Posted on 08/05/2014 10:27:01 AM PDT by Kaslin
Dear Dio,
It is always a 50/50 game, when using statistics to identify “the human condition”.
I would not use China, for any kind of measuring stick, when comparing things to inside the U.S., and here’s why, China’s only experience with “Freedom”, occured between the 1920’s until the invasion by Japan. shortly after the Japanese surrendered, Mao Tse Tung began his ‘long march’ to install Sino-style Communism, and the true democratic and free people of China, moved to an island called Formosa, which is now the Republic of Taiwan. So, the mainland Chinese had only a twenty and some year period of being free from the last emperor, until the first Communist Premier, only ‘half a generation’.
I would point you to take a look at our Old West, and judges like Roy Bean. Where the law was up[held, and justice for crimes committed was swift, things settled down a bit, you might say.
I do not grasp your point. In 1840 China began a long trek to massive addiction by 1900. I do not see where addiction has anything to do with freedom or Judge Roy Bean.
And here you are again telling that same bald faced lie. American involvement in hard drugs was insignificant until the Civil war
Exactly my point - thanks for the confirmation.
You point to the 1700s as a time period when drugs were legal and imply they didn't cause any problems, as evidence that the large quantities capable of being supplied now won't either. This is deliberate manipulation of differing circumstances and misleading people into thinking they are the same thing.
Whereas a comparison to 1800s China is an exact match? YOU introduced the claim that history should be taken into account ... shame it backfired on you.
when massive numbers of soldiers were exposed to these substances to relieve the pain of their battle injuries.
Which, let's note in passing, doesn't fit your 'epidemic' model of drug use.
You do not know whether it does or whether it doesn't because NOBODY KEPT ANY GOOD RECORDS AT THE TIME.
So how do you know that "massive numbers of soldiers were exposed to these substances"? Are the only good records the ones that support your preconceptions?
A war-triggered spike in opiate use would not, by definition, fit an epidemic model wherein existing drug use engendered increased drug use.
The fact is, by the end of the 19th Century, people were noticing all sorts of problems.
How do you know that if "NOBODY KEPT ANY GOOD RECORDS AT THE TIME"? What we know is that those who favored increased government power claimed to see problems - just as they do today, when we call them liberals.
Subsequent drug activity became a continuously growing problem until the early part of the 20th Century
There is no evidence for any growth - in fact, the available evidence that I have posted says it was shrinking.
Again you are lying. Your "Available Evidence" says that it was increasing, but you used the numbers they gave and concluded that it was decreasing. At the very best, that "evidence" you posted disagrees with itself
No, as I said in the thread you link to below, "the DEA found some data but wasn't bright enough to correctly interpret it." The DEA's hamfisted misconclusions from the data are not evidence and don't invalidate the data: "In 1880 [...] there were over 400,000 opium addicts in the U.S. [...] By 1900, about one American in 200 was either a cocaine or opium addict." 400,000 in a population of 50M is one in 125 - ergo, between 1880 and 1900 addiction declined.
Here is the article to which he is referring.
And here is where he posted the link to it.
[...]
If the problems were minor, then why did we ban these substances?
Your liberal faith in government shows again ... if evil businesses weren't a major problem, why do we have so many business regulations? Conservatives know that government is happy to invent crises to expand its power.
Addiction is part of the human condition, no? Whether that be sex, pornography, drugs, alcohol, money, power, prestige, knowledge, or a myriad of other things, it is still that little hollowness screaming to be filled, in the delusion that ‘that’, will make you whole. I can tell you, it does not.
The yearning of human spirit/soul to be free, is also part of the human condition, and there comes a moment of clarity, in that addiction, that that spirit/soul screams, enough is enough, and stgruggles to find a way clear.
It’s described best as, that moment that you, I or anybody else stops and realizes, ‘There’s got to be more than just this.”
I did not see ‘1840’ mentioned.
Now you are just spouting gibberish. Nothing i've presented has backfired on me. In 1830 China didn't have a major Opium Problem because it was illegal. In 1840, China had a an Opium problem because it was made legal. By 1900, the problem was serious.
In the US in 1862 we didn't have an Opium or Cocaine problem because the stuff wasn't widely known or available. By 1900 we had a pretty serious Opium and Cocaine problem. So did England.
You keep spouting that bald faced lie that it wasn't causing problem when it was legal here, because you keep leaving off the fact it wasn't widely known and widely available until the aftermath of the Civil War. More or less the last 1/4 of the 19th century. Addiction problems were just getting started when we banned the crap.
So how do you know that "massive numbers of soldiers were exposed to these substances"? Are the only good records the ones that support your preconceptions?
There are anecdotal accounts written at the time about the "Soldier's Disease". There are also casualty lists that show how much of the drugs were being used at those times.
It's not great data, but it's all there is. On the other hand, the British East India company kept pretty good data on the TONNAGE of opium they were shipping into China for the entire period from 1840 onward.
A war-triggered spike in opiate use would not, by definition, fit an epidemic model wherein existing drug use engendered increased drug use.
No it wouldn't. It would be regarded as an abnormal boost of the pathology. Without the druging of 400,000 people in the Civil War, it would have taken a great deal longer for Drug addiction to start working it's way up that logistical growth curve. But war often has unfortunate consequences. That boost in addiction was one of them.
How do you know that if "NOBODY KEPT ANY GOOD RECORDS AT THE TIME"?
Why would they? Who would keep them and why would they do so? At the time it was completely unregulated so the government wasn't watching it. It wasn't until it started killing people that it attracted the notice of Government employed Doctors (Mid 1880s) who started researching it further.
On the other hand, the British East India company had very good reasons for keeping records of their shipments of opium. They directly correlated to business profits.
What we know is that those who favored increased government power claimed to see problems - just as they do today, when we call them liberals.
And people who want to smoke dope REFUSE to see any problems. As a matter of fact, they go out of their way to portray their vice as "Freedom" and a "Right" instead of the plague that it really is. Now you may have an argument that marijuana is relatively harmless, and that not much disaster will accompany it's legalization, but for the other heavier drugs, this is utter nonsense and a dangerous misdirection of the populace.
I'm not going to even bother answering the rest of your comment.
Whereas a comparison to 1800s China is an exact match? YOU introduced the claim that history should be taken into account ... shame it backfired on you.
Now you are just spouting gibberish. Nothing i've presented has backfired on me. In 1830 China didn't have a major Opium Problem because it was illegal. In 1840, China had a an Opium problem because it was made legal. By 1900, the problem was serious.
You shot down your own argument with your "differing circumstances" beef - there are "differing circumstances" between now and 1840-1900 China just as surely as there are between now and 1862-1900 America.
In the US in 1862 we didn't have an Opium or Cocaine problem because the stuff wasn't widely known or available. By 1900 we had a pretty serious Opium and Cocaine problem.
You keep contradicting yourself: how do you know "By 1900 we had a pretty serious Opium and Cocaine problem" if as you said earlier "NOBODY KEPT ANY GOOD RECORDS AT THE TIME"?
You do not know whether it does or whether it doesn't because NOBODY KEPT ANY GOOD RECORDS AT THE TIME.
So how do you know that "massive numbers of soldiers were exposed to these substances"? Are the only good records the ones that support your preconceptions?
There are anecdotal accounts written at the time about the "Soldier's Disease". There are also casualty lists that show how much of the drugs were being used at those times.
Records of use, plus anecdotes about problems from use, do not add up to data about problems.
A war-triggered spike in opiate use would not, by definition, fit an epidemic model wherein existing drug use engendered increased drug use.
No it wouldn't.
OK, then.
The fact is, by the end of the 19th Century, people were noticing all sorts of problems.
How do you know that if "NOBODY KEPT ANY GOOD RECORDS AT THE TIME"?
Why would they? Who would keep them and why would they do so? At the time it was completely unregulated so the government wasn't watching it.
None of that answers the question: HOW do you know that "by the end of the 19th Century, people were noticing all sorts of problems" if "NOBODY KEPT ANY GOOD RECORDS AT THE TIME"?
It wasn't until it started killing people that it attracted the notice of Government employed Doctors (Mid 1880s) who started researching it further.
So are you now claiming that you know problems were seen because in the mid-1880s good records WERE kept? If so, what is the data from those good records?
Subsequent drug activity became a continuously growing problem until the early part of the 20th Century
You keep making because-I-say-so claims ... show us the data.
What we know is that those who favored increased government power claimed to see problems - just as they do today, when we call them liberals.
And people who want to smoke dope REFUSE to see any problems.
I don't smoke dope. Did those of that earlier time who didn't see problems smoke dope?
As a matter of fact, they go out of their way to portray their vice as "Freedom" and a "Right" instead of the plague that it really is.
Freedom and rights encompass all acts, even vices, that don't in and of themselves violate the rights of others.
I'm not going to even bother answering the rest of your comment.
Imagine my surprise. I'm going to leave in the unanswered part:
There is no evidence for any growth - in fact, the available evidence that I have posted says it was shrinking.
Again you are lying. Your "Available Evidence" says that it was increasing, but you used the numbers they gave and concluded that it was decreasing. At the very best, that "evidence" you posted disagrees with itself
No, as I said in the thread you link to below, "the DEA found some data but wasn't bright enough to correctly interpret it." The DEA's hamfisted misconclusions from the data are not evidence and don't invalidate the data: "In 1880 [...] there were over 400,000 opium addicts in the U.S. [...] By 1900, about one American in 200 was either a cocaine or opium addict." 400,000 in a population of 50M is one in 125 - ergo, between 1880 and 1900 addiction declined.
Here is the article to which he is referring.
And here is where he posted the link to it.
[...]
If the problems were minor, then why did we ban these substances?
Your liberal faith in government shows again ... if evil businesses weren't a major problem, why do we have so many business regulations? Conservatives know that government is happy to invent crises to expand its power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.