Pathological Science

[ladajo]

Choff,

I'm interested in your take on ending prohibition.

Was ending alcohol prohibition a losing proposition? If not why wouldn't you expect similar gains from ending drug prohibition?

Prohibition is a vector for spreading drug use.

Simon,
Part of the core of your argument is that Alcohol is way more dangerous than other drugs. So, it would seem to be false logic to try and say that by legalizing alcohol, it made things safer and better. You are trying to use (while patently ignoring other relevant data) some commentary and stats on alcohol being the greater today. Well it is "legal", but still controlled, and still causes some problems. You really are off base to think that more addictive and mentally disruptive substances are going to go better. The average person can have a few drinks, feel a buzz, and not a disruptive craving to go back for more. While with drugs, that desire and craving to go back for more is at higher levels, and risk. and with some substances, so much so that some folks can become hooked with minor use.

You can not see the forest for the trees on this one. You are arguing individual trees, and calling it a forest. In that the primary point of your methods, as I have said before you are using indoctrination techniques with movement into propaganda, and to be fair, not at a very skilled level. You sound more like a child that thinks if they keep saying something over and over it will become true.

[paperburn1]

A Russin freind of mine had a quote that I liked and fits with Simon
"For someone that hates the beast you feed quite well from its tit."

[GIThruster]

I wasn't so much reacting to the drug legalization debate as the tactics people use in support of their debate positions, should have mentioned both left with right.
I see danger in Saul Alinsky's rules, he doen't want to recruit do-gooders, he wants to attack individuals, the ends jusify the means, and encourage your people to use tactics they like(probably attacking individuals).
That means that when he wins his conflict his no-gooders that enjoy attacking individuals are in charge, and all they really know is how to hurt people.

The same is true of the radical feminist Mary Daly, who taught very specifically that women should tap into their anger and hatred in order to be motivated to create change. Daly is standard reading in "womens' studies" classes in many universities despite what she's teaching is certainly hate speech. This has the problem you note--if you empower people through hatred or otherwise immoral means, you will always get an unsavory result. You can see this in the gay rights movement as well. Gay pride parades where people dress in leather and flaunt their sexuality in public has set gay rights back decades. Many people who are otherwise extremely tolerant of such differences are moved to defensiveness when someone's deviancy is forced into their faces by angry people, and who can blame them?

[GIThruster]

I do actually have a job. Two of them.

1. I live off my retirement income
2. I get paid for writing.

You've already explained several times that you live off public assistance and have for 12 years. That does not qualify as "retirement income" nor as a job, and lying about your parasitic status is not going to get you any respect around here.

You're a deadbeat druggie who's miserable existence is had at the expense of all those around you.

[MSimon]

Part of the core of your argument is that Alcohol is way more dangerous than other drugs. So, it would seem to be false logic to try and say that by legalizing alcohol, it made things safer and better.

Well you see I'm being mildly ironic. I'm hoping to hear one of you argue that alcohol prohibition is a good thing and we should try it again.

If not - since pot is safer - causes fewer traffic accidents and some alcohol users seem to switch when even med pot is available we are better off if pot is legalized.

In any case short term - come this November - and if not within a few years you will be on the losing side of the argument. Politically. You are already on the losing side numerically. It is just a matter of time.

BTW because of prohibition two of the most pervasive systems in the body the CB1 - mostly in the brain and CB2 - mostly in the muscles, go woefully understudied. Prohibition is bad for medical science. The CB systems seem implicated in Multiple Sclerosis. Pot is the only drug that seems to slow the progression. This is a class of people who research might help. If the bureaucracies would allow it. Since they don't legalization is the answer.

Melissa Etheridge Supports Legalizing Marijuana in Colorado With Ads

The ad is quite powerful. She talks about her cancer and chemo. And how only pot helped.

You can listen to it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4UmVguK ... r_embedded

She mentions gangs and cartels. She is against them. Objectively prohibitionists support them. Objectively the police support them. Objectively the "moralists" support them.

My friend the police detective will be in Colorado the last two weeks before the election supporting legalization. He lobbies Congress and rides a horse. He is very good on radio. I expect he will help too. Last I heard the numbers are close, with 50.9% favoring legalization. I have also heard there are 9% undecided. (More likely - declines to state) It will be interesting to see what the Feds do about it if it passes. Alcohol prohibition ended that way. With States dropping out until it ended.

The time is coming when anyone supporting the gangs and cartels will not be welcome in polite society. Keep your head down. Because that day is not far off and the Internet is forever. I suppose you could always explain it away with an "I didn't understand" or even better "I was duped by government propaganda".

BTW my brother got killed by one of those gangs. Carrying his body to the grave was the heaviest thing I ever carried - next to holding my mother up as we walked away from the services. Her feet wouldn't move right and dad and I (in none too good a shape ourselves) had to hold her mostly off the ground. Did I mention that I hate prohibition?

[MSimon]

Here is a police office who had a buddy killed in the drug war. He says End It.

This cop lost a friend to the War on Drugs. Now he wants to end it.

He talks about ending gang violence. By ending prohibition. Mentions Al Capone.

[choff]

My take is that human nature being what it is, things are going to screw up a certain percentage of the time. There is a certain amount of uncontrolled chaos in how things play out, unforseen complications, etc.

We had alcohol problems before prohibition, we had alcohol problems during, and we have them now.

The drug cartels are moving into legal drugs more and more, all that removing prohibition does is shift operations into legal stuff. Heck, big Al switched over from booze to milk and had the government add safety rules wich made it more profitable, (and safer for children). Problem with Viagra you get arsenic based paint and other harmful material in the counterfiet pills.

As mentioned, when restrictions are removed on everything, they will deliberately created highly addictive substances and push them on small children, and nobody will be able to stop it.

Wait until Scopolamine becomes legal, and teenage boys are allowed to use it to snag that first date, you wouldn't want somebody using it on your daughter would you.

That said, I would argue that we need a new strategy to conclude the drug war, one way or another. Concentrating resources on attacking the top of the drug cartel empire, the financial and political side, has never been attempted. At most large financial corporations pay a relatively small fine and promise not to do it anymore, which they totally ignore. If nothing else it would mean the equal application of justice.

[MSimon]

The drug cartels are moving into legal drugs more and more, all that removing prohibition does is shift operations into legal stuff.

Quite correct. The cartels now move more "legal" opiates than they do heroin by a factor of 4 to 1. The only way to beat the cartels is to go back to the status quo ante ( pre Dec 1914).

As you point out - there is no way to stop human appetites.

In one of the ads, two former top Justice Department officials in Seattle, U.S. attorneys John McKay and Kate Pflaumer, join the former head of the FBI’s office in Seattle, Charles Mandigo, in urging voters to approve Initiative 502. All three have previously come out in favor of the measure, which would set up a system of licensed marijuana growers, processors and standalone retail stores, and McKay is a sponsor of the initiative.

“We know firsthand that decades of marijuana arrests have failed to reduce use,” Mandigo says. “And the drug cartels are pocketing all the profits.”

http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2012/10/10/66548/

Mandigo also said, ”There is no way law enforcement can address the tens of thousands of hand-to-hand street drug transactions.”

It will take a while for Americans to come to their senses about opiates. Ending pot prohibition will start the conversation.

[MSimon]

As mentioned, when restrictions are removed on everything, they will deliberately created highly addictive substances and push them on small children, and nobody will be able to stop it.

Actually that is not what happens in a legal regime: there is no profit in it. It is what happens in a Prohibition regime.

Let me quote Dick Cowan on the Iron Law of Prohibition.

The iron law of prohibition is a term coined by Richard Cowan which states that "the more intense the law enforcement, the more potent the prohibited substance becomes." This law is an application of the Alchian–Allen effect. It is based on the premise that when drugs or alcohol are prohibited, they will be produced only in black markets in their most concentrated and powerful forms. If all alcohol beverages are prohibited, a bootlegger will be more profitable if he smuggles highly potent distilled liquors than if he smuggles the same volume of small beer. In addition, the black-market goods are more likely to be adulterated with unknown or dangerous substances. The government cannot regulate and inspect the production process, and harmed consumers have no recourse in law. Therefore the "iron law" says that the more you try to enforce prohibition (bigger budgets, larger penalties, etc.) the more potent and dangerous prohibited drugs become.

The law is based on the research of Mark Thornton an economist associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He first showed that the potency of marijuana increased in response to higher enforcement budgets. He latter expanded this research in his dissertation to include other illegal drugs and alcohol during Prohibition (1920-1933). The basic approach is based on the Alchian and Allen Theorem. They argue that if you add any fixed cost (e.g. transportation fee) to the price of two varieties of the same product (e.g. high quality red apple and a low quality red apple) the more expensive variety will get exported more often. When applied to rum-running, drug smuggling, and blockade running the more potent products become the sole focus of the suppliers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_prohibition

[MSimon]

I am still amazed at the inability of people who I normally consider sane to apply economics and experience to the drug question.

I guess it is just further proof of the adage: "Drugs make people stupid." And the funniest thing is you don't even have to take them to get the effect. That is some very powerful stuff.

[hanelyp]

At most large financial corporations pay a relatively small fine and promise not to do it anymore, which they totally ignore. If nothing else it would mean the equal application of justice.

I have to ask, what are these corporations doing? If company officers are complicit in crimes, the corporate structure shouldn't protect them.

[choff]

At most large financial corporations pay a relatively small fine and promise not to do it anymore, which they totally ignore. If nothing else it would mean the equal application of justice.

I have to ask, what are these corporations doing? If company officers are complicit in crimes, the corporate structure shouldn't protect them.

Remember that HSBC was originally created to provide financial services to the opium trade in Asia in the early 1800's, and nothing about the operation changed until now when law enforcement finally took notice. You can go to K A Fitts website and look at a picture of the head of FARC embracing the president of the NYSE. They want that FARC drug money to keep flowing their way.

In war, you have to set realistic goals and objectives within a timeline. You don't simply regulate the enemy or try to manage him and fight a never ending conflict against easily replaceable footsoldiers. You pick off strategic targets that will force the opponents surrender.

The top down approach to the drug problem has never been tried, and if the anti drug leaders have been corrupted by the pro drug leaders then the anti drug footsoldiers have to watch their backs.

[choff]

Interesting drug this Scopolamine, has a few small legit uses but...

http://digitaljournal.com/article/324779

Free will is removed from the debate, and this drug has been known since the early 20th century. That means drug companies have had ample time to create more efficient version in labs. It could be used to enslave a visiting national leader and his entire retinue, completely reprogram them, it would explain a lot.

Assuming the whole drug war is a fraud, as has been suggested in the past, then the sole purpose is to maintain high prices, encourage usage and enslave. It also means a real and successful anti drug war is entirely plausible.

[choff]

By going after the top echelon of the drug trade, what you will probably discover rather ironically is that you also end up taking out the top echelon of the prohibition movement, both involve money and power.

At the same time, you will also take out the people responsible for alternating cycles of overinflation and recession in the financial markets.

Further, you will take out the same people at the pinnacle of the arms trade and intel networks, did you know that wall street financed the Russian revolution, the Nazis, and Hanoi.

You will also discover that the same people on top of both the drug trade and prohibition movement run mainstream media, and use these as tools to promote both the prohibition and drug use.

These are the same people who have corrupted the field of economics, encouraging ideas that enable them, think Lunatic Von Mises, Henry Hazmat and John Maniac Keynes.

You will end up with a world without drugs, prohibition, also fewer wars and conflicts, the sources of PTSD are elimanated, and the UN will gather dust. In short, you promote the Antisynthesis, the Hegelists all go to jail.

[paperburn1]

I am still amazed at the inability of people who I normally consider sane to apply economics and experience to the drug question.

I guess it is just further proof of the adage: "Drugs make people stupid." And the funniest thing is you don't even have to take them to get the effect. That is some very powerful stuff.

Tell me what company you keep and I'll tell you what you are.

~ Miguel de Cervantes, "Don Quixote de la Mancha Part II" (1615)