Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   War On Drugs
JOEBIALEK 
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 99 (191314)
03-13-2005 5:38 PM


According to the State Department's annual drug-trafficking report, a federal law took effect in 1985 authorizing the United States to penalize countries that do not control illicit narcotics production. Today, these same countries are now producing larger quantities of heroin, cocaine, marijuana and other drugs, Furthermore, three years after installing a pro-U.S. government, Afghanistan has been unable to contain opium poppy production and is on the verge of becoming a narcotics state. Opium poppy is the raw material for heroin. Colombia is the source of more than 90 percent of the cocaine and 50 percent of the heroin entering the United States. The report also listed Mexico as a major producer of heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana destined for U.S. markets. Source: New York Times and Associated Press.
Some would argue that the only solution would be the legalization of drugs. By removing the criminality of drug sales, possession and usage, the United States government could devote more of its law enforcement resources on other crimes such as murder, rape, assault etc. Furthermore, they argue that regulation of such drugs could create a revenue enhancement for federal, state and local governments. The counter argument suggests that by legalizing drugs, the government grants an implicit consent that drug consumption is morally acceptable. Others argue that the U.S. should focus more on the demand side of the problem by increasing funds for psychiatric and psychological counseling. Their argument is based on the idea that if the individual is properly counseled and medicated, the demand for illegal narcotics would drop significantly. The counter argument is that this solution is cost prohibitive and will only result in replacing one problem with another. Still others offer a more hard-line approach when it comes to dealing with foreign countries such as setting a deadline for the removal of narcotics production. If the deadline passes, the U.S. should utilize various crop-field-burning methods so as to totally obliterate any type of crop production. This would effectively eliminate the central piece of drug production across the planet. The counter argument, however, is that this policy would prevent farmers from switching to other crops in order to earn a legitimate living. I believe that the problem of illegal narcotics in the United States poses a greater threat to the average citizen than any terrorist and/or nuclear threat in existence today. Perhaps a balanced integration of all three of these solutions is our only answer.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 03-13-2005 6:03 PM JOEBIALEK has not replied
 Message 3 by jar, posted 03-13-2005 6:05 PM JOEBIALEK has not replied
 Message 21 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-14-2005 10:04 AM JOEBIALEK has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 2 of 99 (191321)
03-13-2005 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by JOEBIALEK
03-13-2005 5:38 PM


You again.
Any chance you're going to stick around this time and actually discuss?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JOEBIALEK, posted 03-13-2005 5:38 PM JOEBIALEK has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 3 of 99 (191322)
03-13-2005 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by JOEBIALEK
03-13-2005 5:38 PM


Don't just decriminalize drugs. Legalize, Nationalize and subsidize the manufacture and distribution of all illicit drugs. Give them away for free and on demand.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JOEBIALEK, posted 03-13-2005 5:38 PM JOEBIALEK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 03-13-2005 6:15 PM jar has replied
 Message 16 by nator, posted 03-14-2005 9:43 AM jar has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 4 of 99 (191326)
03-13-2005 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by jar
03-13-2005 6:05 PM


I don't understand why I can go to a drugstore and get all kinds of drugs that make me feel bad (nasuea, "drymouth", all those crazy contraindications they have to tell you about on TV), or drugs that make me feel like normal when I otherwise wouldn't, but why can't I get any drugs that make me feel better than normal?
Why is "feeling normal" a legitimate pharmacological aim, but "feeling high" is not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 03-13-2005 6:05 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 03-13-2005 6:29 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 6 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 03-13-2005 6:35 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 03-14-2005 5:31 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 99 by caligula, posted 04-06-2005 1:18 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 5 of 99 (191329)
03-13-2005 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
03-13-2005 6:15 PM


Let's just ignore JOE again.
So true.
You know, for only a fraction of what we spend on the totally ineffective war on drugs we could produce and deliver all the MJ, coke and designer drugs anyone could want with higher quality control. Then we could take a small amount of the remaining funds and improve the health care options.
It's not like the idea of the Government being in the drug business was something new.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 03-13-2005 6:15 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Rand Al'Thor
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 99 (191331)
03-13-2005 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
03-13-2005 6:15 PM


crashfrog writes:
Why is "feeling normal" a legitimate pharmacological aim, but "feeling high" is not?
Because generally drugs that make you feel better than normal have enough negative physical effects to be "not worth it".
IMO they should either outlaw all the currently legal "high drugs" (tobacco, alchol, etc.) or make them all legal and tax the hell outta people that buy em so that we get some benefit from their addiction. I'd rather have drug money go to the government than to drug dealers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 03-13-2005 6:15 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 03-13-2005 7:15 PM Rand Al'Thor has not replied
 Message 10 by Silent H, posted 03-14-2005 5:36 AM Rand Al'Thor has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 7 of 99 (191338)
03-13-2005 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Rand Al'Thor
03-13-2005 6:35 PM


Because generally drugs that make you feel better than normal have enough negative physical effects to be "not worth it".
That may generally be true, but it's certainly true of nicotine, alcohol, and caffiene; and it's probably not true about marijuana.
And plenty of people feel that way about the drugs perscribed to make them "better"; I took both Celexa and Wellbutrin for depression. Celexa made me feel bland; Wellbutrin wrung my brain out like a dirty sponge. And all for what? It wasn't like I was thinking about killing myself; I was just tired, listless, didn't feel happy about my life; etc.
I understand that you're making a point about the stated goals of pharmacology; in pratice those goals are not really met.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 03-13-2005 6:35 PM Rand Al'Thor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-13-2005 7:32 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 8 of 99 (191341)
03-13-2005 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by crashfrog
03-13-2005 7:15 PM


Legal recreational drugs
That may generally be true, but it's certainly true of nicotine, alcohol, and caffiene; and it's probably not true about marijuana.
It all comes down to if used in excess or not. IMO it is very difficult to use nicotine not in excess - It is very addictive. And indeed, the "return" of use is highly dubious.
Alcohol is less adictive, but again there's the excess (and wrong time or place) consideration.
I don't view caffience as significantly harmful - This is speaking as an addict.
I have heard the quote "Marijuanoa is the same as beer". I would modify that to "Marijuana is comparable to beer". Again there is the wrong time and place for either.
Also, I think I asked this question in a previous topic. Here it is again.
How would the DEA handle it, if Viagra came into existance as a "street drug"?
Moose
Added by edit - My "drugs" topic from 2 years and 600 "Coffee House" messages ago:
Good drugs, bad drugs, legal drugs, illegal drugs
This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 03-13-2005 07:45 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 03-13-2005 7:15 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 9 of 99 (191385)
03-14-2005 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
03-13-2005 6:15 PM


Why is "feeling normal" a legitimate pharmacological aim, but "feeling high" is not?
Xian (and other religious) dogma of pleasure=sin=harm.
The bizarre thing to me is that many people who have rejected the religious justifications necessary for such knee jerk reactions to pleasure continue to hold on the them. We now exist in extremely prudish, neo-victorian times, with less reason for it than ever.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 03-13-2005 6:15 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Ben!, posted 03-14-2005 5:48 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 10 of 99 (191387)
03-14-2005 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Rand Al'Thor
03-13-2005 6:35 PM


tax the hell outta people that buy em so that we get some benefit from their addiction.
You'd want to take money from a person with an illness so you can profit from their misery? That's pretty lame.
What I wanna know is where you get the idea that just because someone buys a drug, they must be or more likely will be an addict.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 03-13-2005 6:35 PM Rand Al'Thor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Ben!, posted 03-14-2005 6:03 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 15 by nator, posted 03-14-2005 9:35 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 27 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 03-14-2005 11:35 AM Silent H has replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 11 of 99 (191389)
03-14-2005 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Silent H
03-14-2005 5:31 AM


Why is "feeling normal" a legitimate pharmacological aim, but "feeling high" is not?
Xian (and other religious) dogma of pleasure=sin=harm.
I'm sure that's part of the story, but I also think that an important part is simply our sense, in general, of what "NORMAL" is, and the importance of "NORMAL" to us. This goes for both mental and physical states, not just for humans but also for other animals, living, and non-living things.
We judge things that are "normal" to be fine, and those as "abnormal" as needing to be "fixed." Like they say, there's a really fine line between genius and insane. That line between what is "normal" and "abnormal" suffers the same problems as being discussed with regards to drug-altered mental states.
So I think an important part of this goes beyond just knee-jerk religious pain/pleasure dogma.
I'll stop there for now.
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 03-14-2005 5:31 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Silent H, posted 03-14-2005 6:30 AM Ben! has replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 12 of 99 (191392)
03-14-2005 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Silent H
03-14-2005 5:36 AM


What's up holmes... glad I can finally enter some discussion with you. I'm generally impressed by the quality of thoughts you put out there in your posts. Let's see how this goes.
This might not be appropriate for this thread, maybe it's better off in the (current) thread on "Free Will". But... I'll start here.
tax the hell outta people that buy em so that we get some benefit from their addiction.
You'd want to take money from a person with an illness so you can profit from their misery? That's pretty lame.
I'd submit that there's no fundamental difference between choosing to take drugs and being addicted to drugs. In a word where "free will" simmply isn't an interesting concept (a view that I THOUGHT I scanned in one of your posts there), I think this must be so. At least, as long as such a world applies concepts such as "responsibility" and "blame" to individual beings.
In that case, I think it's fine to discuss the merits of taxing drugs. Maybe the case for such a tax falls apart on other grounds; that's another story. But at least when measuring the proposal on the "lame scale," I'm not getting any significant reading over here.
Then again, around here, skirts over pants also fail to show a "lame" reading... so who knows.
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Silent H, posted 03-14-2005 5:36 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 03-14-2005 6:59 AM Ben! has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 13 of 99 (191396)
03-14-2005 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Ben!
03-14-2005 5:48 AM


That line between what is "normal" and "abnormal" suffers the same problems as being discussed with regards to drug-altered mental states.
This is true, it is possible to look at people who are under the influence of a drug and say their brain is not functioning "normally" and so maybe it is undesirable.
However, the trend really is to reject pharmacological pleasure, regardless of degree of "abnormality" in brain function. For example one may certainly use all sorts of chemicals to treat a cold or flu or other injury and end up nearly incomprehensible... or at the very least unable to operate machinery like your car. That is not a problem. Yet take a drug with the same effects but only because it will make you feel good, and suddenly it is a no no.
The idea that pleasure must be legitimaized is a religious one and does not come from human assessments of normality. I feel that that is what is at work here, given examples like the above. Heck, we are now trying to drug kids so that they do not act like normal children in order to keep them in line and working productively. But heaven forbid they should "feel good" either by not taking the drugs which help them focus on nonfun, or take other drugs which might make them feel good without any other benefits.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Ben!, posted 03-14-2005 5:48 AM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Ben!, posted 03-16-2005 6:13 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 14 of 99 (191400)
03-14-2005 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Ben!
03-14-2005 6:03 AM


I'm generally impressed by the quality of thoughts you put out there in your posts.
***blush***
I'd submit that there's no fundamental difference between choosing to take drugs and being addicted to drugs.
Okay, first let's make sure we understand my stance on free will. I think it is an uninteresting subject for professional philosophy because it is fruitless. Even if one were to come down to one side or the other, the world will remain the same... we cannot change that we will act and feel that we are choosing to act. Especially for those who decide it is a mechanistic universe without free will, that means whatever you do next has nothing to do with the fact that you proved this, as you didn't even prove it through conscious effort.
That said, I wholeheartedly believe in free will within a mechanical universe. The complexity of our machinery gives us what is tantamount to complete free will as well as the understanding (or feeling) within ourselves that our actions are chosen. Thus it makes more sense to discuss our decisions within that framework.
However any individual's free will may be bounded by some mechanical limitations, and that includes chemical addictions. A chemical introduced into the environment of the brain may overrride or heavily influence one's decisions. Certain chemicals may even build a cycle within the brain to get more of that chemical. It will eventually consume other decisions that one would normally be free to make.
Addiction then is an illness of a human mental and physical system as it is a reduction in capacity to choose. It is generally not enjoyable despite temporary pleasures which are involved. It is a clinical condition which defines one from normal decision making capacity.
Those that choose to take drugs are different than addicts in that they may not take drugs that have a chemically addictive property (which is different than being habitually addicted that can happen for any type of action), or the amounts of chemicals necessary for addiction to begin. Just because one is buying or using them does not in itself mean choice has been overridden.
I cannot say I blame a person for being addicted, though if they got that way by choosing to take drugs in a noncaring manner they are certainly responsible for the outcome... much as the person that likes to race cars is responsible though not "blamed" for the car wreck they may experience.
In that case, I think it's fine to discuss the merits of taxing drugs. Maybe the case for such a tax falls apart on other grounds; that's another story. But at least when measuring the proposal on the "lame scale," I'm not getting any significant reading over here.
My problem is that whethere we have free will or not, addiction is certainly a medical condition. I guess if there is no free will then there is no point in raising taxes or discussing taxes at all because everything is beyond our will, including taxation. But assuming some aspect of free will, I find it "lame" to add injury to people that are already having some problems.
Fat is not good for the heart. I would not be for raising taxes on fatty foods and saying that people who have heart attacks deserve that as well as greater fees for their food, and anyone that eats fatty foods must be a person with a heart condition anyway.
It seems to me to be kicking people when they are down, rather than trying to help them get out of their cycle of addiction, or at least cope with it so they can lead a "normal" life.
Then again, around here, skirts over pants also fail to show a "lame" reading... so who knows.
Skirts over pants was in European fashion since 1997 at the very least. It sort of surprised me and I did think it was sort of "lame", though not quite in the same sense as taxing people with health problems. I got used to it though and now I can even find it somewhat attractive.
Europe also got me looking at drugs a different way. In addition to living around drug party central I also live right near two different drug rehab centers, including one that hands out some drugs and drug supplies. There is a constant stream of the worst of the worst (except hospitalized patients) as far as drug addicts go right past my door. Not fun to see, not necessarily great people to get to know, however it beats the hell out of them being violent out of desperation to get their fixes with no place to actually turn for help.
I have seen places with little help and I have seen places with help, help and less vindictive laws seem preferable. One might claim that they are getting an easy ride, I look at it as I am getting an easy ride since I am less threatened on a day to day basis.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Ben!, posted 03-14-2005 6:03 AM Ben! has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by nator, posted 03-14-2005 9:51 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 20 by Phat, posted 03-14-2005 10:03 AM Silent H has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 15 of 99 (191410)
03-14-2005 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Silent H
03-14-2005 5:36 AM


quote:
What I wanna know is where you get the idea that just because someone buys a drug, they must be or more likely will be an addict.
They have to actually take the drug, not just buy it.
If that's what you meant, then there is lots of evidence which strongly suggests that a significant segment of the population is quite susceptible to becoming physically addicted to certain substances after a few exposures.
Nicotine is highly physically addictive, as is heroin, and cocaine, especially in the form of crack.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Silent H, posted 03-14-2005 5:36 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Silent H, posted 03-15-2005 5:28 AM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024