the war on drugs


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Pego » Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:18 am

preston wrote:satisfying your id at the expense of all else


This is where Marlow and you miss the entire point. Bad Hammy and I do not want to "satisfy our id at expense of all (or anybody) else". We want to enjoy a little buzz. Not stealing, not harming anybody. From one side of his mouth, Marlow says that is fine (see his response to Hammy), from the other side he wants to destroy/ban it (see some of his numerous posts above, where he states it unequivocally.
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:36 am

Pego wrote:1. Huh? Society's consensus what I should eat, drink or inhale? That consensus? That is what we are talking about here, is it not?
2. Oh, yes. Are you suggesting that all laws are based on the consensus of society?


1. I'm talking about a line being drawn that says what you can and can't do across the complete spectrum of societal behaviors. Drugs are just one facet.
2. Yup, either the consensus of the group or the individual(s) the group has chosen to represent them (in a democratic republic). The government may NOT represent them well, but that is nothing new, and as Thomas Jefferson suggests, "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government." Be my guest.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:40 am

Pego wrote:This is where Marlow and you miss the entire point.

Pego, you know full well that I do not miss your point at all. I just disagree with your position . . . there's a big difference, and civil discourse dictates that we can agree to disagree without disparaging our opponents (who may well be our friends).
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Pego » Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:55 am

Marlow wrote:
Pego wrote:This is where Marlow and you miss the entire point.

Pego, you know full well that I do not miss your point at all. I just disagree with your position . . . there's a big difference, and civil discourse dictates that we can agree to disagree without disparaging our opponents (who may well be our friends).


Yes, obviously we can disagree and still be friends, that never crossed my mind.

Now, go back and read my entire post that you removed the first sentence from. Which one of those two positions do you advocate? You clearly stated both and cannot have both of them. You are now a Universe's Absolute Dictator. Will you let Hammy have his wine and pot and me some alcohol or you are burning/banning them? Your choice, but you have to make it.
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: the war on drugs

Postby preston » Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:56 am

Pego wrote:
preston wrote:satisfying your id at the expense of all else


This is where Marlow and you miss the entire point. Bad Hammy and I do not want to "satisfy our id at expense of all (or anybody) else". We want to enjoy a little buzz. Not stealing, not harming anybody. From one side of his mouth, Marlow says that is fine (see his response to Hammy), from the other side he wants to destroy/ban it (see some of his numerous posts above, where he states it unequivocally.

Pego, I do see your point. I also know that the reality (remember that thing, you invoke it all the time) is that for every bad hammy there is a human train wreck. I know that addiction won't happen to everyone; only addicts get addicted, some people will never get addicted. I know that some recreational drug use is used for that purpose: recreational use. But, the biggest factor that YOU miss when you bring statistics in from other countries is that the USA is "freer", in a lot if not all instances than the countries you list. The culture of the USA is different and it is my opinion that a freer stance on drug use would incur more problems. I know some seriously functional adults who are NOT recreational in their use of alcohol and weed; they are daily users - some might say abusers - but they are ambitious, responsible and are extremely law-abiding (aside from their "illegal" consumption).

The difference between Marlow and me is that, well, I just don't care THAT much. Even though I agree with his view on outcomes, even though no one wants to be told what to do, I do recognize that the slow, undeveloped, baby antelope doesn't always make it home after the unfortunate chase from the waterhole. That's reality. It's a rough world out there and if we want community then it has a responsibility to protect (the herd circles the young/weak); or, we can just do the wild west thing. It's either/OR; but, the ones who try to rigidly, and erroneously, inject political buzz words like "nanny state" into the issue (read: "jazzcyclist" :wink: ) are not really asking for the "OR", anarchy, either. Someone always gets to tell someone else what to do; something at least one person had NO INTENTION of doing if not for the rules. There will always be rules that human being will NEVER follow. Not because they're too restrictive, but for no other reason than they want to do what they want to do when they want to do it.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Pego » Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:02 am

Preston, this is a most sensible post and I have no quarrel with it. I know that civilized society needs to draw reasonable lines of acceptable conduct. I simply do not believe that our drug laws are reasonable. I think we argue more about where to draw the line rather that the principle. That is definitely debatable and IMHO solvable.
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:39 am

Pego wrote:go back and read my entire post that you removed the first sentence from. Which one of those two positions do you advocate? You clearly stated both and cannot have both of them. You are now a Universe's Absolute Dictator. Will you let Hammy have his wine and pot and me some alcohol or you are burning/banning them? Your choice, but you have to make it.

I think your interchange with preston cleared up our differences, yes? But to be crystal clear:

You said: "Bad Hammy and I do not want to "satisfy our id at expense of all (or anybody) else".

I already answered that with the idea that what you do behind closed doors that truly does not affect anyone else is YOUR business, not anyone else's. I apologize if the cops bust into your house on some trumped-up probable cause warrant, because you are not doing anything 'wrong'. Sadly, that does not apply to everyone else.

As for Universe Absolute Dictator, that's easy. I would adhere as closely as possible to Plato's concept of Philosopher-King, which he summed up with a ship-of-state metaphor: "[A] true pilot must of necessity pay attention to the seasons, the heavens, the stars, the winds, and everything proper to the craft if he is really to rule a ship." If I thought my kingdom could handle drugs responsibly, I would grant it. The United States of America is not (yet?) ready for that.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: the war on drugs

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:40 am

preston wrote:
Blues wrote:As a health professional and as one who worked for several years in a huge state psychiatric institution (where the chief of psychiatry and others strongly believed that the disproportionate number of young adults in the institution was primarily due to their abuse of recreational drugs and the harmful effect on brain neurotransmitters that the chronic drug use caused), I'm inclined to agree with most of what Marlow has stated in this discussion.

It's easy to skewer Marlow, but in this case, I lean more his way too. Let the "libertarians" and the "anarchists" nit-pick his words, I put more faith in his observations from teaching and coaching teenagers for the last 100 years (teenagers coming from the best of homes, mind you) than from some of the posters.

I have to admit that I'm kind of surprised at you and Blues. I figured you folks would object to the way our criminal justice system treats drug offenders, and the devasting impact that drug sentencing laws have had on poor Black communities.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Pego » Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:48 am

Marlow wrote: If I thought my kingdom could handle drugs responsibly, I would grant it. The United States of America is not (yet?) ready for that.


As you know, I don't do well with hints and parables. Are you saying that of now, in this USA, the Universe's Absolute Dictator would say to Hammy and me, "Sorry guys, I love you dearly, but you cannot legally have it." Yes?
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: the war on drugs

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:04 am

preston wrote:It's either/OR; but, the ones who try to rigidly, and erroneously, inject political buzz words like "nanny state" into the issue (read: "jazzcyclist" :wink: ) are not really asking for the "OR", anarchy, either. Someone always gets to tell someone else what to do; something at least one person had NO INTENTION of doing if not for the rules. There will always be rules that human being will NEVER follow. Not because they're too restrictive, but for no other reason than they want to do what they want to do when they want to do it.

I'll admit that the phrase "nanny stater" has somewhat of a pejorative feel to it but I used it because I couldn't think of a more benign phrase to use. "Anti-libertarian" sounded awkward, but I would welcome any synonyms you might come up with. Besides, Marlow didn't seem offended by the term.

If you think about it, all of us are nanny-staters to some degree, it's just that we draw the line at different places. For example, I would oppose legalizing the really hard drugs like LSD, heroin, etc., and though I support the 2nd amendment and private weapons ownership, I would be opposed to the sale of certain weapons to the general public such as anti-aircraft missiles, land mines, field artillery, etc.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:19 am

Pego wrote:As you know, I don't do well with hints and parables. Are you saying that of now, in this USA, the Universe's Absolute Dictator would say to Hammy and me, "Sorry guys, I love you dearly, but you cannot legally have it." Yes?

I would say to you: what I don't know, I don't know . . . and leave it at that. If I thought it would work, I'd say you can grow your own, and what stays on you property stays on your property (including your mellow self), but as I have said, I think the general populace would make me regret and rescind that policy.

All this is a lot like my classroom. Every year I begin the year giving the students wide latitude on many of my policies and most years (not all!) they abuse their privileges and lose them. I'm sure you and hammy would be Model Students! :D
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Pego » Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:32 am

Marlow wrote:
Pego wrote:As you know, I don't do well with hints and parables. Are you saying that of now, in this USA, the Universe's Absolute Dictator would say to Hammy and me, "Sorry guys, I love you dearly, but you cannot legally have it." Yes?

I would say to you: what I don't know, I don't know . . . and leave it at that. If I thought it would work, I'd say you can grow your own, and what stays on you property stays on your property (including your mellow self), but as I have said, I think the general populace would make me regret and rescind that policy.

All this is a lot like my classroom. Every year I begin the year giving the students wide latitude on many of my policies and most years (not all!) they abuse their privileges and lose them. I'm sure you and hammy would be Model Students! :D


Are you saying you don't know whether to have alcohol and drugs legal or not? What are you saying then? As you can see, I don't want to "leave it at that". Leave it at what? You have argued vehemently, for awhile I thought I understood your position, but evidently you don't have one. We are talking government policy that affects millions, for some it is their enjoyment, for some their livelihood, for some imprisonment. This is not rhetorical exercise in classroom setting.
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:50 am

Pego wrote:for awhile I thought I understood your position, but evidently you don't have one.

Ohferheavensake! Yer killing me here. I'm desperately trying to be accommodating, but fine - here's my position (drawn from MY lifetime's experience with too many people who can't restrain themselves from negatively affecting others through their drug use): I agree 100% with the current USA drug policies as they are now, even differentiated by state (i.e., Cal's medicinal marijuana position). If you don't like this position, talk to your state and federal government, not me! As the state and federal policies evolve (which they invariably will), I'll let you know if I approve or not, OK?! :roll: :wink:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Blues » Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:54 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
preston wrote:
Blues wrote:As a health professional and as one who worked for several years in a huge state psychiatric institution (where the chief of psychiatry and others strongly believed that the disproportionate number of young adults in the institution was primarily due to their abuse of recreational drugs and the harmful effect on brain neurotransmitters that the chronic drug use caused), I'm inclined to agree with most of what Marlow has stated in this discussion.

It's easy to skewer Marlow, but in this case, I lean more his way too. Let the "libertarians" and the "anarchists" nit-pick his words, I put more faith in his observations from teaching and coaching teenagers for the last 100 years (teenagers coming from the best of homes, mind you) than from some of the posters.

I have to admit that I'm kind of surprised at you and Blues. I figured you folks would object to the way our criminal justice system treats drug offenders, and the devasting impact that drug sentencing laws have had on poor Black communities.


That's a crock of baloney Jazz... Because some of us may disagree with particular solutions doesn't mean we don't recognize or acknowledge the problems.

Just as I'm not ready to give in and make all PED's legal because the system isn't 100% successful in deterring the cheaters, I'm not ready to give in and make all recreational drugs legal because of inadequacies of the current drug control system. I don't think the solution is to make dangerous habit forming drugs legal and widely available, but rather to do more to try to correct the social issues that lead so many to become habitual users or that are responsible for the problems or inequality of the current system. The reform of marijuana laws is a different issue and I'm not including that discussion here.
Last edited by Blues on Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Blues
 
Posts: 1090
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Pego » Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:57 am

Marlow wrote:
Pego wrote:for awhile I thought I understood your position, but evidently you don't have one.

Ohferheavensake! Yer killing me here. I'm desperately trying to be accommodating, but fine - here's my position (drawn from MY lifetime's experience with too many people who can't restrain themselves from negatively affecting others through their drug use): I agree 100% with the current USA drug policies as they are now, even differentiated by state (i.e., Cal's medicinal marijuana position). If you don't like this position, talk to your state and federal government, not me! As the state and federal policies evolve (which they invariably will), I'll let you know if I approve or not, OK?! :roll: :wink:


This answers my question :D .
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:05 am

Pego wrote:This answers my question. :D

Yay!
I now see why why lonewolf stays out of political discussions - it upsets us to disagree with people we like, even though that is the essence of friendship (being able to disagree without taking it personally!)
I'm going to have some C-O-K-E now! :twisted:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Pego » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:07 am

Marlow wrote:
Pego wrote:This answers my question. :D

Yay!
I now see why why lonewolf stays out of political discussions - it upsets us to disagree with people we like, even though that is the essence of friendship (being able to disagree without taking it personally!)
I'm going to have some C-O-K-E now! :twisted:


Hey, live it up. Have a Twinkie with it 8-) .
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: the war on drugs

Postby preston » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:15 am

jazzcyclist wrote:I have to admit that I'm kind of surprised at you and Blues. I figured you folks would object to the way our criminal justice system treats drug offenders, and the devasting impact that drug sentencing laws have had on poor Black communities.

I completely object; Prohibition is possible without mass incarceration of Black and Brown youth. This conversation seems, I could have missed the off-ramp, to have shifted more to "use" not "sale" so I can see how my views have confused you. But, there are higher priorities in Black and Brown communities than the redaction of drug enforcement laws. The high school graduation rate of less than 50% nationwide would be first on my list (I would make dropping out illegal...if I were the king) and though I'm not trying to draw a correlation between out-of-wedlock births and any possible negative effects on the community at large (trying to keep the politics to a minimum), if that were brought up I wouldn't object.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: the war on drugs

Postby preston » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:17 am

Blues wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
preston wrote:
Blues wrote:As a health professional and as one who worked for several years in a huge state psychiatric institution (where the chief of psychiatry and others strongly believed that the disproportionate number of young adults in the institution was primarily due to their abuse of recreational drugs and the harmful effect on brain neurotransmitters that the chronic drug use caused), I'm inclined to agree with most of what Marlow has stated in this discussion.

It's easy to skewer Marlow, but in this case, I lean more his way too. Let the "libertarians" and the "anarchists" nit-pick his words, I put more faith in his observations from teaching and coaching teenagers for the last 100 years (teenagers coming from the best of homes, mind you) than from some of the posters.

I have to admit that I'm kind of surprised at you and Blues. I figured you folks would object to the way our criminal justice system treats drug offenders, and the devasting impact that drug sentencing laws have had on poor Black communities.


That's a crock of baloney Jazz... Because some of us may disagree with particular solutions doesn't mean we don't recognize or acknowledge the problems.

Just as I'm not ready to give in and make all PED's legal because the system isn't 100% successful in deterring the cheaters, I'm not ready to give in and make all recreational drugs legal because of inadequacies of the current drug control system. I don't think the solution is to make dangerous habit forming drugs legal and widely available, but rather to do more to try to correct the social issues that lead so many to become habitual users or that are responsible for the problems or inequality of the current system. The reform of marijuana laws is a different issue and I'm not including that discussion here.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. Well said, Blues.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: the war on drugs

Postby SQUACKEE » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:22 am

I think you still have crime problem even if make heroin cheap, because the heroin user cant work at all and has no money but a huge habit.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Re: the war on drugs

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:40 am

Blues wrote:That's a crock of baloney Jazz... Because some of us may disagree with particular solutions doesn't mean we don't recognize or acknowledge the problems.

Just as I'm not ready to give in and make all PED's legal because the system isn't 100% successful in deterring the cheaters, I'm not ready to give in and make all recreational drugs legal because of inadequacies of the current drug control system. I don't think the solution is to make dangerous habit forming drugs legal and widely available, but rather to do more to try to correct the social issues that lead so many to become habitual users or that are responsible for the problems or inequality of the current system. The reform of marijuana laws is a different issue and I'm not including that discussion here.

It sounds like you want to repeal prohition for marijuana but keep it in place for everything else. Is that correct? If so, how would you prevent people involved with the other kinds of drugs from getting caught up with the criminal justice system and how would you combat drug related violence?

My belief is that the vast majority of young people who want to do drugs are already doing them, and the increase in drug use would be marginal if drugs were decriminalized. Furthermore, I wouldn't make drugs as available as alcohol and tobacco, which can be bought at every street corner convenience store where I live, just available enough to take away the incentive/profit motive of street dealers. In many states, hard liquor is only sold at certain state-run liquor stores that could be located many miles apart. That's convenient enough to discourage bootleggers but often too inconvenient for people without cars.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Pego » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:41 am

SQUACKEE wrote:I think you still have crime problem even if make heroin cheap, because the heroin user cant work at all and has no money but a huge habit.


This may be true, but it is also true that alcohol impoverished and drove to despair multiple times the number of all opiate users combined.
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: the war on drugs

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:01 am

SQUACKEE wrote:I think you still have crime problem even if make heroin cheap, because the heroin user cant work at all and has no money but a huge habit.

That's why I would keep the hard stuff illegal. Where I would draw the line is whether or not most users of a drug are functional. Most alcohol, tobacco and marijuana users are functional. Hell, our two Presidents were cocaine users when they were young and turned out all right. I don't know much about heroin, but my sense is that most users aren't functional. I still think we should aggressively discourage the use of these things, and the fact that tobacco use has steadily declined over the last 50 years proves that education does work.

EDIT: Also, the stereotypical alcoholics that I've seen over the years who can't hold a steady job still possess the wherewithall to hustle a couple of bucks doing odd jobs to get their next cheap bottle of wine.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: the war on drugs

Postby SQUACKEE » Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:15 am

Pego wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:I think you still have crime problem even if make heroin cheap, because the heroin user cant work at all and has no money but a huge habit.


This may be true, but it is also true that alcohol impoverished and drove to despair multiple times the number of all opiate users combined.


So we are fucked, basically, and left with the lesser of two evils? Which I am ok with, never did buy into Utopia
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Conor Dary » Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:56 am

Pego wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:I think you still have crime problem even if make heroin cheap, because the heroin user cant work at all and has no money but a huge habit.


This may be true, but it is also true that alcohol impoverished and drove to despair multiple times the number of all opiate users combined.


Not only that but the crime involved with users is on the light side compared to the violence and mayhem of drug cartels.

And besides a lot of alcoholics don't work and need a bottle of booze, and may commit some crime but nothing like the violence of the Capone and the North Side mobs in Prohibition Chicago.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: the war on drugs

Postby preston » Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:01 am

Conor Dary wrote:...And besides a lot of alcoholics don't work and need a bottle of booze, and may commit some crime but nothing like the violence of the Capone and the North Side mobs in Prohibition Chicago.

It appears that you haven't been following the discussion; that points been covered - and explained. In a nutshell: if the prohibition had never been instituted, bootleggers would have never existed for alcohol.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:03 am

Conor Dary wrote:And besides a lot of alcoholics don't work and need a bottle of booze, and may commit some crime but nothing like the violence of the Capone and the North Side mobs in Prohibition Chicago.


??!!
Capone and the Chicago mobs are puddles compared to the oceans of misery that alcohol has perpetuated upon the world.

[I get that Prohibition failed and that our culture is inextricably intertwined with the consumption of alcohol, so don't make me start all over again - I GET the other side!]
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Conor Dary » Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:11 am

Marlow wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:And besides a lot of alcoholics don't work and need a bottle of booze, and may commit some crime but nothing like the violence of the Capone and the North Side mobs in Prohibition Chicago.


??!!
Capone and the Chicago mobs are puddles compared to the oceans of misery that alcohol has perpetuated upon the world.


Well, yea, I suppose we could find some alternate universe where alcohol never existed. But we have this world and it is called reality.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Conor Dary » Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:14 am

preston wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:...And besides a lot of alcoholics don't work and need a bottle of booze, and may commit some crime but nothing like the violence of the Capone and the North Side mobs in Prohibition Chicago.

It appears that you haven't been following the discussion; that points been covered - and explained. In a nutshell: if the prohibition had never been instituted, bootleggers would have never existed for alcohol.


7sided let us get this straight right off the top. Your points mean zero to me. I ignore everything you write. So don't respond to mine. Just go to hell. Is that clear?
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Pego » Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:17 am

SQUACKEE wrote:
Pego wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:I think you still have crime problem even if make heroin cheap, because the heroin user cant work at all and has no money but a huge habit.


This may be true, but it is also true that alcohol impoverished and drove to despair multiple times the number of all opiate users combined.


So we are fucked, basically, and left with the lesser of two evils? Which I am ok with, never did buy into Utopia


Are you (and all those east coast creatures) surviving Sandy? Evidently you still have power, it is lame to use computers by candlelight.
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: the war on drugs

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:18 am

preston wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:...And besides a lot of alcoholics don't work and need a bottle of booze, and may commit some crime but nothing like the violence of the Capone and the North Side mobs in Prohibition Chicago.

It appears that you haven't been following the discussion; that points been covered - and explained. In a nutshell: if the prohibition had never been instituted, bootleggers would have never existed for alcohol.

Exactly! Before Prohibition, there were no boitleggers and after Prohibition,the bottleggers disappeared.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: the war on drugs

Postby preston » Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:22 am

Conor Dary wrote:
preston wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:...And besides a lot of alcoholics don't work and need a bottle of booze, and may commit some crime but nothing like the violence of the Capone and the North Side mobs in Prohibition Chicago.

It appears that you haven't been following the discussion; that points been covered - and explained. In a nutshell: if the prohibition had never been instituted, bootleggers would have never existed for alcohol.


7sided let us get this straight right off the top. Your points mean zero to me. I ignore everything you write. So don't respond to mine. Just go to hell. Is that clear?

You really could make the board a nicer place by actually ignoring me. By the way, didn't you write less than 2 weeks ago that you just ignore some posters...but you can't ignore me?

Conor Dary wrote:Right. It is not like you have to open the thread or like gh put it, as I just noticed rereading the above, that there will put some false leader like "Free Prizes!!' to get you there. There are some threads, and posters, I completely avoid.


Anyway, I'm flattered by your patronage. Please feel free to tell a friend.
Last edited by preston on Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Conor Dary » Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:25 am

As I said go to hell.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Pego » Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:26 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
preston wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:...And besides a lot of alcoholics don't work and need a bottle of booze, and may commit some crime but nothing like the violence of the Capone and the North Side mobs in Prohibition Chicago.

It appears that you haven't been following the discussion; that points been covered - and explained. In a nutshell: if the prohibition had never been instituted, bootleggers would have never existed for alcohol.

Exactly! Before Prohibition, there were no boitleggers and after Prohibition,the bottleggers disappeared.


I have a 25-year old bottle of my Slovak brother-in-law's moonshine plum brandy (sliwowitz). My guess is that it is at least 150 proof, perhaps more :mrgreen: . It has no blue tinge against the light (markings of methylalcohol), so I probably won't go blind as yet :D .
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: the war on drugs

Postby preston » Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:27 am

Conor Dary wrote:As I said go to hell.

Directions, please? :lol:
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: the war on drugs

Postby gh » Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:27 am

Conor Dary wrote:As I said go to hell.


I see somebody needs a timeout here to work on anger-management skills.
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: the war on drugs

Postby mump boy » Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:47 am

Marlow wrote:
mump boy wrote:Marlow's preposterous sweeping statement . . . ill informed knee jerk reactions

Play nice . . . ad hominems only undermine your position.


Which you still haven't addressed :?
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: the war on drugs

Postby mump boy » Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:58 am

SQUACKEE wrote:I think you still have crime problem even if make heroin cheap, because the heroin user cant work at all and has no money but a huge habit.


I read a very long article once (i think it was in Vanity Fair) about highly functional professional Heroin addicts who worked on Wall St. I'm not advocating it but you can very well manage a smack habit if you have to money to do so
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: the war on drugs

Postby preston » Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:02 pm

mump boy wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:I think you still have crime problem even if make heroin cheap, because the heroin user cant work at all and has no money but a huge habit.


I read a very long article once (i think it was in Vanity Fair) about highly functional professional Heroin addicts who worked on Wall St. I'm not advocating it but you can very well manage a smack habit if you have to money to do so

You can say the same about gambling (another vice?). It's all fun and games until someone runs out of money, though.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:30 pm

mump boy wrote:
Marlow wrote:
mump boy wrote:Marlow's preposterous sweeping statement . . . ill informed knee jerk reactions

Play nice . . . ad hominems only undermine your position.

Which you still haven't addressed :?

I think I've carried my load on this thread far enough . . . I'm exhausted . . . :wink:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests