Infrastructure Reforms

[Blankbeard]

You should avoid trying to tie morality to effectiness.

I disagree. If the only issue was efficacy, it wouldn't be a moral issue. But drug policy is ruining lives, resulting in the deaths of people here and in the third world. Criminalization is supporting high prices that allows drug producers to fund terrorism. These are moral issues.

They are two different animals. If you are arguing that the current system is not functioning well, I think you will be hard pressed to find someone here who agrees.

At least two forum members seem to think the current system is worth defending.

There are several studies from the last few years that argue predisposition is not required. These studies are based on physical long term evidence. Two I can think of that I saw were ten year or more databases.

No, there are not. If you have them, link them. I've just been through the literature today and I've seen no such studies. I really hate to sound like I'm calling you a liar, but I am not going to accept the existence of studies without being able to see them. I've been using Pubmed for most of the last decade and I don't see them there.

Is it the THC or pot? And I am not so sure that the attendant risks are worth the cure for the larger aggregate. "We have cured the patient, he no longer suffers from cancer. The funeral is in two days."

Marijuana has several active components besides THC. We're not sure which ones are responsible for which effects. In the study I linked earlier, marijuana use was found to be safe and effective.

Cancer is a collection of horrible diseases. Most can cause nausea. Nearly all cancer medications cause nausea. And not "my tummy hurts" but bone wrenching unable-to-think-about-food-without-vomitting nausea. It's one of the major causes of people opting not to take their chemotherapy. Think about that for a second. Nausea so bad you will discontinue the only thing that's keeping you alive. And it doesn't stop there. Malnutrition weakens the cancer patient at the very time they need to fight with every ounce of strength. Most nausea medications are ineffective against this level of nausea. (There is also the issue that many chemotherapy medications make everything taste horrible but nausea is the biggest problem)

We have good, well designed studies that show that for these patients, smoking marijuana relieves their nausea better than any of the alternatives. Are you comfortable denying these people access because someone else might use marijuana to have fun? I'm comfortable calling that evil.

Legalization is not Decriminalization. This is one of the prime deceptions by the "pro" lobby in the U.S.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the quoted material.

It is easy enough to pull source references from the links I gave you. Where there is an interesting point and citation, just see what it is. Not hard, nor time consuming. In news articles, a simple google search, or if you have access to an academic search engine, finding the source material is a snap.

Have fun.

The point isn't that I can't find studies. I've been doing that for the better part of a decade. That's not why I asked you for links.

First, it's not that I don't trust you, but I don't trust you. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but we all have to use the same facts. If you make a factual claim, you should be willing to back that claim up.

Second, not every source is created equal. You gave me quite a few news sources. They mischaracterized what's actually a fairly weak study as if it were a font of certainty. Drug policy websites aren't horrible sources but they have a huge incentive to downplay anything that might hurt funding. See "Public Choice Theory." [url=http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoice.html]Here is a good definition, offered without endorsement of the rest of the site.

BTW, I forgot to address the whole Irish thing. I think it's overblown and can elaborate if you wish but I think I'm done typing for the night.

[williatw]

There is no evidence that current drug policy is suppressing the number of drug users.

That's nonsense. 9 times as many people use alcohol as smoke dope. Most people don't have the lack of inhibition it takes to violate the law and use drugs that are illegal. Only a small percentage of the populous will ever try an illegal drug. If you make cannabis legal, about 9X as many people are going to try it, and cannabis induced psychosis will accelerate a full order magnitude. It's very simple math you're certainly able to comprehend, but you're unwilling to comprehend.

Actually GIThruster 42% of adults in the United States will try cannabis in a lifetime: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_life ... 2008july-2

So exactly what is 9X 42%?

[Diogenes]

I'm going to skip your physics questions because they are both irrelevant (epidemiology is no where near as straight forward as physics) and have many answers (Hire a twelve year old to hold it. Use a vacuum above it. Define the object as the origin of the coordinate system and declare all movement relative to it) of varying levels of offense to physicists.

I guess you are unfamiliar with the term "free body"? I'm not surprised you are dodging. It is a difficult point to refute.

Now let's ask some similar questions about communicable disease.

If you have an infection spreading through a biological population[/url], what will happen if you do nothing?

It depends on the disease. The common cold burns itself out every year. HPV remains relatively constant. It depends on how the disease is transmitted, how long it takes to effect a host, the level of susceptibility in the population, the severity of the effect, the chance of successful transmission, whether or not hosts can be reinfected, and a host of other factors. People spend their entire careers studying epidemiology. There's no single answer that covers all or even most situations.

Yes, the spread of communicable disease is far too complicated to discuss without knowing precisely which disease is to be discussed. Obviously the logistic growth is widely different from one disease to another. It's a wonder the CDC has any clue what to do when an outbreak occurs.


Dodging again.

Epidemiology does not work that way.

What must you do to hold the infection at some specific level?

Disease specific. And the way to figure out what to do is with experiment, not acts of Congress. Congressmen are not experts at anything other than getting elected.

What must you do to cure it?

Disease specific. Some currently have no cure. Some you wait out. Others you medicate. Very few diseases are treated with flashbang grenades though. Take two of these while I execute a no-knock raid and shoot your daughter is also not usually medical advice.

You don't have to pretend to take the question seriously. Obviously you recognize that answering the question in a reasonable manner is a dire threat to your argument. I'm sorry for you argument that it cannot stand up to actual analysis.

There is no evidence that current drug policy is suppressing the number of drug users.

Yes, obviously we would have fewer if we didn't interfere with their drug usage. It's when people write stuff like this that I cannot help but think they are unserious about having a rational discussion.

User levels are remarkably stable over time. There is no evidence that the majority (let alone all) of people who currently do not take any given drug would do so if there were no criminal penalties.

The proxy evidence of exponentially increasing shipments of drugs into a nation is not sufficient to imply usage? What on earth kind of evidence do you need to prove it?

Countries where possession is either legal, decriminalized, or where laws are unenforced do not see usage rates approaching 100%. They have lower levels than the United States.

I see the problem here. You aren't really reading the counter arguments to your position. You think you are fighting a straw man. No one has postulated 100% usage, I have merely pointed out that according to MSimon's favorite reference (the Drug Library) Usage in China among Adult Males was 50% by 1906.

I don't know about you, but I think a 50% addiction rate among adult males is a serious threat to the existence of a nation. Do you have a better explanation how a country of 65 Million could beat the crap out of a nation of 500 Millionin 1931?

[Diogenes]

There is no evidence that current drug policy is suppressing the number of drug users.

That's nonsense. 9 times as many people use alcohol as smoke dope.

Yup. The percentages of usage of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Marijuana, are so large that one must think people stupid to try to pawn off that nonsense. It is a testament to the lack of seriousness on the pro-legalization side that they would even try to make that assertion.

[Diogenes]

Actually GIThruster 42% of adults in the United States will try cannabis in a lifetime: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_life ... 2008july-2

So exactly what is 9X 42%?

Why do you keep using Pot as a proxy for Meth, Crack, Opium, Cocaine, Heroine, etc? The Libertarian argument does not stop at Pot, it covers the entire gamut of drugs. Stop minimizing the danger by picking the least offensive among the bunch. Argue reality.

[choff]

Was watching a Max Keiser vid from London last night. He was saying a private company has a federal contract for running US prisons, but there's a clasue in it that says the State has to maintain 98% occupancy.

So if gentrification reduces regular crime, there's an incentive for new laws. It could also lead to the legal defense that the government is just trying to fill a quota when they arrest someone. One would hope they would fulfill obligations by arrests on Wall St.

[williatw]

Actually GIThruster 42% of adults in the United States will try cannabis in a lifetime: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_life ... 2008july-2

So exactly what is 9X 42%?

Why do you keep using Pot as a proxy for Meth, Crack, Opium, Cocaine, Heroine, etc? The Libertarian argument does not stop at Pot, it covers the entire gamut of drugs. Stop minimizing the danger by picking the least offensive among the bunch. Argue reality.

I didn't pick it GIThruster did, I merely responded to what he said so, what is 9X 42%? And as I have said I would treat the harder drugs and their addiction as the medical problems they are, with treatment, preventative education, regulation.

[williatw]

I see the problem here. You aren't really reading the counter arguments to your position. You think you are fighting a straw man. No one has postulated 100% usage, I have merely pointed out that according to MSimon's favorite reference (the Drug Library) Usage in China among Adult Males was 50% by 1906.

I don't know about you, but I think a 50% addiction rate among adult males is a serious threat to the existence of a nation. Do you have a better explanation how a country of 65 Million could beat the crap out of a nation of 500 Millionin 1931?

Yeah that's the definitive example conquered China...its beside the point that were conquered it was legalized totally unregulated, pushed on them by said conquerors (to get back all that money the brits were spending on Chinese imported silk & probably also fueled by racism), but all that's beside the point it was just the drug that did it all by itself.
As for the more contemporary examples of decriminalization treating addiction like the disease it is of Portugal, the Netherlands or Switzerland, irrelevant....either the evil leftist liberal gov’s are all lying about the figures, or it just hasn't had enough time to go the way of China. The war on drugs has become (or maybe was intended all along) as a good rationale to jail minority undesirables.

[GIThruster]

Obviously you're misquoting. The statistic that I posted here a month ago on this topic was that 9X as many people use cannabis as use alcohol. You're talking about the number of people who claim to have tried dope at least once in their lifetime. Any kid at a party who takes a single toke on a joint is part of that 42%. That does not qualify them as a user, who habitually breaks the law and risks incarceration.

BTW, that number is highly suspect. IIRC, that was a survey, not a real scientific study, and it surveyed people living in cities only, not in suburbia or rural areas. 42% is very high.

Still, I think there's evidence that the US is now number one in cannabis and cocaine use in the world, largely because it is easier to get it in here than in Europe, and because despite our recession, we can afford drugs whereas the Europeans really cannot.

[williatw]

Obviously you're misquoting. The statistic that I posted here a month ago on this topic was that 9X as many people use cannabis as use alcohol. You're talking about the number of people who claim to have tried dope at least once in their lifetime. Any kid at a party who takes a single toke on a joint is part of that 42%. That does not qualify them as a user, who habitually breaks the law and risks incarceration.

BTW, that number is highly suspect. IIRC, that was a survey, not a real scientific study, and it surveyed people living in cities only, not in suburbia or rural areas. 42% is very high.

Still, I think there's evidence that the US is now number one in cannabis and cocaine use in the world, largely because it is easier to get it in here than in Europe, and because despite our recession, we can afford drugs whereas the Europeans really cannot.

I didn't misquote you, you said try cannabis, perhaps you meant to say habitual user, but anyway you are saying that crazy liberal leftist Europe that's going to the dogs because it treats drug addiction as a disease has less drug consumption than the US? In spite of our 40yr war on drugs, highest encarceration rates in the world we are the drug capital of the world? But we didn't go the way of conquered virtually enslaved China so by that metric of comparison it has been a great success, keep up the good work. Pick the right metric of comparison you can make almost anything appear to be a success. Like I have said the only thing that will end this nonsense of the WOD is forfeiture of assets, hope it keeps increasing sharply year after year.

[GIThruster]

Well I don't know if you had a point. If you did, I missed the innuendo. If I misstated perhaps then my apology but it may be you who conflated two different issues.

The two relevant statistics I posted on about this a month ago were that 9 times as many people in the US use alcohol as use illegal drugs, and risk to have a psychotic episode increases 5,000% from using cannabis even once. These are two different issues.

The US has the drug problems it does because we are sitting next to the drug capital of the world, where they spend tens of millions of dollars each year just to dig tunnels under our fences. Mexico constantly has open combat between their army and the drug lords that run much of the country. Without the war on drugs, the flow would be unimpeded and just as Diogenes has postulated, we'd have a vastly worse problem.

It's very important to have a candid look at the specific effects of cannabis. When people drink too much they fall asleep, and perhaps wake up with a headache or a bit fuzzy, but there are few long term effects. Liver damage, obesity, not much else.

When someone smokes too much dope, they become dope. Their ambition leaves them completely and they have no interest in doing something positive with their lives. They get cravings for food and other drugs, and often pursue them by violent or fraudulent means. They are already accustomed to breaking the law, so they're much more likely to break in other ways. They become paranoid because they're using a drug they know can put them in prison, and because paranoia is one of the two options when it comes to delusions. They hallucinate and have delusions, some paranoid and some of grandeur, but either way they develop the symptoms of psychosis and become diagnosable. these people then make wrecks of their lives and isolate themselves from family and friends. none of this is remotely like having a beer. Stop pretending the damage to people's lives is because of the war on drugs. It's because of the drugs themselves. Too, stop pretending the war on drugs places casual users in prison for first time offenses. There is probably not a single state in the union that does such a thing, nor could afford to.

[Skipjack]

He was saying a private company has a federal contract for running US prisons, but there's a clasue in it that says the State has to maintain 98% occupancy

Probably one of the things that should not be run by private companies, then, eh?

[GIThruster]

We always have more criminals than prison space. We release inmates before their sentences are up. We use tracking bracelets to imprison people in their own homes. We suspend sentences for lack of space, etc. Getting a guarantee for 98% occupancy is just good business sense. If the need to incarcerate drops dramatically, the corp doesn't want to be left holding the bag.

[williatw]

Well I don't know if you had a point. If you did, I missed the innuendo. If I misstated perhaps then my apology but it may be you who conflated two different issues.

The two relevant statistics I posted on about this a month ago were that 9 times as many people in the US use alcohol as use illegal drugs, and risk to have a psychotic episode increases 5,000% from using cannabis even once. These are two different issues.

The US has the drug problems it does because we are sitting next to the drug capital of the world, where they spend tens of millions of dollars each year just to dig tunnels under our fences. Mexico constantly has open combat between their army and the drug lords that run much of the country. Without the war on drugs, the flow would be unimpeded and just as Diogenes has postulated, we'd have a vastly worse problem.

It's very important to have a candid look at the specific effects of cannabis. When people drink too much they fall asleep, and perhaps wake up with a headache or a bit fuzzy, but there are few long term effects. Liver damage, obesity, not much else.

When someone smokes too much dope, they become dope. Their ambition leaves them completely and they have no interest in doing something positive with their lives. They get cravings for food and other drugs, and often pursue them by violent or fraudulent means. They are already accustomed to breaking the law, so they're much more likely to break in other ways. They become paranoid because they're using a drug they know can put them in prison, and because paranoia is one of the two options when it comes to delusions. They hallucinate and have delusions, some paranoid and some of grandeur, but either way they develop the symptoms of psychosis and become diagnosable. these people then make wrecks of their lives and isolate themselves from family and friends. none of this is remotely like having a beer. Stop pretending the damage to people's lives is because of the war on drugs. It's because of the drugs themselves. Too, stop pretending the war on drugs places casual users in prison for first time offenses. There is probably not a single state in the union that does such a thing, nor could afford to.

Then destroy the market for the illegal product by legalizing taxing and regulating it. If legal pot domestically produced with lower THC content(understand that one aspect of the illegality is that it has caused the THC content of pot to grown considerably since the woodstock days) is many times cheaper, than the illegal Mexican stuff won't have a market. Regulate the usage concentration and availability just like you do with alcohol. Alcohol doesn't flow across the border in buckets because who would pay more for illegal stuff when legal is available. Treat drug addiction like the disease it is. That is more of an example of an "external governor" controlling the most deleterious effects of drugs than jack booted thugs taking a stick to someone's head.

[GIThruster]

That's just pathetically out of touch. Did making alcohol legal destroy the market for it? You're proposing nonsense. Do you even believe the nonsense you write?

And the idea that cannabis has grown in potency only because it is illegal is just batty as can be. Where do you come up with these crazy notions and why would anyone believe such a thing? That's like saying if there had never been prohibition against alcohol the still would not have been invented. Crazy, completely unsubstantiated nonsense.