Somebody Is Paying The Medical Bill

[TDPerk]

"And what makes them safe in any sense?"

That they can be used with a sufficiently known risk in return for a sufficiently known benefit.

"Do you take them?"

No, my psychoactive drugs of choice are alcohol and caffeine.

"If they are safe, and you don't, why not?"

For me, the legal risks associated with their use outweigh any benefit I can conceive of.

My objection to the war on drugs arises from knowing what it costs society and me in return for no net benefit to either I can perceive.

[ladajo]

Fair enough.

I would point out that this is a narrow view:

the legal risks associated with their use outweigh any benefit I can conceive of

Why not think further on your first statement?

That they can be used with a sufficiently known risk in return for a sufficiently known benefit.

My premise is that the "known risk" and unknown risk far outweigh the "known benefit" and potentially (IMO) very limited unknown benefit.

[TDPerk]

"My premise is that the "known risk" and unknown risk far outweigh the "known benefit" and potentially (IMO) very limited unknown benefit."

There is also your unstated premise, that the known and unknown risks of un or far less restricted recreational drug use are more costly than the costs of prohibiting such, and that it is society's proper role to make that judgement for people even prior to any malum in se event. Yours is a despicable sentiment.

The balance of evidence is that prohibition is all cost without benefit. People who want drugs get them anyway. They use them in binges because they are constantly at risk of losing them--confiscated by authorities driven by drug war pressures to disregard the constitution (which disregard spreads into all aspects of government action); or taken by theft, in which case they have no legal recourse.

They manufacture them clandestinely by the most expedient means (not the most reasonably safe, witness this story). Criminal gangs fight turf wars over their distribution.

Seeking to impair their manufacture,the government makes normal medications useless, makes medicating pain legally dangerous, and provokes the quite extreme abrogations of the fundamental law.

The addicted generally cannot seek help without legal sanctions.

General prohibition has no upside, it's all downside.

If you think my characterization of your premises as despicable is too extreme, please understand all these evils and all of their type of their type is the inevitable result of government attempting something it cannot of right do.

[Diogenes]

"And what makes them safe in any sense?"

That they can be used with a sufficiently known risk in return for a sufficiently known benefit.

"Do you take them?"

No, my psychoactive drugs of choice are alcohol and caffeine.

"If they are safe, and you don't, why not?"

For me, the legal risks associated with their use outweigh any benefit I can conceive of.

My objection to the war on drugs arises from knowing what it costs society and me in return for no net benefit to either I can perceive.

I have realized it is simply impossible for me to make myself understood. Karl Popper would be proud.

I will try once more anyway.


I argue that the normal course of drug addiction is an exponential. Without any interference, it would look like this.



Or This:



Or This:

Chests of Opium imported into China




I will point out that to hover against gravity requires an expenditure of an equal and opposite reaction.


If you stop pushing against gravity, you get a velocity curve which looks like this. (neglecting air friction.)





Turn off the drug war, and your addiction rate (velocity) will increase until it reaches it's maximum rate of sustainability. We are hovering at 2% addiction BECAUSE of the drug war. That is the benefit.


Standing still may not look like a benefit, but when the alternative is falling, it becomes apparent what is the benefit of standing still.

[TDPerk]

"I argue that the normal course of drug addiction is an exponential. Without any interference, it would look like this."

Your argument is already contradicted by the known fact of our own history.

A small fraction of the population is subject to addiction, and greater availability does not enlarge that fraction. Those who want drugs get them right now, by criminal means which feed criminal organizations.

Prohibition is a cost in sum without countervailing benefit.

[TDPerk]

"Chests of Opium imported into China"

should read

"Unloaded at cannonpoint from British ships onto Chinese docks"

The lie being saying they were imported implies both that it was all both demanded and consumed, something not in evidence.

[GIThruster]

The lie being saying they were imported implies both that it was all both demanded and consumed, something not in evidence.

Right. They shipped in the drugs when no one wanted them, and they've been sitting on the docks ever since.

And I have a bridge for sale. . .

[TDPerk]

I love it when a pompous person shows their ignorance.

Britain imported a lot from China, and didn't want to pay in specie. They forced the opium onto China's shores and claimed the debt was paid.

[GIThruster]

You're making a completely irrelevant observation, and implying there was no demand for the product. That's absurd. Lets see your evidence, that opium use did not parallel the rate at which it was shipped into the country. That's the conclusion you're plucking from thin air and certainly anyone who will buy it, will buy my bridge.

[TDPerk]

Since the historical fact is that the British forced the opium into China to alleviate a balance of trade problem, it would be Ladago's, Diogene's, or your task to show the use rates did not trail the supply.

But then I know from the SOPA thread you are intellectually dishonest whenever it suits you.

[choff]

I'll take it a step further and say if you stop the government from supplying the illegal drugs and encouraging the use thereof then you don't have to spend money on a drug war.

www.madcowprod.com

[hanelyp]

I'll accept on face value that the government of China may have opposed the importation of opium. But I very much doubt importation would have continued and expanded if there was not an expanding market. If Chinese people had to be forced at gun point to buy, why not just take their money at gun point and dispense with the opium?

[GIThruster]

Since the historical fact is that the British forced the opium into China to alleviate a balance of trade problem. . .

I'm sure you think you're very clever, but for those not acquainted with the Opium Wars, lets recall a little history. Opium was illegal. The Brits brought it over and sold it to smugglers, who then sated the hunger of the Chinese people with it, in just the same sort of way people sell illegal drugs here in the states. You keep falling back on this ridiculous image of people being forced to use opium, when in fact the demand is always there for things like opium. This is the single salient FACT of the matter and you're twisted investment in portraying the situation otherwise is surely the result of your own cognitive disfunction.

The Brits never forced anyone to do drugs. They covertly sold the drugs to smugglers. How could they possibly have put in force the nonsensical program you're fabricating? Anyone who wants to know more about this can search "Opium Wars" and it will then be obvious Perky is delusional.

[choff]

I think the arguement being made is that when you initially supply the demand of the small, genetically suspectible portion of the population, the crime resultant from this minority of users to feed this demand, creates societal breakdown, which causes the increasingly damaged society to turn to drugs for relief, a reinforcing, compounding effect.

[ladajo]

the crime resultant

I would not limit it to just crime. The increasing dysfunction of drug users in itself need not be crime based. It is more prevantly in a "failure to thrive" context. These folks may have started as functional contributors to society (work, family, growth, development), but once on the drug path become dysfunctional drains. This in turn raises stress for society as a whole, and in turn, could be driving more folks to seek escapism and stress relief who normalyl would not have. The other facto rto consider is the "nurture" context. The bottom line concept is that kids tend to grow up doing what they saw and know. If the parent is a smoker, the kid has a significantly higher chance of choosing to be one as well. If the parent is violent, the kid has a statistically higher chance of choosing to use voilence for attempted problem solving. If the parent drinks, etc. If the parent is promicuous, etc. Etc. etc. etc.

This I think is where the compounding effect really takes root. Drugs are a self licking ice-cream cone with a built in accellerant.