A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
preston wrote:The "problem" with the war on drugs is NOT the criminalization of use, but the criminilization of sale and distribution.
The two are sides of the same coin. Decriminalization/legalization (the degree may be debatable regarding different substances) of the use in essence eliminates the need for pushers. If you can buy marijuana in the supermarket next to cigarettes, you have eliminated the underground. That is what happened with alcohol. No more business for the mob, they had to move to other illegal profitable activities (other drugs, prostitution...).
preston wrote:The "problem" with the war on drugs is NOT the criminalization of use, but the criminilization of sale and distribution.
The two are sides of the same coin. Decriminalization/legalization (the degree may be debatable regarding different substances) of the use in essence eliminates the need for pushers. If you can buy marijuana in the supermarket next to cigarettes, you have eliminated the underground. That is what happened with alcohol. No more business for the mob, they had to move to other illegal profitable activities (other drugs, prostitution...).
Obviously, I understand that part; what I'm saying is that use has never been seriously criminalized, though POSSESSION has (mostly for weed and rock cocaine). The "war" was on the "pushers" not the users. I'll stop there as it's difficult to get deeper into this without breaking the mandate.
Pego wrote:1. There is zero evidence that criminalizing use decreases demand. 2. Treatment/prevention is guaranteed to achieve more than imprisonment.
Your position is entirely emotional with no basis in reality.
As you know, I have the utmost respect for your opinion, and you may even be right, but I cannot in good conscience agree. And, as an aside, my opinions are rarely colored with emotion; that never works out well.
Pego wrote:1. There is zero evidence that criminalizing use decreases demand. 2. Treatment/prevention is guaranteed to achieve more than imprisonment.
1. I'm with Marlow here. There may be zero evidence that criminilizing use ELIMINATES demand but I'm certain that it decreases it and does so significantly. What is left, what constitutes the lionshare of "users", is a extremely small slice of the population known as the addict. But, I also agree with Pego: Criminlization just doesn't solve the problem that treatment/prevention would. Basically, it's more complicated than just one or the other, imo.
gh wrote:All the outside observation in the world is worth bupkus if you've never felt the tug of looking for more after your pleasure centers have been stimulated, or knowing what happens when you combine two (or worse, more) disparate substances. Or, most of all, have done something truly crazy and the next day said, "Oh shit, why did I do that?!" If you've never been there and heard the siren song, I'm afraid you have absolutely no idea—and I can't stress this enough, no idea—how the thing works, and all the observation in the world won't do anything to change that.
All this makes me think you totally agree with me on the 'problems' with drugs. ....
gh wrote:* knowing what happens when you combine two (or worse, more) disparate substances. * have done something truly crazy and the next day said, "Oh shit, why did I do that?!"
All this makes me think you totally agree with me on the 'problems' with drugs. ....
not remotely.
So those are good things that people enjoy . . . not able to control their own (destructive) desires. I'm guessing that the Honey Badger (busted again yesterday) wishes drugs didn't exist. my point has always been that in a perfect libertarian world, all drugs SHOULD be legal, because in a perfect libertarian world we are the only ones who have to pay the penalty for our mistakes. But in my world MANY other people's lives are ruined by drugs, and a free and easy access to that would horrendously exacerbate the tragedy.
Last edited by Marlow on Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Marlow wrote:So those are good things that people enjoy . . . not able to control their own (destructive) desires.
I know you're a teetotaler, but have you ever had a drink?
When I was an exchange midshipmen in the German Navy, I was asked to partake in a long-standing beer-drinking tradition (involving one's first detachment to sea). In respect to their custom, I drank lots of beer. It confirmed my own 'fears'; while the drunken state of euphoria was 'great fun', the altering of my consciousness - to one I could not wholly control - was so unpleasant that I knew it was not something that would be of benefit to me . . . ever . . . in any way. People (including me) doing plenty of stupid stuff when we're sober. Why would anyone intentionally put themselves (and others!) MORE in "harm's way" (not necessarily physical)?
Marlow wrote:When I was an exchange midshipmen in the German Navy, I was asked to partake in a long-standing beer-drinking tradition (involving one's first detachment to sea). In respect to their custom, I drank lots of beer. It confirmed my own 'fears'; while the drunken state of euphoria was 'great fun', the altering of my consciousness - to one I could not wholly control - was so unpleasant that I knew it was not something that would be of benefit to me . . . ever . . . in any way. People (including me) doing plenty of stupid stuff when we're sober. Why would anyone intentionally put themselves (and others!) MORE in "harm's way" (not necessarily physical)?
So despite what gh said, you have been there and done that.
jazzcyclist wrote:So despite what gh said, you have been there and done that.
Not to the degree that most others do, but yes, I have experienced the 'high', which, though pleasant, is definitely not worth the risks that sense impairment brings. I am not a 'control freak', but what faculties I do have, I would rather keep in full working condition. I have never had 'less fun' than others because I wasn't high. In many ways I'm having more fun, because I am fully able to appreciate whatever environment I'm in, AND I can enjoy the 'show' of others' foolishness. It was always assumed that I was just as drunk as others at parties, because I can act pretty silly all by myself. But . . . having my mind clear has ALWAYS been a high priority to me.
Marlow wrote:But in my world MANY other people's lives are ruined by drugs, and a free and easy access to that would horrendously exacerbate the tragedy.
You just don't get it. Most users (alcohol or marijuana primarily) do not "ruin their lives" by enjoying themselves. Some do and that is their choice and not for you to prohibit it. If they ruin somebody else's life, we have laws for it, whether drugs were involved or not.
Finally, "having your mind always clear" maybe a high priority for you, but not necessarily for everybody else. You would not want to impose your sets of priorities on me now, would you?
Pego wrote:If they ruin somebody else's life, we have laws for it, whether drugs were involved or not.
I guess it comes down the "seatbelt, motorcycle helmet law" idea. You want that to be self-determined, because you think that they will be the only ones harmed if they don't. I want these laws because SOME people (not you) won't do it it unless they are told to do it, but when they get hurt (preventably so), it's not just their own lives that are ruined; their families' lives are too. I need 'reminding' of what's good for me; I'm glad that I have laws that remind me (speeding, much?) of my responsibilities.
Why DO we have speed limits? We have laws against vehicular manslaughter and the like. Why should there be laws to prevent us from doing what we choose to do. Most people drive reasonably. I can go safely 100mph on the interstate. Why are my RIGHTS being restricted so unfairly?!
Marlow, if someone wants to make pole vaulting illegal because it's so dangerous, and he uses the exact same argument you just used, what's your response?
j-a-m wrote:Marlow, if someone wants to make pole vaulting illegal because it's so dangerous, and he uses the exact same argument you just used, what's your response?
Right after they outlaw cheerleading and football (high injury-rate sports), I'd be willing to seriously entertain the idea (i.e., apples and oranges in terms of context).
Pego wrote:Most users (alcohol or marijuana primarily) do not "ruin their lives" by enjoying themselves. Some do and that is their choice and not for you to prohibit it. If they ruin somebody else's life, we have laws for it, whether drugs were involved or not.
j-a-m wrote:And by the way, more people die from overdosing prescription drugs than from overdosing illegal drugs:
Yes, because there's so many more people using legal ones rather than illegal ones, so we should continue to restrict illegal ones, the easy access to which would only add to increased use and abuse, leading to more deaths.
Marlow wrote:I need 'reminding' of what's good for me; I'm glad that I have laws that remind me (speeding, much?) of my responsibilities.
This is the essence of the nanny state mindset.
When people start acting responsibly on a regular basis then talk to me about letting people do whatever they want, whenever they want. I would like to PREVENT tragedy, rather than have to clean up its preventable mess. I have no problem with a government that tells me to obey the speed limit, wear my seat-belt, etc., etc. because even though it restricts my 'rights and freedoms' (which I do NOT like), I love the idea that IDIOTS can't hurt me or my family as easily now, WITH the restrictions put on them. I trust most people to act responsibly, but there's a large percentage that will only behave themselves when Nanny IS around.
Marlow wrote:I need 'reminding' of what's good for me; I'm glad that I have laws that remind me (speeding, much?) of my responsibilities.
That is fine. Some of us do not. Why should we be restrained by such laws just because you need them? I do buckle up not because it is the law, I do it because it is sensible. I do speed at times on an open, clearly visible dry highway in spite of the law, because it is going too fast for conditions rather than exceeding the arbitrary speed limit that causes tragedies. I drink alcohol and do not smoke marijuana not because one is legal and the other one is not, but because I like one and do not care that much about the other.
Marlow wrote:I need 'reminding' of what's good for me; I'm glad that I have laws that remind me (speeding, much?) of my responsibilities.
That is fine. Some of us do not. Why should we be restrained by such laws just because you need them?
You just answered your own question: "some of us do not [need laws]." Which means that some DO need laws to curtail themselves. So you (and others above) have NEVER gotten ANY kind of traffic ticket?! If you have, then you do NOT know how to always behave yourself. If you haven't, then you one of the few! (meaning that most of us DO need a 'Nanny State').
Marlow wrote:So you (and others above) have NEVER gotten ANY kind of traffic ticket?! If you have, then you do NOT know how to always behave yourself.
I answered this in advance in my previous post, the part you conveniently chose to ignore. We are not getting anywhere, you have your mind made up that drugs should be unlawful and that is it. I am sure you would vote to outlaw alcohol and cigarettes, too (most certainly socially the two most dangerous ones).
Marlow wrote:So you (and others above) have NEVER gotten ANY kind of traffic ticket?! If you have, then you do NOT know how to always behave yourself.
I answered this in advance in my previous post, the part you conveniently chose to ignore. We are not getting anywhere, you have your mind made up that drugs should be unlawful and that is it. I am sure you would vote to outlaw alcohol and cigarettes, too (most certainly socially the two most dangerous ones).
My (much) earlier comments on this thread stand. I will say, however, that I give Marlow credit for arguing a slightly less-than-intuitive case. Few would argue that there is a need for reasonable laws applied equally to everyone. The obvious issue is defining what is "reasonable"--and thus finding the "proper" balance between individual rights/autonomy and the health/safety of the social entity as a whole. It's not a new problem.
Pego wrote:We are not getting anywhere, you have your mind made up that drugs should be unlawful and that is it.
If your position is that heroin, cocaine, PCP, LSD, meth, etc. should be LEGAL, then yes, we will never see eye-to-eye. May I suggest that I have already won this debate, because these drugs will never be legalized, because most people see them as dangerous? I get the impression that you see your world as populated with like-minded individuals as yourself, who can control their urges and can take responsibility for their actions. I agree that these people do NOT need Nanny-state laws. Unfortunately I live in a world where many people can NOT control themselves and take responsibility for themselves. When these people do drugs, they often create great tragedy for OTHER people, so just punishing them for their abuses is a too-little-too-late scenario - their harm to others is already done.
Marlow wrote:these drugs will never be legalized, because most people see them as dangerous?
Certainly not in our lifetime, with that I agree. That would require political will with high risk of not being re-elected that few politicians will undertake .
As Pego intimated, most doctors would say that tobacco is the worst of all drugs, in terms of it having caused more morbidity and mortality in the history of the world, probably than all other drugs combined. I have amputated legs in my orthopaedic career only for 3 conditions 1) diabetic infections, 2) major trauma (rare), and 3) dysvascular legs from smoking. So if tobacco remains legal, it shows that Pego is likely correct that this is really a political argument, as why should it remain legal when the others are not?
? for Bam Bam, any other docs or for that matter anybody else....
Suppose just for a moment that alcoholic beverages had never been discovered until now, and then wham ! there they are ! What would be society's/governments' reaction be to its legality, etc. ?
Asociated ? is..., how many people die every year due to alcohol( including innocents) ?! More/less than tobacco ?
I'm not preaching on this subject. I've had a few drinks in my life just like virtually everyone else.
Which brings me to my (not-so-secret) revelation to prove ONCE AND FOR ALL (as if I needed to) that I'm stark raving mad: yes, I'm all for destroying all alcoholic and tobacco products forever! Not even kidding. So yes, I've lost the major debate in this regard also.
Was is not the inimitable Mick Jagger, who once proffered that
You can't always get what you want. No, you can't always get what you want . But if you try sometimes, well, you might find, You get what you need.
It is interesting ("sobering"?) to realize just how ancient alcoholic drinks are, beginning with beer and wine. It would appear that consciousness altering and civilization are joined at the hip.
From Wiki: Beer is one of the world's oldest prepared beverages, possibly dating back to the early Neolithic or 9500 BC, when cereal was first farmed, and is recorded in the written history of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. Archaeologists speculate that beer was instrumental in the formation of civilizations.
kuha wrote: Archaeologists speculate that beer was instrumental in the formation of civilizations.
No doubt! People had to learn to band together for mutual survival. Alcohol made it easier to stand the harsh life (and each other!), but one poor schlub had to be the Designated Look-out in case of enemy attack. That woulda been me.
dukehjsteve wrote:? for Bam Bam, any other docs or for that matter anybody else....
Suppose just for a moment that alcoholic beverages had never been discovered until now, and then wham ! there they are ! What would be society's/governments' reaction be to its legality, etc. ?
Asociated ? is..., how many people die every year due to alcohol( including innocents) ?! More/less than tobacco ?
I'm not preaching on this subject. I've had a few drinks in my life just like virtually everyone else.
Tobacco would obviously never be permitted - there is that law in US congress that forbids the manufacture of anything known to cause cancer in laboratory animals. Tobacco gets past that because it was grandfathered in. But if it was discovered now and we knew this it could never be approved.
Not as certain about alcohol. Maybe Dr Jay or Pego know something but I am not aware of any association of alcohol with cancer. Obviously, dementia, liver failure, drunken driving problems, etc., but not cancer that I know of.
Don't have good #s about tobacco vs alcohol for morbidity/mortality, but in my own practice I see a lot more problems caused by tobacco than alcohol. That may not be true for Jay or Pego (Ivan) who have medical practices.
