Back When It Was Over The Counter

[KitemanSA]

False premise. No, it is your understanding of the constitutional principles involved that is faulty. Drugs are an existential threat.

So is intrusive government, but intrusive government is a threat to EVERYONE. Drug use, not so much.

[Diogenes]

False premise. No, it is your understanding of the constitutional principles involved that is faulty. Drugs are an existential threat.

So is intrusive government, but intrusive government is a threat to EVERYONE. Drug use, not so much.

This talking in absolutes does not lend itself to a good understanding of the situation. Yes, Intrusive government is bad, but not all of the drug interdiction efforts are intrusive, those are just the worst abuses, and they ought to be dealt with.


Throwing the baby out because the bath water has turned bad is not a good solution. The "fire" of legalized drugs is far worse than the "pan" of illegal searches.


It is my opinion, (backed up by the only example of which I am aware in History) that legalized drugs will also create a totalitarian state. I would say "quicker" but I think we are already long down the path towards a totalitarian state, and it had more to do with porkbarrels and political power than it ever did with drugs. I also think totalitarianism is a systemic trend, and we would have been moving in that direction regardless of what else we attempted to prevent it.


When the masses have become so foolish that they can be led by lies (Obama\Media) then a totalitarian state is what they think they will want.




"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Winston Churchill

[KitemanSA]

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Winston Churchill

Which puzzles me as to why you would want to socialize the cost of drug prohibition.

[paperburn1]

Simple answer Is the cost of prohibition is lower than the cost to the general welfare of the state unregulated.

If the State (feds) decide to regulate, moderate and control MJ then that is fine as well. I wonder how many of the PRO drug culture were around in the 60s and early 70s as an adult and remember the problems we were having with coke and heroin. Please do not use the argument that weed was available back then because it was a different product at that time. The THC content was literally ten times as less back then. The stuff they sell now is normally aduterated with other drugs as well.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Winston Churchill

Which puzzles me as to why you would want to socialize the cost of drug prohibition.

[ladajo]

The THC content was literally ten times as less back then. The stuff they sell now is normally aduterated with other drugs as well.

And this is another inconvient fact and concern that the pro-drug crowd ignores.

Ask them "Why is this so?" and they deign to answer.

Because the answer is clear and simple, as well at the root of the entire issue:
Once a person starts getting high, the physiological and psychological processes of the body are disturbed and commence demanding a stronger high more often. This eventually leads to addiction and disruption of the person's life and those around them.
This can be considered an infectious disease. Left out of check, it will spread and probably look something like what happened in China and other places on smaller scales.

[Diogenes]

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Winston Churchill

Which puzzles me as to why you would want to socialize the cost of drug prohibition.

I cannot even comprehend your statement. Could you rephrase that in a clearer way?

[KitemanSA]

Simple answer Is the cost of prohibition is lower than the cost to the general welfare of the state unregulated.

That is every socialist's reason for every socialist program. It never turns out to be true in the end.

[paperburn1]

Or you could try this on for size.
When the programs cost to the general welfare exceed the damage done it is time to re-evaluate our position .
Your statement can only be true in a static society. While I do not think we have reached that point it will be inevitable that some compromise or substitution will occur. I feel though social change usage will go down(think tobacco use) or the risk reward ratio will change to limit usage. (think meth. there are no long term users of meth it kills you eventually)
or a third possibility some genius discovers a drug that fulfills all the needs of getting high but has no long term effects and side effect so it does not affect your work
anyway we are not at that point so right now the only viable option is A:Simple answer Is the cost of prohibition is lower than the cost to the general welfare of the state unregulated.
I think this goes beyond socialism it survivalism.

Simple answer Is the cost of prohibition is lower than the cost to the general welfare of the state unregulated.

That is every socialist's reason for every socialist program. It never turns out to be true in the end.

[Diogenes]

Simple answer Is the cost of prohibition is lower than the cost to the general welfare of the state unregulated.

That is every socialist's reason for every socialist program. It never turns out to be true in the end.

Where do you get this "Socialism" word as applied to drug interdiction? Is requiring a license for a pharmacist "Socialism"? Is requiring a license for buying and using explosives "Socialism"?

I simply don't see how regulating dangerous substances has any connection with the economic system known as "Socialism". I know Simon says stuff like that, and if you are going to make stuff up, you might as well go whole hog and call it "Communism" or "Nazism" or "Genocide" or something really bad.

If the point is just to get an unreasoned emotional response, then the worse you call it, the better for the knee jerk emotional reaction you are attempting to solicit.

[Diogenes]

Or you could try this on for size.
When the programs cost to the general welfare exceed the damage done it is time to re-evaluate our position .
Your statement can only be true in a static society. While I do not think we have reached that point it will be inevitable that some compromise or substitution will occur. I feel though social change usage will go down(think tobacco use) or the risk reward ratio will change to limit usage. (think meth. there are no long term users of meth it kills you eventually)
or a third possibility some genius discovers a drug that fulfills all the needs of getting high but has no long term effects and side effect so it does not affect your work
anyway we are not at that point so right now the only viable option is A:Simple answer Is the cost of prohibition is lower than the cost to the general welfare of the state unregulated.
I think this goes beyond socialism it is survivalism.

That is my perception. No society can exist alongside legalized drugs. It will utterly collapse. Therefore, only governments which ban these mind altering and dangerous substances are capable of surviving.


I recall reading during WWII, Soldiers in the Japanese Imperial army were killing themselves, and the problem became so acute that the Emperor had to issue an order that no man was to kill himself without specific authorization to do so.

This is the same phenomena. A Society can survive the regular losses of some of it's members, but beyond a specific percentage, the society itself becomes endangered by these loses. Obviously we can continue going along with the 2% use/addiction rate, but by 1900, China's use/addiction rate was ~ 50% according to one of Simon's favorite resources. (DrugLibrary.org)

Revolution in 1911, invasion in 1931, Communist revolution in 1949.

Their government, which had existed relatively unchanged for several thousand years, was incapable of surviving the phenomena of drug addicted citizens. Yes, banning drugs is survivalism.

[mvanwink5]

So, illegal drugs are the cause of the chronic disease epidemic?

[paperburn1]

So, illegal drugs are the cause of the chronic disease epidemic?

what?

[mvanwink5]

Look, the point I made earlier is that illegal drug use is an extension of legal drug use and specifically the search for palliation. The need for palliation is real, not imagined, even mental trouble has physical roots, and that is based on the latest research. Simon makes the PTSD argument, a condition resulting from extreme requirements on a human. However, there are other single or combination of events that lead up to chronic disease, but chronic disease is seen as an epidemic only when the bigger picture is looked at, not each one as an isolated disease, but as seen as a group with an underlying common cause. When that is done, then it is seen that 40% of Americans have at least one chronic disease and 25% have two or more. That is a deadly and painful epidemic. Others here have hammered that alcohol is a drug, coffee is a drug, Valium, oxycontin, prednisone, vitamin D, and the list is so long it is given in encyclopedic books.

My point is not to argue For palliating drugs, but in fact it is just the opposite. I am saying that palliation, legal or illegal, is not solving the problem, yet even the common medical standard go to solution to a chronic disease is to palliate, to enable the person to feel better, to get through their day. Fundamentally, this is not working, not with a disease rate of 40% and 25%. I am saying there is a medical basis, a pathological basis, for the problem. I have my own view of the problem cause, and it is not demons or mythological chicken vs egg views expressed by others here. I don't see the solution to be to avoid events, events happen to everyone, instead there are pathogens at work.

I am saying the issue is laws won't stop palliation. Moreover, chronic disease is eating our prosperity, makes people miserable and impairs emotional stability and judgement. You can see it in the divorce rate, etc. Until the paradigm switch is made this debate will go around in circles with no solution other than a political one... and the chronic disease epidemic will still be there, whether illegal drugs are legalized or not.

I am saying there are three sides to the argument, that the third side is a common biological infectious cause that has to be understood and solved, and legal or illegal palliation doesn't do it. And that is all I will say about this subject.

[paperburn1]

OH
Ok I can follow that.
You say we are treating the symptoms not the root cuase

[mvanwink5]

Yes, illegally and legally, and neither works as the common mode of purpose is palliation, not cure.