War On Drugs

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)

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 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)

***blush*** 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. 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. 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)

Both replies were interesting but this was the more important point. I am not suggesting that there are no drugs which have greater addictive qualities than other drugs. As far as I understand, crack is extremely physically addictive.My problem was with equating "drug use" or "drug purchase" with "drug addiction". It is not true across the board and even with some of the more addictive types of drugs not all would become major addicts to them (meaning have their life degrade and wholly centered on use of the chemical).I find it somewhat ironic that you went into pedantic mode on me regarding fat problems (which I did know was actually fat-type specific) yet in this post appear to be defending the generalization of drug use= addiction, when pedantically such problems are equally drug-type specific.In any case, once a person is down with an addiction, I don't see it as anything but a health problem. They tried something new (that's what humans do by nature, even things that society says are no no) and it has effected their health. I do not see any reason to beat them down further.This message has been edited by holmes, 03-15-2005 05:29 AM

---

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)

Tolerance and legalization does not equal endorsement.As it stands I have seen absolutely no evidence to support the idea that making anything illegal stops things from being done. As far as drugs go, the only historical evidence I have is that making them illegal results in them becoming more harmful, more expensive, and so lines the pockets of criminals with money (as well as fill the streets with bullets as criminals fight each other and the police).People seem to have this notion that making something illegal is a solution, that is it makes things go away or get better.If that were true I'd be for it. But it doesn't. Even in the worse case scenarios of drug addiction, being illegal never helped the problem get better.

---

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)

Getting one high does not inherently mean physical-chemical addictive. It can become habitual or emotionally addictive (one likes the pleasure), but that is different than actual chemical addiction.Yes cigs cause chemical addiction in many people. I don't see taxing them helping, do you? How the hell can I top Dan's "the winos have had it too good for too long"?I see a lot of people going to church and forking out a lot of money to get the pleasure of a religious "high", since these people seem to have more dough than the drug addicts I say tax them. Shouldn't we gain something from their God-addiction?Nope not as good, but maybe you see where you are being arbitrarily mean? There is no reason to look at a person getting high and say he deserves taxation more than a person going to a church to feel good. It is both about choosing to live how one wishes to live.When we talk about addicts this is something even worse. I honestly cannot look at an addict and think to myself we need to profit off of this person's misery. I just can't.Maybe that makes me a bad person?

---

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)

No problem. Although I agree that a nonreligious person can have this viewpoint, and it might come from a nonreligious source, I would argue the originating source of modern feelings such as these is religious in nature. That is to say the ideas of what we view as "normal" or not were majorly shaped by religious views which dominated society throughout much of the last 2000 years, and especially reaching a recent climax of control in the late 1800's. While this is true, you need to ask the counter question. Would a new version of crack without the side effects be desirable to society?Given that marijuana comes with less deleterious side effects than alcohol, why is it treated as something bad? I realize what the stated purpose is, but stated purpose does not match reality. The fact that marijuana, mushrooms, and peyote is illegal and beer is legal shows there is something else going on here. Heheheh... maybe you missed my point then. People are advocating drug use for children, even with side effects, because they don't want their children to act objectively "normal" and instead act subjectively "normal". While there may be no non-problematic positions, there certainly are proven less problematic positions. This is what confuses me about this whole topic. We went through prohibition and learned that it does not work, now keep pretending that other drugs are somehow different than alcohol and so prohibition will work in their case... based on what exactly?The fact is we can let people determine their own fate, and try to help them out of problems if they get into trouble, or we can try to stamp everyone into lockstep in order to make sure people will less likely get into problems in the first place. Since history has shown the latter to lead to more death, suffering, corruption, and violence than the former, I vote for the former.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

My question to you is:
1) how many people do not work and yet do not have a drug problem?
2) how many people (if drugs were free) would end up in the state you described?
3) how many people would at least not resort to working in violent crime if drugs were legalized?To my mind we know there will always be a portion of the population that is unemployed and will need help in some way. There will even be some malingerers who want to just live off others (and that is even without drugs) and will use systems meant for helping the objectively disadvantaged. Do we throw the baby out with the bathwater? I don't think so, especially when we give money to companies to help them out when we know perfectly well there are companies which are malingerers.The fact that drug addicts may inherently be malingerers does not alter the fact that I would not end the system of aid. We are better off having the catch, even if a few cheat the system. Free or lower priced drugs may help them stay malingerers, but cutting off connections and raising the price certainly won't end them using the system. In fact it will likely push them to work in crime, which does not help anyone.Unless free drugs means that people will likely become users, then addicts, and finally malingerers, then I don't see how your position acts as an argument that we should not have free drugs. This is really silly. First of all "rape drugs" are not exactly drugs that people use for personal pleasure. That is they do not get one high and as far as I know they aren't even addictive. I'm not sure why Jar agreed to fund this as it seems if we are funding it them we'd have to be funding all sorts of chemical production that has no real benefit because it won't be helping addiction. It would be cost-benefit nil.In any case, let's assume they are handed out freely. So what? If you are knocking someone else out rather than yourself then you are commiting a crime. If another person knocks themself out and you rape them then you have commited a crime. What is the difference if the person who bought the drug got it full price, discount, or free?You can rape a person who passed out from alcohol, or you conked on the head. The fact that they are handing out "clubs" for free, does not mean more people will be conking people out in order to rape them.You seem to keep riding the slippery slope fallacy of if evil can be done it will be done en masse. Any one? That's easy. An addict may avoid getting involved with elements looking to keep him hooked as well as getting involved in crime which will further erode his connection to social supports he would need to stay out of trouble. Indeed, if it was a clinical center where drugs were obtained and counseling existed, he would not only have social supports there, but social pressure to stay out of crime.Sending people to criminals to get their fix, and prison if they are caught using or selling, only increases their connection to elements that are going to pressure them to commit more crimes and avoid socializing influences.Will this work in allcases? No. But it offers a chance which the alternative (illegality) does not. So? Some people really do manage to quit, and in any case those that do not can manage productive lives... correct? As far as people "taking a break" that is emotional addiction, not physical addiction. I've watched offices get hooked on coffee breaks, and where no coffee was brewing then water breaks, bathroom breaks, etc etc.I am not sure how the argument that "it will be tough for people to break physical addiction if their source of chemicals is free", counters "it will be tough to break physical addiction because their source of chemicals will be criminal elements who will likely push them into crime and drive them further from social norms, as well as having less social help in general, plus they will now have to work harder (in desperation) in spite of their medical problem".This is not to mention what you have avoided. Instead of thinking about the addict, and how hard it will be for them to pull themselves off it, think about the rest of society. How does it help us to give money to criminal organizations and alienate citizens who could be good so that we swell the ranks of criminal organizations? What's more in order to combat those now empowered criminal organizations it becomes necessary for good citizens to become "bad" ones in order to infiltrate and bring them down. This usually involves allowing drugs to come through anyway!Prohibition failed. Do you agree with this or not? If it did fail, then why are drugs different?I realize you are mainly attacking Jar's position of handing drugs out free (which would be the equivalent of the state running bars if we analogize to alcohol), but you have also stated you support keeping production and distribution illegal.Contrary to some within this thread I find that backward thinking. While I get how it would work for easy drugs like marijuana and mushrooms, you'd still end up with someone trying to sell their extra stash for cash,and some people who'd rather buy than work on growing stuff (not everyone has a green thumb), and it would be much better to have real labs work on synthetics where quality could be controlled.In the end you need to pull drugs out of the criminal world if you hope to end violence and increase aid to addicts.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

It is perfectly relevant as it feeds into the question of supporting people who do not work, and may not work for a long time due to an illness or other handicap. If you are for socialized medicine and welfare for a person disabled by a nonchemically induced condition, why would you be against doing the same thing for a chemically induced condition? This is a stereotype based on the worst case addicts. However, even assuming all addicts are the braindead unemployable types, with proper socialized care for the unemployed this would result in lower crime... right?In any case you seem to not understand the scope of the violence problem. Most of the violence is not junkies mugging people because they need money for a tv or food. If there is violence on the part of junkies it is usually for money for drugs, and the much greater portion of violence is a result of criminal orgs fighting each other as well as the police and citizens.Having lived in poor neighborhoods where druggang killings happened right out my window (yes I saw them), as well as neighborhoods infested with living dead junkies, I can tell ya there is a lot less violence happening in the latter.This also results in our not exporting our war to other nations where we end up having to kill foreign farmers in order to curb our addicts' habits.Indeed I am really not getting how you came to this conclusion regarding violence. We had prohibition, we saw exactly what it did. Once alcohol was legal the violence went way down as did corruption in general. The orgs then switched to other drugs and the violence went back up. What is it that makes you think prohibition does not act as a lesson in how to handle other chemicals? I don't smoke, most of my friends don't smoke, do you smoke? I don't get what your argument is here, just because it is legal does not mean the majority will suddenly be hooked on cigs much less on chronic.I also fail to see where you indicated those who are addicted to cigs are suffering massively in life such that they cannot work.Are you actually advocating for treating nicotine as we do other drugs? Oh you mean like marijuana, which is legal in the Netherlands and is a part of everyday life like cigs are? Yeah I see your point, it works out just fine thank you. Let me tell you it was certainly an eye opener going to family gatherings or social events and people are lighting up joints just as much as cigs... right in front of the KIDS!!!!Big deal, it becomes just like any other choice in life. I tend to think hard drugs would be viewed by families as alcohol and alcohol addiction is. It is not glamorous and a pretty healthy sign for people to be very careful. Note that it does not need to be illegal, nor people thrown into prison, to get that point across. Look, this is just silly. First of all Jar was clearly talking about dispensing drugs out of a clinic and not in bar bathrooms. Second, you are now trying to drag this into some gun rights issue for criminals... do you view people that go to nightclubs equivalent to violent criminals? I'm sorry but are you trying to use this as proof that your slippery slope fallacy is somehow supported? Especially in the case of alcohol (which I keep bringing up) we have seen what prohibition does, it is worse than the problem of people getting addicted.China is really out there as that was an illegal situation, not a legal one. Uh... yeah. People do recover from nicotine and alcohol problems. Is it hard? Yeah. Is it harder with greater availability? Yeah. Is it impossible? No. Are they faced with having to become criminals and so increase the likelihood of not seeking help when they need it? No.Now in an illegal situation. Is it easy to kick? No. Is it easier to kick because there is less availability or that it's price is super high? No. Is it impossible? No, but once one is labelled as a criminal it may become impossible to find gainful employment afterward. Are they faced with having to become criminals and so increase the likelihood of not seeking the help they need? Yes. Okay let's get this clear I do know that you are for decriminalizing drug use. I assume you understand that I am not quite in Jar's corner for complete drug handouts (at least not in the exact fashion he is discussing).There is still a problem with prohibition of production and distribution. If you do not know this that is EXACTLY what prohibition started as. If you say a person can use it, then you have just legalized demand. Someone will have to fulfill that demand. Making that last half illegal ONLY GIVES PRODUCERS MORE PROFIT, WHILE INCREASING VIOLENCE. You really got something against tobacco. This is not really true is it? What is the percentage of people that smoke who get cancer from smoking, or some other ailment? Then compare this with the percentage of everyone else that gets long debilitating illnesses before they die.I think the best you will come up with is that perhaps on average, smokers will get their debilitating illnesses earlier than nonsmokers.Intriguingly the smokers I did know all lived pretty long lives (of those that have died). The one guy I know that died of lung cancer was an avid nonsmoker and admitted the irony of his suffering and death (before his death of course). You do realize that many switch to other, usually harder, drugs because drugs are illegal and they are forced into choices of other products due to availability and price?I agree that heroin and crack have greater effects than cigs. I just don't see how that means people that end up using them should be treated differently. Although I could agree with this plan, if we maintain laws against the production and distribution of drugs, then the above will be countered by the criminal elements you force people to go to (and become part of) when getting their chemicals.What good is drug education when you are also helping fund the pushers? Oh I agree, and I think this is a problem with Jar's approach. I do not see the desperate need to hand things out for free (ie at taxpayer's expense) given how alcohol and cigs operate without that mechanism today.There may be an argument that for really hard drugs it would be better to restrict them from profit oriented enterprises since they might abuse the higher addictive qualities on people such that we'd see much more health problems (more of such drug users becoming addicts). But I am still not confident of that actually being the result.Personally I'd restrict free drug handouts to those that are in financial need and in the context of getting their medical/financial care. The rich can pay for their drugs.Of course I guess Jar would have a point that we could track drug usage and addiction rates much more carefully the other way.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

By chance I ran into an article regarding how women are suffering inequitably in the War on Drugs. Here is the article at Yahoo.What's interesting is that it is not just that women are getting caught up because of using drugs, but rather in the attacks on production and distribution.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You know your source on smoking did not answer my question. Neither did it provide what you really wanted to say, though it looks great from a relative distance.If you want to go toe to toe on smoking, fact vs fiction, I would be willing to open a thread on that. It'd give me an excuse to peruse more of the literature.In any case, while I am not a smoker and dislike smoking en masse, I think you are taking things further than evidence and reason actually take you. You don't have to hate or fear smoking as much as it seems you do.It sounds like your family had a tragic experience with smoking, that certainly can happen just like anything else. If they ended up the way they did because of an addiction then that is added tragedy. My arguments are not to convince people that smoking is a great and healthy activity, just that it is not some satanic pasttime. It does not need to be demonized as it has been.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

To be honest, you had me turned on at "hardass".I actually skipped the GHB and Normalization issues because I had to go make dinner and wasn't going to be able to respond to your reply. I figured though that I could mention starting a whole other thread for the smoking issue as it is a bit offtopic, yet a "burning" issue.Regarding GHB, I still am not convinced of its relevance to this topic or its correct analogy being handing out guns to convicts as they exit prison. Both seem stretched.I see the problem you are getting at. There is a valid question of why would anyone want to be handing out a drug with only one purpose (knocking a person out), and has recently been popularized because some people knock out other in order to sexually assault/rape them? I agree, why would anyone want to?However I don't believe that if this happened it would necessarily make more people want to use it on others, unless getting assaulted/raped became something of an in thing and so acceptable/nonprosecuted. I also don't see how it would help a person who did such a thing get out of the legal repercussions of having used it.As far as the Normalization issue, I think we are talking past each other to some degree. I do agree with you that certain drugs are much more addictive than others, and so even if their use is normalized by society, they will carry negative effects. Thus there is a difference between legalized and normalized use of MJ and shrooms vs heroin and cocaine.So I think we agree with those facts. The question then is what is the best way to treat those drugs. To my mind we are still left with legalization and normalization.Just because "hard drugs" such as heroin and cocaine come with much greater risks, I do not see how making them illegal will improve or soften their effects on people taking them. Purity concerns alone argue for legalization.I think you might end up agreeing with me about that, but have problems regarding what you see as coming after that: The normalization of hard drug use. The idea that normalization of H will look the same as normalization of MJ or cigs or OH (alcohol), is a stretch to me.Extreme sports are legal and normalized in a sense, yet not everyone is racing to engage in them. Some would that might not if it wasn't legal or normal, but then is that not them finding themselves? I guess I see human life as people taking risks which involves the chance that bad things happen.High risk will bring with it a stigma that no laws ever could create. Thus it is unlikely you'll see Mr Cleaver coming home to do some H with mrs Cleaver while the Beaver and Wally look on in eager anticipation of getting to try it. It may happen in some families, but the risks involved and results of "not making it" will stand as a pretty good scarecrow for most.As it is I think your mentioning alcoholism and nicotine addiction only prove my case. While many use that stuff, and may even be addicted, they are personal issues just like any other personal issues humans confront (like anorexia, or workaholics). Thankfully they are not tied to criminal issues, like alcohol was in the past (and remember that was production and distribution, not possession or use).Once we make personal problems, societal problems, then we artificially exaggerate their scope, and reduce the ability of individuals to find solutions that work for them.I guess its been noted a couple times now that the fictional character Sherlock Holmes was an addict. That showed the normalization of drugs at the time and did it have a an effect of swelling addiction and use? No. It showed people this wasn't the greatest thing to be doing, as well as showing that people can be productive even if addicted.You might counter that he was fictional, but there most certainly were productive addicts over the years. I'm sure you can think of a couple, right?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Just wanting to make sure you saw my earlier general post to this thread #61. It was specifically for you, showing that even production/distribution ends of the drug war are coming around to bite women in the ass.It was short, and so likely to have been missed.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I don't believe in "date rape". This notion has also been "romanticized" by women trying to be able to get on the bandwagon of having been "victimized" in some way.Yes women on dates can and have been raped... plain raped. The current idea of "date rape" demeans those that have actually been sexually assaulted or worse.And before you say anything I have seen plenty of it to make me sick to my stomach. The worst was being in a room of women complaining about how they were date raped and you could see them getting off on how "violated" they were like it was some game with a point system. When I interjected that their stories were not rape or even assault they asked what I could know since I was a guy... then I told my story. That shut them the hell up. I don't see how access to that drug will decrease the chance of people being caught, though I guess I see some degree of making it easier to "handle" the victim. But then my question to you would be if this were the case (free GHB) wouldn't potential victims be taking additional steps to avoid getting drugged? If anything were more normalized my expectation would be people being very careful with who and where they drank.We may have to agree to disagree on this matter, it seems more based on how one views humanity. Neither Pessimism nor Optimism are incorrect positions, they just color some conclusions regarding future events which probably contain a bit of both.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)