A Precedent For Tyranny

[ladajo]

Or even better, people learn to do the right thing, and you don't need a law for it.

The problem today seems to be that the Western World has some urgent need to have a law for everything. I feel it is based more or less not in the needs or wants of the people, but in the self corrupting self licking ice cream cone we call the legal system and how it is entirely too intimate with the legislative system. It is in my mind a firmly nepotistic and corrupt system that feeds itself at the expense of the population in general.
Who is the "reasonable man"? Does he even exist any more?

[Diogenes]

Or even better, people learn to do the right thing, and you don't need a law for it.

The problem today seems to be that the Western World has some urgent need to have a law for everything.

I agree. The law should follow what is right, not the other way around.

I feel it is based more or less not in the needs or wants of the people, but in the self corrupting self licking ice cream cone we call the legal system and how it is entirely too intimate with the legislative system. It is in my mind a firmly nepotistic and corrupt system that feeds itself at the expense of the population in general.
Who is the "reasonable man"? Does he even exist any more?

I could go on far longer than anyone would want to hear about the shortcomings of our legal system. Yes, our system is corrupt. It is full of foolish legal arguments, and it lacks inherent consistency on many points.

Much of what is wrong with it is the result of letting Roosevelt (Democrat) select (Kook) Judges for 16 years.

[MSimon]

I take this to mean that you cannot win by the strict enforcement of the laws. You must teach people to follow the laws because it is the proper thing to do.

This is America. People only follow the laws they like (see Traffic, Interstate). If you can't get voluntary compliance for better than 99% of the population you might as well give up. See Prohibition, Alcohol.

Well, unless you are looking for a revenue source.

We have eliminated freelance thieves from our highways and have institutionalized them. Now robbery is more civilized. Generally. Unless they call in a SWAT Team on you.

[williatw]

People often say "China doesn't fit." They often claim that Britain forced people to smoke the stuff.

Opium sells itself. It doesn't need any "forcing." It is my belief that simply making it available will create an ever increasing quantity of addicts. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why any country which allows it wouldn't end up just like China.
Sorry, I just put no stock in the "British made us do it" Theory.

"Claim" that they forced it? You have got to be kidding. What do you think the opium wars were about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
From the link: After the inauguration of the Canton System in 1756, which restricted trade to one port and did not allow foreign entrance to China, the British East India Company faced a trade imbalance in favour of China and invested heavily in opium production to redress the balance. British and United States merchants brought opium from the British East India Company's factories in Patna and Benares,[1] in the Bengal Presidency of British India, to the coast of China, where they sold it to Chinese smugglers who distributed the drug in defiance of Chinese laws. Aware both of the drain of silver and the growing numbers of addicts, the Daoguang Emperor demanded action. Officials at the court, who advocated legalization of the trade in order to tax it were defeated by those who advocated suppression. In 1838, the Emperor sent Lin Zexu to Guangzhou where he quickly arrested Chinese opium dealers and summarily demanded that foreign firms turn over their stocks. When they refused, Lin stopped trade altogether and placed the foreign residents under virtual siege, eventually forcing the merchants to surrender their opium to be destroyed. In response, the British government sent expeditionary forces from India which ravaged the Chinese coast and dictated the terms of settlement. The Treaty of Nanking not only opened the way for further opium trade, but ceded territory including Hong Kong, unilaterally fixed Chinese tariffs at a low rate, granted extraterritorial rights to foreigners in China which were not offered to Chinese abroad, a most favored nation clause, as well as diplomatic representation. When the court still refused to accept foreign ambassadors and obstructed the trade clauses of the treaties, disputes over the treatment of British merchants in Chinese ports and on the seas led to the Second Opium War and the Treaty of Tientsin.[2]

So I guess it wasn't forced accept for the British troops that forced it overiding Chinese law.

[williatw]

I take this to mean that you cannot win by the strict enforcement of the laws. You must teach people to follow the laws because it is the proper thing to do.

This is America. People only follow the laws they like (see Traffic, Interstate). If you can't get voluntary compliance for better than 99% of the population you might as well give up. See Prohibition, Alcohol.

Well, unless you are looking for a revenue source.

We have eliminated freelance thieves from our highways and have institutionalized them. Now robbery is more civilized. Generally. Unless they call in a SWAT Team on you.

yuppers just look at the ever growing busines of "forfeiture of assets". All the gov has to do is decide that your valubles/car/money is suspected of having been acquired by illegal means(say you fit the "profile" of a drug dealor) and they can take it. You don't have to be charged(let alone convicted) with any crime and you must fight to get your own property back.

[Diogenes]

People often say "China doesn't fit." They often claim that Britain forced people to smoke the stuff.

Opium sells itself. It doesn't need any "forcing." It is my belief that simply making it available will create an ever increasing quantity of addicts. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why any country which allows it wouldn't end up just like China.
Sorry, I just put no stock in the "British made us do it" Theory.

"Claim" that they forced it? You have got to be kidding. What do you think the opium wars were about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
From the link: After the inauguration of the Canton System in 1756, which restricted trade to one port and did not allow foreign entrance to China, the British East India Company faced a trade imbalance in favour of China and invested heavily in opium production to redress the balance. British and United States merchants brought opium from the British East India Company's factories in Patna and Benares,[1] in the Bengal Presidency of British India, to the coast of China, where they sold it to Chinese smugglers who distributed the drug in defiance of Chinese laws. Aware both of the drain of silver and the growing numbers of addicts, the Daoguang Emperor demanded action. Officials at the court, who advocated legalization of the trade in order to tax it were defeated by those who advocated suppression. In 1838, the Emperor sent Lin Zexu to Guangzhou where he quickly arrested Chinese opium dealers and summarily demanded that foreign firms turn over their stocks. When they refused, Lin stopped trade altogether and placed the foreign residents under virtual siege, eventually forcing the merchants to surrender their opium to be destroyed. In response, the British government sent expeditionary forces from India which ravaged the Chinese coast and dictated the terms of settlement. The Treaty of Nanking not only opened the way for further opium trade, but ceded territory including Hong Kong, unilaterally fixed Chinese tariffs at a low rate, granted extraterritorial rights to foreigners in China which were not offered to Chinese abroad, a most favored nation clause, as well as diplomatic representation. When the court still refused to accept foreign ambassadors and obstructed the trade clauses of the treaties, disputes over the treatment of British merchants in Chinese ports and on the seas led to the Second Opium War and the Treaty of Tientsin.[2]

So I guess it wasn't forced accept for the British troops that forced it overiding Chinese law.

Okay, you aren't familiar with the argument then. Let me catch you up a bit.

Yes, the British made the Chinese legalize the stuff. That is exactly what some of the Libertarians want. Legalized drugs. This is not the same thing as forcing them to use it. The "Forcing" I was referring to was the argument that British troops would round people up, stick pipes in their mouths, and make them smoke opium.

They forced them to LEGALIZE it, and that was all it took to create a nation of drug addicts. (50% male addiction rate in Manchuria by 1905.)


But this begs the question. If you think that the British Forcing them to legalize the drug was a bad thing, why would you support legalizing the drug?

And what makes you think the same thing won't happened here that happened in China?

[Diogenes]

I take this to mean that you cannot win by the strict enforcement of the laws. You must teach people to follow the laws because it is the proper thing to do.

This is America. People only follow the laws they like (see Traffic, Interstate). If you can't get voluntary compliance for better than 99% of the population you might as well give up. See Prohibition, Alcohol.

Well, unless you are looking for a revenue source.

We have eliminated freelance thieves from our highways and have institutionalized them. Now robbery is more civilized. Generally. Unless they call in a SWAT Team on you.

yuppers just look at the ever growing busines of "forfeiture of assets". All the gov has to do is decide that your valubles/car/money is suspected of having been acquired by illegal means(say you fit the "profile" of a drug dealor) and they can take it. You don't have to be charged(let alone convicted) with any crime and you must fight to get your own property back.

This aspect of the issue I happen to agree with MSimon about. Asset forfeiture without due process is bull Sh*t.

[williatw]

Okay, you aren't familiar with the argument then. Let me catch you up a bit.

Yes, the British made the Chinese legalize the stuff. That is exactly what some of the Libertarians want. Legalized drugs. This is not the same thing as forcing them to use it. The "Forcing" I was referring to was the argument that British troops would round people up, stick pipes in their mouths, and make them smoke opium.

They forced them to LEGALIZE it, and that was all it took to create a nation of drug addicts. (50% male addiction rate in Manchuria by 1905.)


But this begs the question. If you think that the British Forcing them to legalize the drug was a bad thing, why would you support legalizing the drug?
And what makes you think the same thing won't happened here that happened in China?

What's the difference between legalizing voluntarily and having the legalization forced upon you at gun point?! Again you must be kidding. One way your deciding the rules another an outside occupying force is. So if the Chinese invaded and occupied the US, decided to sell pure opium/heroin on every street corner to get their money back to any man woman or child who wanted it, libertarians would be saying "great this is what we wanted, after all this is what we meant by legal and regulated". The difference is they forced them to legalize it completely totally unregulated and aggressively marketed. At the time Opium wasn't even illegal in Britain (or the US). Forcing someone to make something legal at gunpoint is force, even if the ultimate end user isn't being forced. If you doubt that consider this: as I said at the time of the opium wars opium was still legal in Britain & the US. Okay imagine a chinese(to say nothing of a black) gentlemen selling/giving Opium to white schoolkids in America lets say in the South. Whether it was legal or not at the time the end result would be a very unhappy ending for that gentleman. He would have found himself the guest of honor at a "necktie party". Libertarians most of them are talking about relatively weak regs for pot, & if hard drugs were made legal much stricker regs.

[Diogenes]

Okay, you aren't familiar with the argument then. Let me catch you up a bit.

Yes, the British made the Chinese legalize the stuff. That is exactly what some of the Libertarians want. Legalized drugs. This is not the same thing as forcing them to use it. The "Forcing" I was referring to was the argument that British troops would round people up, stick pipes in their mouths, and make them smoke opium.

They forced them to LEGALIZE it, and that was all it took to create a nation of drug addicts. (50% male addiction rate in Manchuria by 1905.)


But this begs the question. If you think that the British Forcing them to legalize the drug was a bad thing, why would you support legalizing the drug?
And what makes you think the same thing won't happened here that happened in China?

What's the difference between legalizing voluntarily and having the legalization forced upon you at gun point?! Again you must be kidding. One way your deciding the rules another an outside occupying force is. So if the Chinese invaded and occupied the US, decided to sell pure opium/heroin on every street corner to get their money back to any man woman child who wanted it, libetarians would be saying "great this is what we wanted, after all this is what we meant by legal and regulated". The difference is they forced them to legalize it completely totally unregulated and aggressively marketed. At the time Opium wasn't even illegal in Britain (or the US). Libertarians most of them are talking about relatively weak regs for pot, & if hard drugs were made legal much stricker regs.

What does that have to do with the CONSEQUENCES of having legalized drugs?


That *Britain* made the stuff legal and available has nothing to do with the salient point that when the stuff is legal and available, it causes a massive amount of addiction. It is irrelevant to the discussion HOW the drugs became legal and available, the only relevancy is that they WERE legal and available.

I do not even understand why you bring up HOW the drugs got into China. If the stuff were legal in America, dozens of suppliers would show up to fill the demand.

[williatw]

What does that have to do with the CONSEQUENCES of having legalized drugs? That *Britain* made the stuff legal and available has nothing to do with the salient point that when the stuff is legal and available, it causes a massive amount of addiction. It is irrelevant to the discussion HOW the drugs became legal and available, the only relevancy is that they WERE legal and available.
I do not even understand why you bring up HOW the drugs got into China. If the stuff were legal in America, dozens of suppliers would show up to fill the demand.

Because one way (you make it legal) you get to control how it is bought sold produced distributed REGULATING it as you see fit. Licensing banning as you see fit. The otherway(China-opium wars) your masters/overlords do. Unregulated sold as they see fit with no regard to what you want. This strongly determines the consequences of legalizing it. The lesson of the Opium Wars is don't get conquered, not don't legalize opium.

[Diogenes]

What does that have to do with the CONSEQUENCES of having legalized drugs? That *Britain* made the stuff legal and available has nothing to do with the salient point that when the stuff is legal and available, it causes a massive amount of addiction. It is irrelevant to the discussion HOW the drugs became legal and available, the only relevancy is that they WERE legal and available.
I do not even understand why you bring up HOW the drugs got into China. If the stuff were legal in America, dozens of suppliers would show up to fill the demand.

Because one way (you make it legal) you get to control how it is bought sold produced distributed REGULATING it as you see fit. Licensing banning as you see fit.

Well sure, let's "regulate it" and call it a victory. After all, if Alcohol only kills a hundred thousand people every year, then surely we need to add another source of death to our society.

I do not comprehend how you think you can "regulate" this stuff. If you let it in, you will not be able to stop the addiction rate from going crazy, though I did run across a different way of looking at it the other day. I found it here.

“There is no one answer.”





“Actually, there is a short answer. All drugs should be legal,

high quality, priced to market conditions, and readily available. What happens when you give a junkie all the dope they want? Problem Solved. darn, you think too much, Bruce.” -- Define “Drug” BRUCE HANIFY

I would be for this if it applied to Heroin and such. Get them out of the system quickly, or don't bother.

The otherway(China-opium wars) your masters/overlords do. Unregulated sold as they see fit with no regard to what you want. This strongly determines the consequences of legalizing it. The lesson of the Opium Wars is don't get conquered, not don't legalize opium.

You simply dismiss the effect of the drug and attribute all of China's subsequent problems to the British forcing their markets open.

It is the commodity which caused the problem, not the manner in which it became prevalent.

As the habit of smoking opium spread from the idle rich to ninety per cent of all Chinese males under the age of forty in the country's coastal regions, business activity was much reduced, the civil service ground to a halt, and the standard of living fell. The Emperor Dao guang's special anti-opium commissioner Lin Ze-xu (1785-1850), modestly estimated the number of his countrymen addicted to the drug to be 4 million, but a British physician practising in Canton set the figure at 12 million. Equally disturbing for the imperial government was the imbalance of trade with the West: whereas prior to 1810 Western nations had been spending 350 million Mexican silver dollars on porcelain, cotton, silks, brocades, and various grades of tea, by 1837 opium represented 57 per cent of Chinese imports, and for fiscal 1835-36 alone China exported 4.5 million silver dollars.

http://www.victorianweb.org/history/emp ... wars1.html

[williatw]

Well sure, let's "regulate it" and call it a victory. After all, if Alcohol only kills a hundred thousand people every year, then surely we need to add another source of death to our society.

I do not comprehend how you think you can "regulate" this stuff. If you let it in, you will not be able to stop the addiction rate from going crazy, though I did run across a different way of looking at it the other day.

“There is no one answer.”

“Actually, there is a short answer. All drugs should be legal,

high quality, priced to market conditions, and readily available. What happens when you give a junkie all the dope they want? Problem Solved. darn, you think too much, Bruce.” -- Define “Drug” BRUCE HANIFY

I would be for this if it applied to Heroin and such. Get them out of the system quickly, or don't bother.
You simply dismiss the effect of the drug and attribute all of China's subsequent problems to the British forcing their markets open.

It is the commodity which caused the problem, not the manner in which it became prevalent.

An yet at the time the commodity was legal in the US and Britain and did not produce nearly anywhere close to the level of deleterious effects it did in China. The product was the same the effect wasn't nearly the same. A conquered people had no say in how it was pushed upon them. Britain and the US did(do). You state as if it is an established fact you can't regulate it to contain the societal damage it causes. Therefore don't even try; you know it won't/can't work. You state no evidence to support your position that any/no regs would work(yet somehow you implicitly think prohibition the ultimate reg does) other than continuously referencing China, stubbornly ignoring the fact that China was an example of unregulated total exploitation of a conquered people by their conquerors. Don't understand how China of 100yrs ago proves regulating doesn't work but modern Portugal doesn't count somehow. To say nothing of the deleterious effects of the prohibition. To our civil liberties our gov at war with our own citizens, to our economy of enormous amounts of money flowing to drug lords to pay for an insanely overpriced product.

[choff]

Since we're back on the pro/con legalization rag, I thought I'd post this little bit of local insanity in my backyard. The drug dealers are complaining to the city council about real estate development interfering with their business.

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Protest ... story.html

[MSimon]

And in modern times we have the example of Portugal. Do they still have problems? Well DUH. And is their system perfect? Are you kidding me?

Do they plan on returning to the prior regime? No way Jose.

http://www.zcommunications.org/the-powe ... en-redmond

[Diogenes]

Well sure, let's "regulate it" and call it a victory. After all, if Alcohol only kills a hundred thousand people every year, then surely we need to add another source of death to our society.

I do not comprehend how you think you can "regulate" this stuff. If you let it in, you will not be able to stop the addiction rate from going crazy, though I did run across a different way of looking at it the other day.

“There is no one answer.”

“Actually, there is a short answer. All drugs should be legal,

high quality, priced to market conditions, and readily available. What happens when you give a junkie all the dope they want? Problem Solved. darn, you think too much, Bruce.” -- Define “Drug” BRUCE HANIFY

I would be for this if it applied to Heroin and such. Get them out of the system quickly, or don't bother.
You simply dismiss the effect of the drug and attribute all of China's subsequent problems to the British forcing their markets open.

It is the commodity which caused the problem, not the manner in which it became prevalent.

An yet at the time the commodity was legal in the US and Britain and did not produce nearly anywhere close to the level of deleterious effects it did in China.

And what was it that made our path different from China? When Usage started to increase in the United States and people began to notice how destructive opium, laudanum, and cocaine had become, they passed laws banning them.

They made it ILLEGAL, and started punishing people for using it,
Is it really such a mystery to you as to why the U.S. didn't get as bad as China?

Really? Let me show it to you in graphical form. Here's what happened to usage in China.

Chests of Opium imported to China.



Usage of drugs; United States vs China:




Add to this the fact that it was a lot further to go from India to the U.S. then it was from India to China. (Shipping costs were greater.)

The product was the same the effect wasn't nearly the same.

Right. Because it cost more to ship it to the U.S. and WE passed laws against it. Both things hurt supply.

A conquered people had no say in how it was pushed upon them.

The reason they were conquered is because no SANE nation would let people import drugs into their country willingly! Indeed, the Chinese Government protested strenuously!

But the RELEVANT point is not HOW drugs got into their society, it is what happened WHEN drugs got into their society. It produced an exponential increase in drug addiction.

Britain and the US did(do).

Yes they did, and they BANNED the stuff. Again, it is amazing to me that you wonder why we didn't have a problem with drugs the way China did.

You state as if it is an established fact you can't regulate it to contain the societal damage it causes. .

Well, we're getting 100,000 dead people per year from Alcohol, and 5.4 million people dead per year from Tobacco, so apparently regulation isn't stopping that degree of societal damage, so why would it work on any other drug induced societal damage?

Therefore don't even try; you know it won't/can't work. You state no evidence to support your position that any/no regs would work(yet somehow you implicitly think prohibition the ultimate reg does)

I put forth evidence. You just seemingly cannot comprehend it.

other than continuously referencing China, stubbornly ignoring the fact that China was an example of unregulated total exploitation of a conquered people by their conquerors.

A Fact which does not have one D@MN thing to do with the aftermath of what happens when people have legalized drugs! It is IRRELEVANT to the results!

Why you even mention it is beyond my ability to fathom. Unless British Troops grabbed Chinese and held them down and forced them to smoke until they were addicted, YOU DON'T HAVE A POINT! The Drug USAGE was voluntary! The British simply made the drugs available, and the drugs themselves did all the addicting without the need for the British to force it on anyone.

Don't understand how China of 100yrs ago proves regulating doesn't work but modern Portugal doesn't count somehow.

We have a 200 year example of History in China. Portugal's little experiment is only ten years old, and it is not so much of a success as all the drug advocates keep repeating that it is.

When Portugal decriminalized all illegal drugs in 2000, officials hoped to reduce addiction rates and drug-related violence. Today, more users are in rehab, but drug use is on the rise, and reporter Keith O'Brien says the policy has made the problem worse.

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/20/133086356 ... Experiment

To say nothing of the deleterious effects of the prohibition. To our civil liberties our gov at war with our own citizens, to our economy of enormous amounts of money flowing to drug lords to pay for an insanely overpriced product.

And yet letting a nation Collapse and be taken over by a Dictator would likely be worse than the having to put up with the drug war.

China solved it's problem by KILLING THE ADDICTS! We just keep arresting them and letting them go. We never really get rid of them until they end up killing themselves accidentally through overdose, or in some sort of criminal act.

The reason the drug war is such a nuisance is because it isn't designed to actually WIN the war on drugs, it is designed to fight a continuous holding action, and it has been successfully holding addiction rates down around the 2% of the population which is where it was back in 1900 when the whole drug war was getting started.

If we want decisive results we have to use decisive tactics, but since people cannot stomach what it would take to actually win, we just have to keep paying for the compromise people insist on having.