Liberty Is Dangerous

[MSimon]

Coffee prohibition:

The cafes in Istanbul were closed and in some cases destroyed. If it was discovered that a person had been drinking coffee, they were beaten. If they were discovered to have consumed coffee a second time, they were sewn into a leather bag and tossed into the Bosphorus (also known as the Istanbul Strait). Murad's despisement of coffee drinkers (and smokers, which was also associated with coffeehouses) was so great that he was known to walk the streets of Istanbul with an executioner, and ordered the beheading of anyone he saw drinking coffee or smoking. It is reported that between 10,000 to 100,000 people were executed during this purge of coffee.

One of the end results of this? The coffee makers and cafe proprietors of Turkey moved out of the country and migrated to places such as Italy, France, Austria and Britain.

The punchline? Murad died at the age of 28. The cause? Alcohol poisoning. It seems that Murad was an alcoholic. Under his reign, Alcohol was technically forbidden, and many drinkers of alcohol were also executed, but Taverns were allowed to stay open while drinkers of coffee were put to death and the coffee industry was forced to immigrate.

http://www.accidentalhedonist.com/index ... ee_prohibi

The typical totalitarian impulse: "If I don't need it no one does."

And one other point - why was he against coffee? His political enemies frequented coffee houses. Which is why Nixon ramped up the Drug War. It was a war on the left.

And the origins of the drug war? Labor problems. Marijuana possession was designed to discourage Mexican labor and the original opium smoking prohibition was designed to discourage Chinese labor.

Racist at its inception and racist in its current enforcement. Dealing and using is fairly evenly distributed across populations in America. And yet incarceration rates for drug crimes disproportionately target blacks.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

[CKay]

If they were discovered to have consumed coffee a second time, they were sewn into a leather bag and tossed into the Bosphorus

Being sewn into a leather bag and thrown into the Bosphorus is too good for 'em.

[MSimon]

Health experts have expressed concerns that the first parliamentary inquiry for 10 years into Britain's policy on illegal drugs will start by accepting testimony in favour of decriminalisation from Sir Richard Branson.

The decision by the home affairs select committee's inquiry to summon the Virgin tycoon as its first witness has raised eyebrows among some health and legal experts. Branson will appear along with Ruth Dreifuss, the former president of Switzerland. Both are commissioners for the Global Commission on Drug Policy, a respected organisation supported by George Shultz, the former US secretary of state, and former presidents of Mexico, Colombia and Brazil.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012 ... ampaigners

For those not familiar with Brit political culture - The Guardian is on the left. Tending to far left.

For those not familiar with American political culture - George Shultz was Secretary of State under Reagan. He is/was a Republican.

[MSimon]

He cited the example of Portugal, which decriminalised the use and possession of drugs in 2001. By setting up clinics where heroin users have access to needles and methadone, along with addiction treatment, Portugal has reduced the number of users, especially among young people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012 ... ampaigners

[CKay]

For those not familiar with Brit political culture - The Guardian is on the left. Tending to far left.

'Far left'? By European standards the Guardian is centre left.

(US standards might be another thing - I remember one British Conservative MP, who had always considered himself to be fairly right wing, who upon visiting the US was surprised to discover that he was a pinko liberal!)

[Diogenes]

D represnts the totalitarian impulse in America.

Why do you keep repeating this? Are you unable to see anything in shades other than black and white?

To you everything is either completely unrestricted or totalitarian. Again, you remind me of Calvin.

and judging by current politics that impulse is rather strong these days.

It was a nice country while it lasted.

You will note that both Mr. Gingrich and Mr. D both are American Southerners - a place where the totalitarian impulse has always been rather strong. You know the deal: "with a strong enough police state any social problem can be fixed."

Yes, we Danish/Cherokees from Indian Territory are all about unfairly imposing our will on others. Colonel Jackson left such a good impression that we adopted his philosophy. Get a grip dude. You are starting to believe your own press releases. You just can't stand the fact that other people see your attempts to make the world safer for drug addicts as foolish and detrimental, so you must characterize us as "Totalitarians."

I do have hope for the future though. Culture warriors couldn't defeat jazz. They couldn't defeat rock 'n roll.

All from the "Totalitarian South" by the way.

And they are losing to drugs as well. In another 50 years the Drug War will be seen to have been a quaint aberration lasting over 100 years. A long time to remain stupid to be sure.

I believe you will get your legalized drugs about the time the nation is financially collapsed... And for the same reason. Prosperity has made the population of this nation stupider and stupider as time has past, and eventually it will result in an utter breakdown of civilization.

Your drugs will be legal because our system of law will have failed. Once the shooting stops, our new dictator will once more impose a moratorium on drugs. He doesn't like his property to be damaged, you know.


Chaos brings totalitarian government. You are trying to midwife it.

[Diogenes]

I don't think you have to worry. For those people who don't need the drugs the side effects are rather unpleasant.

Right here is evidence of a serious disconnect from reality. What human being is born needing foreign plant toxins coursing through his system? How did evolution manage to cross breed some of us with plants?

By age 25 about 50% of Americans will have tried an illegal drug in the last year. By age 35 the number is down to 25% with further declines as the population gets older.

BTW the 50% number is exactly why Drug Prohibition continues to lose ground.

In fact a historical study of substance prohibitions (tobacco, coffee, etc.) shows that they last about 50 years from inception to end. Familiarity breeds indifference. So when did the drug "culture" become popular in America? 1970 would be a good starting point - about 3 or 4 years into hippie culture and 2 years before Nixon declared his war on drugs. Add 50 to that and you get 2020. Less than 10 years away.

My retired police detective friend thinks it will be over by 2016. Roughly 50 years from inception.

The morals police lost to jazz. They lost to rock 'n roll (I remember ministers preaching against it for several decades). And they will lose to drugs. Just as they lost to alcohol.

Evidently stupidity is not just a personal problem. It seems to be cultural as well. The Soviets had their war against American culture (jazz and rock 'n roll were near the top of their hit list). The Iranians are having similar problems.

What D does not get is that culture wars are losers. As are culture warriors. But learning from history does not seem to be a culture warrior's strong point.

What you mean is how dare society tell me I can't have what I want.

[Diogenes]

I just don't think I'd start doing drugs just because they're available.

Psilocybe semilanceata - magic mushrooms - grow the length and breadth of the British Isles. Their psychedelic effects have been widely known since the 60's, yet relatively few people have tried them - fewer still taken them more than once.

And yet the Indians in South American routinely chew coca leaves. Whoda thunk? Fortunately for them, Nature doesn't refine and concentrate the active ingredient, which just goes to show that in a small enough dosage, dangerous stuff is relatively harmless.

[Diogenes]

The ingredients for opium tea (dried poppies/ poppy seeds) can be readily bought in most, if not all, western countries - yet to see the effects of exponential growth in opium tea consumption.

See previous posting on coca leaves.

[Diogenes]

Coffee prohibition:

The cafes in Istanbul were closed and in some cases destroyed. If it was discovered that a person had been drinking coffee, they were beaten. If they were discovered to have consumed coffee a second time, they were sewn into a leather bag and tossed into the Bosphorus (also known as the Istanbul Strait). Murad's despisement of coffee drinkers (and smokers, which was also associated with coffeehouses) was so great that he was known to walk the streets of Istanbul with an executioner, and ordered the beheading of anyone he saw drinking coffee or smoking. It is reported that between 10,000 to 100,000 people were executed during this purge of coffee.

One of the end results of this? The coffee makers and cafe proprietors of Turkey moved out of the country and migrated to places such as Italy, France, Austria and Britain.

The punchline? Murad died at the age of 28. The cause? Alcohol poisoning. It seems that Murad was an alcoholic. Under his reign, Alcohol was technically forbidden, and many drinkers of alcohol were also executed, but Taverns were allowed to stay open while drinkers of coffee were put to death and the coffee industry was forced to immigrate.

http://www.accidentalhedonist.com/index ... ee_prohibi

The typical totalitarian impulse: "If I don't need it no one does."

And one other point - why was he against coffee? His political enemies frequented coffee houses. Which is why Nixon ramped up the Drug War. It was a war on the left.

And the origins of the drug war? Labor problems. Marijuana possession was designed to discourage Mexican labor and the original opium smoking prohibition was designed to discourage Chinese labor.

Racist at its inception and racist in its current enforcement. Dealing and using is fairly evenly distributed across populations in America. And yet incarceration rates for drug crimes disproportionately target blacks.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

Yes, the stuff is as safe as rainbows and puppy dogs, and it is only banned because of racism.

This must be why the Chinese Hated the Anglo-Saxon importation of Opium. It wasn't the drug which caused all their problems, it was those d@mn "foreign devils" on their soil.

By the way, the prosecutions for Robbery, Murder and Rape also "unfairly" targets blacks, and in Sweden, the prosecution of Murders and Rapes "unfairly" targets Muslims.

[Diogenes]

Health experts have expressed concerns that the first parliamentary inquiry for 10 years into Britain's policy on illegal drugs will start by accepting testimony in favour of decriminalisation from Sir Richard Branson.

The decision by the home affairs select committee's inquiry to summon the Virgin tycoon as its first witness has raised eyebrows among some health and legal experts. Branson will appear along with Ruth Dreifuss, the former president of Switzerland. Both are commissioners for the Global Commission on Drug Policy, a respected organisation supported by George Shultz, the former US secretary of state, and former presidents of Mexico, Colombia and Brazil.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012 ... ampaigners

For those not familiar with Brit political culture - The Guardian is on the left. Tending to far left.

For those not familiar with American political culture - George Shultz was Secretary of State under Reagan. He is/was a Republican.

What, pray tell, would a Secretary of State know about the issue?

One thing for certain, any glimmer of light for the drug advocates will be endlessly multiplied in the photo multiplier tube of the fanatical narrative. Endless repetition of false information and fallacy seems to be the preferred methodology of people who have dedicated their lives to the "high."

It's like a religion or something.

[ladajo]

And that is how I feel about your "pushing" argument. It doesn't make any sense to me.

I just don't think I'd start doing drugs just because they're available. You may feel different about yourself, but no amount of availability is going to get me to do them. That's my argument on pushing vs. availability. If you educate people on the subject while available, I think you'll find most people will stay away and/or drugs will become a problem of the past, but there are only a few real world cases.


As for your "old man" story, I'll admit I'm young, but my view from my teens, through 20s and entering 30s haven't changed. I tend to try to abide by a common sense interpretation of "live and let live." Of course common sense is subjective.

This graph may indicate that availability does influence usage rates.

[/img]

[ladajo]

And that is how I feel about your "pushing" argument. It doesn't make any sense to me.

I just don't think I'd start doing drugs just because they're available. You may feel different about yourself, but no amount of availability is going to get me to do them. That's my argument on pushing vs. availability. If you educate people on the subject while available, I think you'll find most people will stay away and/or drugs will become a problem of the past, but there are only a few real world cases.


As for your "old man" story, I'll admit I'm young, but my view from my teens, through 20s and entering 30s haven't changed. I tend to try to abide by a common sense interpretation of "live and let live." Of course common sense is subjective.

I also think that education matters. However on first take the below stats may indicate otherwise.

Education
Illicit drug use in 2010 varied by the educational status of adults aged 18 or older, with the rate of current illicit drug use lower among college graduates (6.3 percent) than those with some college (10.7 percent), high school graduates (8.5 percent), and those who had not graduated from high school (10.8 percent). However, in 2010, adults aged 18 or older who had not finished high school had the lowest rate of lifetime illicit drug use (38.9 percent) compared with the lifetime rate among high school graduates (46.4 percent), those with some college (56.2 percent), and those who were college graduates (52.0 percent).

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k10NSD ... ts.htm#2.1

On second take, when one considers who (left slant) controls the education system in the US, it may make more sense. And if you add another dimension, to include that higher education tends for higher interest in media(news, etc), and who (left slant again) drives the media, it may indicate that there is a self-licking ice cream cone effect where a definite impact is seen from education to media influence to an individuals take on things.

Interesting in any event.

edit: added study link.

[ladajo]

MSimon said:

I don't think you have to worry. For those people who don't need the drugs the side effects are rather unpleasant. By age 25 about 50% of Americans will have tried an illegal drug in the last year. By age 35 the number is down to 25% with further declines as the population gets older.

Can you link where you got your numbers? The 2010 National Report the monthly take that varies greatly from your annual numbers. It would indicate that your data may be significantly high off the mark (up to double).

[Skipjack]

Ladajo, in all fairness one has to say that these are two completely different numbers.
Yours are the numbers of people per a certain age that have used in the past month
Msimon was talking about people having tried an illegal drug in the past year. I dont think that the two can be compared like that.