Update from the War on Drugs

[Walsingham]

fair point, Hell Kitty.

 

I see your logic about death penalty/abortion, but I don't follow how it relates to this argument. Would you mind developing your point?

Edited September 28, 2011 by Walsingham

[Humodour]

Numbers has a perfectly serious point, Krez.

 

We all do this so don't be offended, but has it occurred to you that your liberatarian stance on religions poking their nose into other people's affairs is directly at odds with your stance on doctors poking their nose in. Yet physical health is just for life, while spiritual health (even without an afterlife) is for eternity?

 

Further, and without the caveat about taking offence , you've got some very strnge notions about free choice and drug use. Oral administration may be safest, but people don't inject because it's fun. They inject because injection delivers the best hit, pound for pound. Oral administration sucks by comparison. I know that from direct experience of morphine, and from studying it.

 

Your other point about linking legalisation to effects on health completely misses my point. To such a degree that I had to read your post three times to be sure. You want to prohibit the sale or supply of drugs which cause harm, but my entire point is that prohibition IS NOT AN OPTION.

 

I'm suggesting an incentive for consumers to use less harmful (but not less fun) drugs, and for producers to manufacture analogues of the existing drugs which do not contain their most detrimental health impacts. Analogues of cocaine exist which are as potent or more potent and do not cause damage to the heart, for example. Ritalin (methylphenidate) is one such analogue, and cocaine addicts cannot distinguish the two. Similarly, most common psychedelics do not cause heart damage and are plenty strong and fun - but those which do cause damage should be banned.

 

So while I strongly recommend the continued illegality of physically harmful drugs, I take this stance so that people switch to safer drugs and so that chemists use rational drug design principles to produce far safer analogues (which can easily be designed to be far more potent orally, but method of administration is really a side issue at the moment so let's drop it)

 

Rational drug design: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_design#R..._drug_discovery

 

Examine this analogue list for cocaine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cocaine_analogues

 

As for your mangled point about religion vs science... not going there. This thread has nothing to do with spirituality, but I would generally say my way leads to a better 'spiritual' (whatever that means) outcome for people given that one of the aims of this approach to drug supply and consumption is a healthier brain and a healthier body to enjoy the world with, for longer.

 

It is worth noting that an evidence-based approach like this still mitigates the worst excesses and abuses of the drug war - for example, a black market is hardly going to pop up when people can legally and safely purchase non-damaging analogues of the illegal drugs on the black market.

 

Keeping the physically harmful drugs illegal MAY not be necessary - given sufficient information available to consumers and a large legal drug market, people would logically choose safer analogues anyway. But for the initial transition period to a society without the war on drugs it would seem a very good idea.

 

EDIT: Illegal in this context refers only to supply/sale. As I mentioned previously I believe in penalty-free decriminalisation of possession of all drugs as I don't believe that punishing the 'victim' (or consumer, however you wish to put it) is a logical course of action.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Krezack

[Hell Kitty]

Would you mind developing your point?

 

Yes I would mind, because that's the part I'm terrible at.

 

A doctor telling you to stop smoking because it has a negative effect on your health is not the same as a priest telling you to stop being gay because the bible says it's wrong. Being fine with one is not at odds with having a problem with the other.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Hell Kitty

[213374U]

21st century fascism is banning and legalising the SUPPLY of drugs based on peer-reviewed scientific evidence of their level of harm and addictiveness? OK weirdo.

Yep. I could explain why, but it's not like you're new around these parts and you've made it abundantly clear that trying to reason with you is pointless. Funny, that's a trait shared by true fascists, too, as is hypocrisy. Aren't you quite the prolific drunken poster?

 

 

A doctor telling you to stop smoking because it has a negative effect on your health is not the same as a priest telling you to stop being gay because the bible says it's wrong. Being fine with one is not at odds with having a problem with the other.

Yeah, it's the same because neither of them has the ability to throw me in jail if I buy some smokes or get caught in flagrante delicto with Bubba. They both have their reasons, but ultimately it's my call. And let's not turn this into a scientific evidence v. religion debate, please?

 

Criminalization is what we're discussing here, and the absurd notion that some people apparently have that they can tell me how to live when it doesn't directly affect them at all.

Edited September 28, 2011 by 213374U

[Orogun01]

Would you mind developing your point?

 

Yes I would mind, because that's the part I'm terrible at.

 

A doctor telling you to stop smoking because it has a negative effect on your health is not the same as a priest telling you to stop being gay because the bible says it's wrong. Being fine with one is not at odds with having a problem with the other.

I'll help you.

 

You were talking about people whose personal views are not absolutist; moderates. People who may believe in the right to life but still support the death penalty, it is not mutually exclusive because not everyone takes a belief as an axiom that its applicable in every situation and still optimal. In short, everything its relative so views change depending on the situation.

Otherwise we would have every drug legalized in the US (as it once was) because of the right to privacy.

[Hurlshort]

Criminalization is what we're discussing here, and the absurd notion that some people apparently have that they can tell me how to live when it doesn't directly affect them at all.

 

But secondhand smoke does directly affect other people. The evidence is pretty strong on that.

[Gorgon]

That's just consideration and common sense. Who would want to light up when it would piss off the people around you. Smokers are used to having to go outside.

[Malcador]

They're covering the packages here with scary images of what cigs will do to you. Largely most smokers don't care - I doubt many ogle their packs, to be fair. Nice show by the Feds here, but that tax revenue is appreciated.

[Gromnir]

Criminalization is what we're discussing here, and the absurd notion that some people apparently have that they can tell me how to live when it doesn't directly affect them at all.

 

But secondhand smoke does directly affect other people. The evidence is pretty strong on that.

 

don't forget the other costs o' smoking. dollars lost due to health care for uninsured smokers in addition to those fuzzy lost productivity estimates released by the cdc and other reputable health organizations suggest that smoking costs American taxpayers and corporations in the tens o' billions of dollars each year. most people seem to accept that required automobile insurance is necessary even if they thinks that the insurance industry is evil and corrupt. a negligent driver hits #'s car-- #'s is severe injured and needs multiple surgeries and 6 months o' rehabilitation to recover, but the negligent driver has no means to pay for damages to #'s car and his life. *shrug* such scenarios is why requisite auto insurance is pretty much accepted. however, is not practical to be requiring drug users and smokers to gets insurance for the damage they cause to those 'round 'em. am supposing that tobacco products could be taxed to the point where their social costs would be complete defrayed... $20 a pack sound kewl? unfortunate, high tax results in a great opportunity for crime too, so you gets ironic vicious cycle whereby the more you raise taxes to cover the social costs, the resultant and inevitable criminal activity from the tax more than counters the benefits o' the tax.

 

personal stoopidity typical has a social cost.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Humodour]

They're covering the packages here with scary images of what cigs will do to you. Largely most smokers don't care - I doubt many ogle their packs, to be fair. Nice show by the Feds here, but that tax revenue is appreciated.

 

Some smokers do care - there is plenty of research on the efficacy of advertising and subliminal messaging as well as results from other countries which introduced the scary images earlier (which is a large number of countries) to show that they are effective. Anyway, the more current smokers that quit the better, even if it is, say, only 10% of current smokers that decide to quit because of those images.

 

But I doubt current smokers are the primary target audience for those images. I imagine the target audience is potential future smokers.

[Humodour]

21st century fascism is banning and legalising the SUPPLY of drugs based on peer-reviewed scientific evidence of their level of harm and addictiveness?

Yep. I could explain why, but [...]

 

Go on, explain why.

 

A doctor telling you to stop smoking because it has a negative effect on your health is not the same as a priest telling you to stop being gay because the bible says it's wrong. Being fine with one is not at odds with having a problem with the other.

Yeah, it's the same because neither of them has the ability to throw me in jail if I buy some smokes

 

Who is throwing you in gaol for buying cigarettes, exactly?

 

Criminalization is what we're discussing here, and the absurd notion that some people apparently have that they can tell me how to live when it doesn't directly affect them at all.

 

Smoking around others or in shared dwellings directly harms others, at least according to those fascist scientists and doctors, so restrictions on your right to smoke in these circumstances are easily justifiable (although I'm not sure anybody in this thread has proposed throwing you in gaol for it).

 

It is easy to make a case for respecting individual rights with respect to drug use. However, there are numerous instances of drug use which violate the rights of others. In these situations, the rights of others come first. Such as with smoking drugs around others. It is further viable to make a case against some drugs with respect to the societal harm they cause (passive smoking, addiction, violent behaviour, cost to the public health system, etc). It is not 'fascist' for a society to pass laws regulating these drug-taking behaviours which impact on others. It is certainly wrong for a society to do so arbitrarily or without evidence, but even then I don't know if that counts as fascism.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Krezack

[Meshugger]

Of course, I can't see alcohol being banned any time soon. Nicotine is going that way, though, which is good.

 

Dude, nicotine by itself is as harmful as caffeine. They are pretty much the same type of alkaloid.

[213374U]

But secondhand smoke does directly affect other people. The evidence is pretty strong on that.

You won't see me arguing against a ban on smoking in public places.

 

 

however, is not practical to be requiring drug users and smokers to gets insurance for the damage they cause to those 'round 'em.

So, if you make up an absurd hypothetical way of going about it, then point out how absurd that solution is, that clearly means the problem has no solution, right?

 

You've made two posts in this thread and both contain really moving stories... which are not really relevant. Loss of productivity and social security costs are a problem for sure. How about getting users to pay the difference? Clearly it's "not practical". Not practical like driving licenses, not practical like progressive taxes, not practical like trials, not practical like pretty much everything else that makes a difference between individuals.

 

 

Go on, explain why.

It's all about your penchant for telling people how they should live, and then suggesting that the gov't throw in jail anyone who doesn't do as you say - or declare war if there's just too many of them. See, the problem is that you simply don't understand that no evidence, no matter how strong, is grounds for infringing upon individual freedoms.

 

 

Who is throwing you in gaol for buying cigarettes, exactly?

Nobody, as I don't smoke. You would, however, if you had it your way.

 

 

It is further viable to make a case against some drugs with respect to the societal harm they cause (passive smoking, addiction, violent behaviour, cost to the public health system, etc). It is not 'fascist' for a society to pass laws regulating these drug-taking behaviours which impact on others.

No, it most certainly is not viable to make such a case, unless you can prove that the societal harm you speak of can only be fought with measures that are unjust, abusive and, most importantly, ineffective.

 

When you're done proving that, you can easily make a case for banning fatty foods, sedentary lifestyles, inadequate sleep routines, and any number of other things with similar or higher "societal costs" than drug consumption.

 

 

I don't know if that counts as fascism.

Whose problem it is if you don't understand key concepts?

[Gromnir]

But secondhand smoke does directly affect other people. The evidence is pretty strong on that.

You won't see me arguing against a ban on smoking in public places.

 

 

however, is not practical to be requiring drug users and smokers to gets insurance for the damage they cause to those 'round 'em.

So, if you make up an absurd hypothetical way of going about it, then point out how absurd that solution is, that clearly means the problem has no solution, right?

 

You've made two posts in this thread and both contain really moving stories... which are not really relevant. Loss of productivity and social security costs are a problem for sure. How about getting users to pay the difference? Clearly it's "not practical". Not practical like driving licenses, not practical like progressive taxes, not practical like trials, not practical like pretty much everything else that makes a difference between individuals.

 

 

 

petty much all the solutions is absurd, which is why there ain't been a solution and we/society is still faced with the problem. duh. so, you make the solution. the problem isn't really up for debate: smoking costs non-smokers lots o' money. one obvious solution, albeit a crude and ineffective one, is to prohibit all smoking. you obvious don't like that one. so, you fix.

 

*shrug*

 

in any event, what is most absurd is for smokers, drug users, and alcoholics to bang the drum o' liberty as their collective stoopidity punishes the rest o' us. so fix-- come up with the miracle solution none of us has yet considered. that or quit your whining and deal with the absurd solutions governments invariably resort to. your liberty is admirable only so long as it don't adverse affect those around you.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Walsingham]

Punitive taxation incentivises government to do nothing to tackle the actual behaviour beyond taxation. I wouldn't argue that they reason oevrtly in such a way, but the evidence is there.

 

This is why i don't argue the really crappy drugs shoudl be legal and taxed. They should be free by government subsidy. This would make private dealing impossible, and really incentivise reduction in the factors which drive drug use. Would never happen, but thankfully I am not responsible for the witlessness of the middle public who would rather waste billions than give someone they despise a free high.

 

I was going to respond to Orogun about something. Can't remember what it was. Four days now with only a couple of hours sleep. It's getting rather fun.

[Gfted1]

They should be free by government subsidy.

 

 

There is no such thing as "free". The burden of every single handout in borne by the taxpayer. Now you've created a way to get high on the taxpayers dime.

[Walsingham]

They should be free by government subsidy.

 

 

There is no such thing as "free". The burden of every single handout in borne by the taxpayer. Now you've created a way to get high on the taxpayers dime.

 

 

I don't mean to frustrate you old man. But it's a question of the maths. I agree that getting high on my money seems bad. But if providing free drugs at a cost of, say

[Walsingham]

This isn't a source article for me, and it's from back in 2002. But the prices have only gone down as production has increased, and police budgets have shifted.

 

I honestly hope you will see my line of reasoning: [my emphasis]

 

Though China White is often packaged by refiners in 700-gram bricks, known as units, the universal measure in the global narcotics business is the 1,000-gram kilo. A kilo that will ultimately fetch in excess of $200,000 (wholesale) in New York City costs as little as $2,500 in Myanmar. That, at least, is what Saikyaw Myat, an unemployed stonemason, was expecting to get for it before being busted by an undercover agent. Ma Lwan Gyi and her two young friends, Ma Kaing Hland and Ma Ban Mong, were nabbed in a similar sting. They had each been promised $20 to deliver a kilo of the famed Double Lion brand into town. All four now sit in leg irons in a stifling corrugated-steel prison, a labyrinth of low wooden cages constructed from thick teak bars, forbidden to move from the lotus position, where they are to contemplate the error of their ways for the next 10 years.

 

The modest price of the China White they carried illustrates how in the overall cost structure of the heroin industry, refining is not a particularly large profit center. That's because the risks of interdiction within Myanmar are too low to factor significantly into the final price. The markup on the finished product is about 20 percent, in line with other forms of contract manufacturing in Asia like semiconductors or cellphones, where the real money goes to designers and distributors.

 

Once the sourcing and processing stages are complete, isolated countries like Myanmar or Afghanistan lose their competitive advantage. ''The Wa or the Kokang don't have the sophistication or international networks to get their product to market,'' explains Maj. Win Naing, who heads the narcotics task force in the bustling northern Myanmar border town of Muse. ''They leave that to foreigners.'' Much the same holds true with Afghan growers, who despite being the source of 80 percent of the heroin in the $12 billion European market, earned at most only a modest $56 million from opium sales last year, according to a United Nations survey.

 

Note that my read of this is that a 12 billion dollar drug market could be instantly interdicted by simply buying the heroin at source for 56 million.

 

EDIT: Further datum. The majority of heroin addiction is funded by theft or vice. To get the harm done to society by the $2500 kilo you have to multiply the street price by a factor. I've often heard one should multiply that by five or ten. So, to save the public purse 2500 we inflict harm on the public of perhaps 100000000. Not including the cost of enforcement efforts which cannot possibly stop the transit in the first place.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Walsingham

[Gromnir]

They should be free by government subsidy.

 

 

There is no such thing as "free". The burden of every single handout in borne by the taxpayer. Now you've created a way to get high on the taxpayers dime.

 

 

I don't mean to frustrate you old man. But it's a question of the maths.

 

 

 

it isn't just maths. never was... never will be. just as our ambulance hypo suggests, the math does not decide matters. is no way you get politicians to advocate government subsidized drug use. thankfully, the maths has never been the deciding factor in stuff such as drugs, education dollars, services for the handicapped, etc.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Walsingham]

*chuckles*

 

Well, I figured someone would reject the mathematical basis, and all I can say is that poetry may be written by those who reject maths, but history is not.

[Humodour]

Of course, I can't see alcohol being banned any time soon. Nicotine is going that way, though, which is good.

 

Dude, nicotine by itself is as harmful as caffeine. They are pretty much the same type of alkaloid.

 

Indeed, that was sloppy of me - my problem with nicotine lies almost exclusively with the method of consumption. I have little problem with the oral form of most drugs (although as I said, I believe the sale of some drugs should be banned for health reasons as an incentive for chemists to produce analogues which have the same behavioural profile minus the worst health impacts).

 

I see no problem with banning the sale of smokable products while allowing the sale of e-cigarettes (vapourisers), nicotine gum, patches, for example. According to 213374U that makes me a fascist, but I think I can live with that.

 

P.S. They are NOT the same type of alkaloid! They have different rings (with different amounts of nitrogen replacing carbon), come from very different species of plants, have very different structures in space, and act on very different receptors. Neither are true stimulants like amphetamine as they do not directly increase dopamine or noradrenaline levels (but rather do so through a neurotransmitter cascade).

Edited September 29, 2011 by Krezack

[Orogun01]

Indeed, that was sloppy of me - my problem with nicotine lies almost exclusively with the method of consumption. I have little problem with the oral form of most drugs (although as I said, I believe the sale of some drugs should be banned for health reasons as an incentive for chemists to produce analogues which have the same behavioural profile minus the worst health impacts).

 

I see no problem with banning the sale of smokable products while allowing the sale of e-cigarettes (vapourisers), nicotine gum, patches, for example. According to 213374U that makes me a fascist, but I think I can live with that.

 

P.S. They are NOT the same type of alkaloid! They have different rings (with different amounts of nitrogen replacing carbon), come from very different species of plants, have very different structures in space, and act on very different receptors. Neither are true stimulants like amphetamine as they do not directly increase dopamine or noradrenaline levels (but rather do so through a neurotransmitter cascade).

Okay I'm jumping ship on this smoking thing.

 

First of all, I believe in the right to privacy. What people do with their own bodies is no one else's concern but theirs, and public places are common ground you can't ban someone from public places for enjoying something legal.

On the dangers of smoking, anything in excess is unhealthy if the government should dictate consumption based on health issues then why isn't there a stronger campaign to ban fast food? It is equally dangerous and the fact its that obesity and heart trouble are a bigger problem than smoking which is now very restricted.

 

So aside from the fundamental hypocrisy of banning one's man joy because its offensive to you while continuing to support the other because you enjoy the eventual burger, what's the real issue with smoking? Because it sure as hell isn't some health concern, not in America where we raise hell when the government tells us that we should lower the salt content on our seafood because its above lethal dosages.

 

@Wals: I'm still going through your link I will do a more detailed post once I've had a chance to completely read it.

[Gorth]

First of all, I believe in the right to privacy. What people do with their own bodies is no one else's concern but theirs

The problem with that position is, when does the impact stop at affecting your body and when does it affect other people. Not talking second hand smoke here, but less obvious things like put a strain on the healthcare system, lack of productivity, social isolation, insert a few more. How much should other people suffer for your indulgence and you would consider them "fascists" (waiting for Godwyns law to be invoked) for telling you to knock it off? After all, you only notice the immediate short term effect on your own body, not giving a damn about other people having to support you when it blows up in your face.

[Hurlshort]

I'm pretty happy with a ban on smoking in public places, rather than making it illegal in any way. Mostly because I've seen it work. Where I live most of the cities have passed legislation that seriously limits smoking in public. It has dramatically changed the environment. It's extremely nice to know I can go out with my family and never catch a whiff of smoke. Everything smells better and I breath easier.

 

A few months ago I was excited to go to a Casino in Nevada. I hadn't been to one in awhile. I lasted about 30 minutes because of the smoke, I just couldn't breath well with all that.

 

So yeah, it's kind of a bummer that I'm basically unable to go into casinos because of a lifestyle choice others are making. I'm not a fan of fast food smells, but it doesn't physically clog up my sinuses, dry out my contacts, and give me a cough. Smoke is simply a public nuisance with no redeeming qualities. It has no place on public property or businesses that are open to the public.

[Gromnir]

*chuckles*

 

Well, I figured someone would reject the mathematical basis, and all I can say is that poetry may be written by those who reject maths, but history is not.

 

what on earth are you talking 'bout? modern societies does all kinda things that reject math, and thankfully so, particularly in light o' the fact that maths is far more subjective than walsh suggests. the maths would have us cut money funding stuff such as the arts and services for the disabled... would have us end any sort o' welfare monies, more than half of which goes to supporting the needs o' children. having kids starve or die o' exposure might be mathematical rational, but is not something most o' us is willing to bear. is kinda amusing that we gets to bring up dr. shockley to respond to two walsh posts that seems to have fuzzy notions o' history. william shockley, one o' the more brilliant minds o' the 20th century, used the maths to "prove" that blacks were possessing genetically deficient intellects and that society would benefit if there were government subsidized sterilizations o' peoples with IQs less than 100. the maths can be more than a little monstrous.

 

regardless, slavishly following the maths is clear antagonistic to the principles o' a democratic society. we not got a philosopher king or a hal 9000 to tell us what is best in a democratic society. in the united states we got a constitution that is protecting some handful o' fundamental rights--- stuff like interstate travel, right to bear arms, and freedom o' speech. individual states gots their own constitutions that frequently add to a citizens list o' protected liberties. perhaps in south carolina there is a state protected liberty right that covers smoking, am not sure. nevertheless, the list o' fundamental rights that is held to be beyond the grasp o' the democratic process is few. we vote and has representatives vote. pure utilitarian is a fail if you not gots folks feeling invested in the processes and as between democracy and a tyranny of maths...

 

HA! Good Fun!