solutions will only ever mitigate. Unless the population turns into mindless drones, at which point government is the ideal solution. The solution that corresponds to a population that's free (supposed to be, at least) as the USA's is a cultural one. There's not much to argue in that respect because this is one of those solutions that's self-evident when the problem is defined clearly enough.

"Condemned to be free". And brave, as ought to be in this case.

The drug "problem" is a cultural failure, not a governmental one. These govt solutions are round pegs to drugs' square hole - with a big enough hammer..

I have pointed out to you that

I skip your posts.

while the "government" solution may have problems, it works better than anything else which has been tried.

Do you have a better suggestion?

Replacing the culture people like you perpetuate, with a better one. That is the only way forward. Just like e.g. getting more people into space and giving them the Overview Effect is the only way to break out of the world's current cabin fevered myopia re: a lot of things, not least of which the fact that post-scarcity is imminent if only a relatively little more was done to get Technology there.

Government begets government. Or maybe we can just go back to monarchies.

[KitemanSA]

Why Lord? Why oh why cannot I get my point across? I'll try again.


It is my position that it is not *I* who needs the education on what happened with China and Opium.

He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool, shun him.

[Diogenes]

Getting to sound like a broken record here, but governmental solutions will only ever mitigate. Unless the population turns into mindless drones, at which point government is the ideal solution. The solution that corresponds to a population that's free (supposed to be, at least) as the USA's is a cultural one. There's not much to argue in that respect because this is one of those solutions that's self-evident when the problem is defined clearly enough.

"Condemned to be free". And brave, as ought to be in this case.

The drug "problem" is a cultural failure, not a governmental one. These govt solutions are round pegs to drugs' square hole - with a big enough hammer..

I have pointed out to you that

I skip your posts.

Little children put their fingers in their ears and go NA NA NA NA NA NA....
And for the same reason.

while the "government" solution may have problems, it works better than anything else which has been tried.

Do you have a better suggestion?

Replacing the culture people like you perpetuate, with a better one.

This idea postulates the notion that there IS a better one. Judeo Christian culture is how we GOT HERE. I argue that it is the resonance peak.

Your alternative ideal society appears to be utopian hand waving.

That is the only way forward. Just like e.g. getting more people into space and giving them the Overview Effect is the only way to break out of the world's current cabin fevered myopia re: a lot of things, not least of which the fact that post-scarcity is imminent if only a relatively little more was done to get Technology there.

Government begets government. Or maybe we can just go back to monarchies.

It is my observation that that is exactly what is occurring. Socialist movements lead to monarchy by another name.

I'm pretty sure a monarchy won't tolerate drugs either. They do not like people damaging their property.

[Diogenes]

Why Lord? Why oh why cannot I get my point across? I'll try again.


It is my position that it is not *I* who needs the education on what happened with China and Opium.

He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool, shun him.

I pay attention to you and others because I have hopes that you can learn.

[ladajo]

Hmm.. no, I've definitely had enough experience to have formed an opinion on the matter, sweeping or otherwise.

Certainly enough to know that your claim to have watched as someone had cocaine forced upon them until they became addicted is 100% pure, grade A fantasy.

Not to say that your hypocrisy regarding your ethanol habit completely undermines your credibilty.

I note that you have edited you comment to remove the name calling. Thank you. It did reduce you credibility on this topic, but you have regained some (not all) with the correction.
However, it did show that you have found your argument reduced to a small circle that prompted the name calling.

I am not concerned with your belief of my past and experiences.

You may however want to consider that your claim to be Magically Cocaine Proof may bring the mythical 'Black Helicopters' down on your head as the 'Global Prohibitionist Conspiracy Apparatus' seeks to exploit your Corpus for 'Medical Experiments' in order to solve once and for all the Global Drug Problem by making everyone Magically Cocaine Proof. Talk about grade "A' fantasy.

I guarantee that I can addict(create dependant physcological and physiological in) you to Cocaine.

In your defense, I will add that I can not guarantee that you will remain addicted, and have never claimed that. That is a different topic, and I think the one you have been trying to frame your defense around.

I think the part you do not grasp in your small world view regarding alcohol and drug use, is that I fully accept the legal constraints placed on Alcohol use, and encourage them. I also fully accept and expect to be punished if I behave outside those bounds. That is why I choose to be careful about my use and remain inside the bounds. Part of the reason for the bounds is to help limit Alcohol use in order to limit the potential risk for addiction and or abusive behaviour by the Average Joe. This is the part that you don't seem to get.

Is Alcohol addictive? Yes

Is Cocaine addictive? Yes

Does the Average Joe face equal chance of developing addiction or abusive tendancies with either Cocaine or Alcohol? No, Cocaine carries a much higher risk of addiction than alcohol for any single user. Thus its rating as one of the most highly addictive substances known. Per unit use, Cocaine also has a much higher effect on creating functional impairment than Alcohol. There is a significant difference in the effects of a shotglass full of pure Cocaine verses a shotglass of pure Alcohol.

Does it make sense to manage Cocaine the same way as Alcohol for public access? No. It does not. Cocaine carries much higher risk to a single user than Alchohol in potential for dependancy and corrosponding irrational behaviour that introduces involuntary risk to others by the user. Consideration must also be given to the potential for spiralling increase in addiction rates as noted in focus areas where free/easy access to Cocaine has been noted by study and analysis. This in turn sees a spiral increase in irrational behaviour that decreases concerns and increases involuntary risks for others (users and non-users) by the given user. Access to Cocaine for any given Average Joe single user should not be equitable to Alcohol.

Counter: But Alcohol is a big problem. Many folks ruin their lives and others by use. True. And, that is why it is controlled. But it does not compare to risk levels for Cocaine. Given 100 Average Joes with free access to Alcohol and 100 Joes with free access to Cocaine. The Cocaine group will track to higher numbers of non-self controlled (addicts) users than the Alcohol group. Any given user of either, while under active influence shows tendancy for reduced decision making and rational thought, so this is an equal concern. Where things differ is once dependancy is established, a person becomes much more likely to discard concern for others, as well as have a signifcantly greater overall usage rate and corrosponding percentage of time under the influence.
This is where the rubber hits the road. Given Cocaine's much higher addictive qualities over Alcohol, it follows that the 100 Joe's in the Coke Room will produce more Addicted Joe's than those in the Alcohol Room. And it then follows that Cocaine requires a corrospondingly higher degree of control and access than Alcohol for any given Joe.

See beyond your own limited view.

[Betruger]

Little children put their fingers in their ears and go NA NA NA NA NA NA....
And for the same reason.

No. I skip your posts because they are trash. Because I think you are narrow minded landlocked redneck trash. It's not even condescension, it's just the only way I can make sense of everything you write. So, not having anything that's proper for this forum's admittedly familiar but good willed ambiance, I skip your posts.

Why would I bother responding to your posts when I have so little positive and constructive to add? I guess this self-discipline is "childish".

Your alternative ideal society appears to be utopian hand waving.

Nope. Just more rigorously comprehensive, diligent exercise of the best parts of judeochristian and all other cultures... C.F. e.g. Joseph Campbell for an example of how to synthesize from many seemingly disparate cultures and traditions.
It is again as always, Reason.

[ScottL]

In all of your research on this subject, did you see any reason why massive addiction would not happen here just like it did in China?

Lack of a large super power invading our country and threatening physical violence if we decide not to take said drug. According to your argument, if we remove laws governing said drugs, you and I will become addicted just like in China, why do you feel we would? I'm guessing here, but I'm pretty sure you'd say no, and I'm pretty sure I'd say no, so why? Why would the status of our decision on said drugs change at all? Barring the lack of a threat to ourselves, families, or friends, I just don't see us deciding to use because its available. Strong glues have been available for a long time and I still haven't huffed any glue.

[ladajo]

How about comparing the usage and addiction rates of a inner city area against a rural town for a given populace count? Metro areas tend to "enjoy" higher levels of access to controlled substances than rural towns. And NOBODY is forcing anyone to take anything in the macro.

I think you will find increased availability tends to increased use.

You can continue the discussion along the lines of how increases usage and addiction rates detract from the success rate of the affected populace which in turn spirals the stressors and inclinations to take drugs, etc and so on.

Even the inner city crowd has claimed conspiracies sub and exo-urban america to "keep them down" by "feeding them drugs".

Addictive substances by nature reduce or remove free will and self-promote further use. Usage brings on physiological and physcological alterations which reduce or even remove the capacity to reason or make sound judgments. This in turn sets a condition where the person under the influence has a high chance of imposing involuntary risks on others, as well as involuntary burdens on society.

Is this so hard to understand?

[Betruger]

Ladajo would you agree that the main reason for outlawing "uncontrollable" drugs use is so as to not put a burden on social cohesion IE to keep the engines of prosperity going? And consequently that once post-scarcity, there'd be little justification for outlawing use instead of legislating only individual responsibility IE punishing users who failed to ensure they would not infringe on others Unalienable Rights while under the influence?

[ScottL]

Education is the key to preventing drug abuse, not prohibitive law. Prohibitive law is the equivalent of telling a preteen not to watch HBO on their cable tv after 10:00 because of "adult things." You know they will if they feel like it and it only ups the desire to do so. Better to tackle the situation honestly, openly, and informatively so the desire never forms.

[ladajo]

Ladajo would you agree that the main reason for outlawing "uncontrollable" drugs use is so as to not put a burden on social cohesion IE to keep the engines of prosperity going? And consequently that once post-scarcity, there'd be little justification for outlawing use instead of legislating only individual responsibility IE punishing users who failed to ensure they would not infringe on others Unalienable Rights while under the influence?

I think that I do not have a better answer in the aggregate. This is such a hard topic. The basic rub is we are talking about use of substances that remove/reduce folks ability to reason. So once they are under active influence (leaving the compounding effect of potential addiction out of it) it is arguable that they can not be held accountable for their actions if society permits them to use it in the first place. Privacy of one's home? Sure, bears consideration, but what if minors are in attendance, who are not mature enough to protect themselves or make good decisions when mom/dad/guardian are off their rockers on LSD or on a coke rage? Like I said, it is really a hard topic frought with risk. I see merit in your logic flow, but I see great risk in practice. I am not risk averse by any means, and have shown so for many years in my professional life. But I am conservative by nature, and do not like unneccessary risk. So, ummm, I dunno. Certainly worth debating.

Would a more fundamentally sound and prosperous society be able to digest and handle less restriction on access to "drugs"?

[ladajo]

Education is the key to preventing drug abuse, not prohibitive law. Prohibitive law is the equivalent of telling a preteen not to watch HBO on their cable tv after 10:00 because of "adult things." You know they will if they feel like it and it only ups the desire to do so. Better to tackle the situation honestly, openly, and informatively so the desire never forms.

I fully agree that education is a major component, and at all ages, and continuous.

I also believe that a viable means to attack the profit motive is also important. I do not think what we are doing is working, but I do not yet see a palatable alternative.