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 Marlow » Sun Oct 28, 2012 1:19 pm

bad hammy wrote:I'm not sure how to work with the idea that using all of these substances is indicative of my failure in life.

Why would you even entertain such a notion? You obviously CAN balance your 'urges' with your greater responsibilities. Many other people, like you, can do that also. I'm not the least concerned with people like you. Similarly, I am not concerned with all the responsible drivers would could exceed the speed limit and drive 100% safely at all times. But . . . without speed limits and other societal restraints, my and my loved ones' lives would be put in peril by the many irresponsible people, who can not balance their lives. Punishing them AFTER they've hurt my family is too late.

It's a matter of where to draw the line. I prefer it drawn on the 'safe side', i.e., better safe than sorry. Others esteem their personal 'rights' so highly, they're willing to trust others to be responsible (to some degree). I do not. I served my 20 years in the military, 'protecting' our rights, but that does not extend to the 'right' to abuse drugs and affect the lives of others.

To summarize, you do your thing in the privacy of your home and do not affect me and mine, and we have nothing to argue about. It's like the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. What you do that does not affect others at all, you are more than welcome to engage in. If I thought everyone could do that, I'd picket the White House to decriminalize EVERYTHING, but I have no such faith.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21134
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Pego » Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:12 pm

no one wrote:Pego -

you piqued my interest.

You mentioned "peripheral neuropathy to exceedingly rare such as Marchiafava-Bignami syndrome". I've been Dxd with, among other things, peripheral neuropathy which is a 24/7 'experience'. And Type II Diabetes, currently managed by diet. No alch for 38 yrs, and relatively little (for young adult) prior. Ok - that is enough personal info (maybe too much)

Been to neurologist(s) and podiatrist and gen med - they all shrug their shoulders when ask about Tx and whats the general clinical course. If I live as long as lonewolf I have 20 yrs or so. Can you give me any clue or direction - I've researched somewhat on internet.

You can put this on my bill.


Yes, peripheral neuropathy is the most common complication of chronic alcoholism and I said so in my post 8-) .

I would gladly try to assist you, but need a lot more info. Let's take this offline, PM me. The first few of my questions are.
1. What is supposed to be cause of your PN? Type II diabetes is not nearly as common a cause as type I.
2. What symptoms do you have?

The bill is in the mail :wink: .
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: the war on drugs

Postby mump boy » Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:34 pm

Marlow wrote:
bad hammy wrote:I'm not sure how to work with the idea that using all of these substances is indicative of my failure in life.

Why would you even entertain such a notion? You obviously CAN balance your 'urges' with your greater responsibilities. Many other people, like you, can do that also. I'm not the least concerned with people like you. Similarly, I am not concerned with all the responsible drivers would could exceed the speed limit and drive 100% safely at all times. But . . . without speed limits and other societal restraints, my and my loved ones' lives would be put in peril by the many irresponsible people, who can not balance their lives. Punishing them AFTER they've hurt my family is too late.

It's a matter of where to draw the line. I prefer it drawn on the 'safe side', i.e., better safe than sorry. Others esteem their personal 'rights' so highly, they're willing to trust others to be responsible (to some degree). I do not. I served my 20 years in the military, 'protecting' our rights, but that does not extend to the 'right' to abuse drugs and affect the lives of others.

To summarize, you do your thing in the privacy of your home and do not affect me and mine, and we have nothing to argue about. It's like the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. What you do that does not affect others at all, you are more than welcome to engage in. If I thought everyone could do that, I'd picket the White House to decriminalize EVERYTHING, but I have no such faith.


Marlow, you've not addressed my assertion that in many cases recreational drugs can have a positive effect on all of society
Last edited by mump boy on Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mump boy
 
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Marlow » Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:12 pm

mump boy wrote:Marlow, you've addressed my assertion that in many cases recreational drugs can have a positive effect on all of society

Indeed I have. The Pursuit of Happiness is high on my list of rights. But . . . your pursuit MUST not infringe others' pursuits. That's where the problem lies. Go do whatever you want to do, as long as others are not affected, but that is much easier said than done (Donne said it nicely: "No man is an island.") .
Marlow
 
Posts: 21134
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: the war on drugs

Postby mump boy » Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:52 pm

Marlow wrote:
mump boy wrote:Marlow, you've addressed my assertion that in many cases recreational drugs can have a positive effect on all of society

Indeed I have. The Pursuit of Happiness is high on my list of rights. But . . . your pursuit MUST not infringe others' pursuits. That's where the problem lies. Go do whatever you want to do, as long as others are not affected, but that is much easier said than done (Donne said it nicely: "No man is an island.") .


I made reference to circumstances in which recreational drug use has had an positive effect on those surrounding it. You have not responded to this at all.
mump boy
 
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Marlow » Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:07 pm

mump boy wrote:I made reference to circumstances in which recreational drug use has had an positive effect on those surrounding it. You have not responded to this at all.

Since recreational drug use is beyond my control, I am very pleased that it has had a positive effect on some people. I'm sure you understand that even the relatively innocuous use of cannabis has ruined others' lives, and I'm not talking about the legal consequences.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99 ... lth_1.html

http://www.health.harvard.edu/press_rel ... -the-brain

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/mari ... ts-effects

The slowed reflexes and lowering of inhibitions especially concerns me. When people drive under the influence, because they do not think they are under the influence, they tend to cause accidents, sometimes fatal ones.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/02/10/s ... tal-crash/
Marlow
 
Posts: 21134
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: the war on drugs

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:38 pm

mump boy wrote:I made reference to circumstances in which recreational drug use has had an positive effect on those surrounding it. You have not responded to this at all.

You seem to be arguing that ecstasy is better than alcohol, not that criminalization is better than decriminalization, which is Marlow's point.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Blues » Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:35 pm

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.
Blues
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: the war on drugs

Postby mump boy » Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:29 pm

I most certain would argue that Ecstasy is better than alcohol (or horse riding !!), as would the UK top Gov advisor on the issue who got sacked for telling the truth

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/ ... 44981.html

but that wasn't my point.

I was specifically commenting on Marlow's preposterous sweeping statement that drugs 'enable people to hurt others' you might as well make sex, lying or speaking illegal :roll:

I'm not even arguing that drug taking should be legal just that ill informed knee jerk reactions are what got us into this mess in the first place. There is no real attempt to have a 'War on Drugs' just one for politicians to look tough without doing anything at all to combat drug use (and the repercussions in both crime and ruined lives) in any meaningful way.

A real 'War on Drugs' would mean honesty, education & treatment not scaremongering and incarceration. The truth is that responsible use Cannabis, Ecstacy or even Cocaine is less harmful to individuals or society than alcohol or cigarette consumption and making ill informed generalisations does nothing to have a sensible debate on the subject and it is sensible debate that is most lacking.
mump boy
 
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: the war on drugs

Postby preston » Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:21 am

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.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:47 am

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

Play nice . . . ad hominems only undermine your position.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21134
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Pego » Mon Oct 29, 2012 4:14 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.


How is this for "nit-picking his words"? Marlow maintains that the state should decide what is good for me (and you). Yes or no?
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:02 am

Pego wrote:How is this for "nit-picking his words"? Marlow maintains that the state should decide what is good for me (and you). Yes or no?

Um . . . they've been doing that since Day One. When you join a 'society' you submit to their consensus, not your own wishes.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21134
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Pego » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:24 am

Marlow wrote:
Pego wrote:How is this for "nit-picking his words"? Marlow maintains that the state should decide what is good for me (and you). Yes or no?

Um . . . they've been doing that since Day One. When you join a 'society' you submit to their consensus, not your own wishes.


Huh? Society's consensus what I should eat, drink or inhale? That consensus? That is what we are talking about here, is it not?

Oh, yes. Are you suggesting that all laws are based on the consensus of society?
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: the war on drugs

Postby preston » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:53 am

Pego 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.


How is this for "nit-picking his words"? Marlow maintains that the state should decide what is good for me (and you). Yes or no?

In a word: yes. In many more: It's somewhat complicated but once you organize (a community, tribe, village, people, state) you've ceased to be disparate interests hell-bent on satisfying your id at the expense of all else. (I know that you're not saying that; I don't want to seem like I'm oversimplyifying your views)

I want to say I believe in self-determination, the prime directive and sovereign over step and self but ...that's utopic (remember, that word, Pego? you use it alot during the PED debates) ... you just can't let people do whatever they want. Or you can, but you there won't be enough popcorn for those who want to sit back and watch the carnage. Who gets to tell everyone else what to do? Hopefully, me. Hopefully, me. Because I sure don't want anyone telling me what to do. And, if others say the opposite, it's only because they're wrong and I'm not. (purposely circular ...)
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

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: 10203
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: 21134
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: 21134
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: 10203
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: 10203
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: 21134
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: 10203
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: 21134
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: 10203
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: 21134
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: 1091
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: 10203
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: 21134
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: 10203
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: 10203
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.

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests