DEA "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization" - a rebuttal

(self) | March 13, 2012 | (self)

[DiogenesLamp]

From 1994 and you're trying to depict it as modern day? For shame! That's almost 20 years old!

Who said anything about modern day? I believe I mentioned earlier in my comments that the effect of drugs on humans is the same for any period in history, be it a 19th century Chinese man, or a 21rst century American.

I did not represent the picture, or the linked article (from which I found the picture) as being modern. In my mind, the "when" factor is irrelevant. Human physiology has been pretty much the same for at least all of recorded human history. We still possess the same chemical receptors as did the Neanderthals.

In any case, I learned of the Platzspitz debacle from Listening to the Rush Limbaugh show back in 1994.

[DiogenesLamp]

We have the same thing all over the US. They’re called “crack houses”, public housing, etc. Ours may not be as public in most cases but we do have our own parks for addicts, too.

The difference is that they do not exist by the tacit consent of our society or our government, but through the willful breaking of our laws. Were we to legalize drugs, in 40 years, every OTHER house would be a crack house.

[DiogenesLamp]

Your Chinese example is meaningless. For the first 100 years of American history opium was completely legal yet nowhere near 50% of the population was addicted.

Scarcity my FReind. Hard to be an addict when the supply is not easily available. Back in those days they thought of it, and used it as a medicine.

The China lesson is that when it is freely available, it spreads addiction throughout it's sphere of influence. Humans are humans, and modern day Americans will become just as addicted as 19th century Chinese, if the circumstances are similar.

And the entire discussion of that subject is completely academic as there’s absolutely no authority anywhere in the US Constitution for the Federal government to regulate what adults put into their bodies. None whatsoever.

I would mostly agree on a Federal Level, but not on the State level. States have the right, and the civic duty to control dangerous substances such as medicines, explosives, and drugs.

Anyone arguing otherwise is as liberal as Obama. Period.

I agree with you that our Federal Government has usurped powers which it should not be exercising, but I wouldn't go so far as to say anyone arguing for a federal role is liberal. Cocaine comes from foreign countries, and it is certainly not within the power of individual states to do anything about this. THIS aspect of the drug war must indeed be handled by the Federal Government, and the Constitutional Authority is granted under the Articles requiring the defense of our nation.

Were someone sneaking in Anthrax, or Plague, you would have no trouble discerning a constitutional authority for the Feds to Stop it. It is that same authority which also operates on the drug poisons being snuck into the country.

[philman_36]

None of the reasons you gave means a thing. They're excuses to blame and nothing more than an attempt to demonize the issue through inference.
I guess you're not on the up and up after all. You argue like a liberal on this issue.

The Founding Fathers were the original Libertarians.
There are major players in the conservative realm who disagree with the WOsD.

Your link doesn't seem to do anything when I click on it.
Not my problem. It works for me.
What did you find?
Some interesting websites as sources. Try "search by image"

[CodeToad]

“every OTHER house would be a crack house”

Maybe in your neighborhood but not mine. I have a lot more faith in the people than that. Drugs were legal 100 years ago and every other house wasn’t a crack house.

[philman_36]

You have no “point”, only distractions.
There is a point. If there are any distractions it's you with yours. I've addressed your issue and you're not even bothering to defend your own position.

So you don't won't to address the fact that there are numerous "poisons" available and at hand to everybody every day.
Got it. It really shows your perspective.
And thanks for conceding the point to me.

[philman_36]

Letting an epidemic of poison spread through your society is more closely analogous to sticking your head in a cannon and firing it.
I say the same thing to you...go look at the cleaning supplies under your kitchen sink, or wherever it is that you keep your cleaning supplies, and tell me that there aren't poisonous items amongst them.

So by your illustration you would rather have a filthy, dirty kitchen than trust yourself as a rational human being who is able to safely handle poisonous cleaning products.

Got it.

[philman_36]

Who said anything about modern day?
Then why didn't you state outright that the incident you depicted happened almost twenty years ago and why did you use a 2009 article talking about it? Surely there are older articles you could have used if you only wanted to "give the particulars".
You gave the impression that it was current day and unless somebody went to the site you linked to they would never know how old your picture was.

[philman_36]

The China lesson is that when it is freely available, it spreads addiction throughout it's sphere of influence. Humans are humans, and modern day Americans will become just as addicted as 19th century Chinese, if the circumstances are similar.
Well then your argument is already blown. You can go anywhere, at any time, and get any drugs you want. The ready availability of drugs is well known so America should be in the grips of drug addiction and guess what...it isn't!

[philman_36]

Cocaine comes from foreign countries, and it is certainly not within the power of individual states to do anything about this.
Nobody can control where an indigenous plant comes from, not even the federal government.

THIS aspect of the drug war must indeed be handled by the Federal Government, and the Constitutional Authority is granted under the Articles requiring the defense of our nation.
Well there ya have it. Nothing is outside of their realm and there is justification for anything. And instead of making it a trade issue you try to make it an issue of national defense. That's pretty convoluted in thinking.

BTW, cocaine is legally purchased as medicine all of the time. Once again, it's a controlled substance and not an illegal drug.

@How cocaine can be used in sinus surgery
What many people may not realize is that cocaine is also used in medical care, especially in the ENT world.
Cocaine is one of the most potent anesthetic and vasoconstrictor. These two characteristics make it an ideal medication for use during sinus surgery as well as any nasal procedure where bleeding and pain may be an issue.
Many physicians will use cocaine to help stop nosebleeds (I do not).

[JustSayNoToNannies]

The China lesson is that when it is freely available, it spreads addiction throughout it's sphere of influence. Humans are humans, and modern day Americans will become just as addicted as 19th century Chinese, if the circumstances are similar.

Well then your argument is already blown. You can go anywhere, at any time, and get any drugs you want. The ready availability of drugs is well known so America should be in the grips of drug addiction and guess what...it isn't!

Not to mention that as between 19th century China and 21st century America, "if the circumstances are similar" evaluates as FALSE. Different histories, cultures, systems of government, etc. etc.

[DiogenesLamp]

None of the reasons you gave means a thing. They're excuses to blame and nothing more than an attempt to demonize the issue through inference. I guess you're not on the up and up after all. You argue like a liberal on this issue.

Liberals believe in Total governmental control. Libertarians believe in almost NO governmental control. Conservatives believe in having only so much government as is necessary, and not more. (But not less either.)

I regard the issue of Drugs as being an issue of Law Enforcement. I've known people who killed themselves with drug abuse. The stuff is like a disease which needs to be quarantined. If it is not, it spreads to others.

The Founding Fathers were the original Libertarians.

Not in today's meaning of the term. Thomas Jefferson himself proposed the Law in Virginia to castrate homosexuals.

There are major players in the conservative realm who disagree with the WOsD.

Of this I am very aware, but they are generally among the group which calls themselves "Independents" and "Libertarians" and they disdain the social issues such as Abortion, Drugs, Homosexuality, etc. Reason Magazine, and the Cato institute are working to increase the numbers of Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative "Libertarian" types.

Not my problem. It works for me.

It is not serving your interest in showing it to me if I can't see it.

Some interesting websites as sources. Try "search by image"

I suspect I have some sort of malware on my machine, because I am getting a lot of strange redirects from time to time, but several malware scanning tools don't find anything. Search by image of "Platzspitz" Switzerland?

[G Larry]

Just how many semester hours of Saul Alinsky training do you have?

[Darren McCarty]

The DEA is against legalization because the DEA wants to keep their jobs.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Ending the negative consequences of the futile and counterproductive War On Drugs will make America a better place. If that weren't so, we'd narrow the array of poisons by returning to alcohol Prohibition. Do you support that?

My recollection is that legal alcohol kills ~ 50,000 people per year. Isn't that a small sacrifice to pay for it? Only 50,000 dead people? (per year) Yes, we certainly need another bunch of substances to add to the death rate.

You didn't answer my question: Do you support narrowing the array of poisons by returning to alcohol Prohibition?

The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse reported in 2002 that teens said for the first time that they could get marijuana more easily than cigarettes or beer (http://www.casacolumbia.org/download.aspx?path=/UploadedFiles/b0ooqrvk.pdf). What this shows is that the best way to restict teens' access to drugs is to make them legal for adults only (thus giving those who sell to adults a disincentive to sell to kids - namely, the loss of their legal adult market).

But that benefit will be more than overwhelmed by the incidence of Addiction spreading throughout the land.

Nonsense. Is illegality YOUR only reason - or even your primary reason - for not using addictive drugs?

I know the Swiss weren't very happy with their experiment.

Legalization in a single small area is probably the worst possible way to do legalization. Let's not do it that way.

[DiogenesLamp]

Maybe in your neighborhood but not mine. I have a lot more faith in the people than that. Drugs were legal 100 years ago and every other house wasn’t a crack house.

China didn't begin with a 50% addiction rate. It started slow there as well. I will just cross post my argument from this website over here.

I argue that the normal course of drug addiction is an exponential. Without any interference, it would look like this.

Or this:

Or this:

Chests of Opium imported to China.

I will point out that to hover against gravity requires an expenditure of an equal and opposite reaction.

If you stop pushing against gravity, you get a velocity curve which looks like this. (neglecting air friction.)

Turn off the drug war, and your addiction rate (velocity) will increase until it reaches it's maximum rate of sustainability. We are hovering at 2% addiction BECAUSE of the drug war. That is the benefit.

Standing still may not look like a benefit, but when the alternative is falling, it becomes apparent what is the benefit of standing still.

[Darren McCarty]

Letting an epidemic of poison spread through your society is more closely analogous to sticking your head in a cannon and firing it. In my opinion, it is virtually guaranteed to cause a collapse.

It already has spread through society. I can get pot in 15 minutes. I could probably get the real bad stuff (crack, heroin, or meth) in two hours, and I don't even have to go to Detroit or Ypsi to get two of them.

Drugs are bad. The war on some drugs is worse. We are increasingly giving up more freedoms and giving more powers to government, especially the feds in the name of the war on drugs. Asset forfeitures without convictions came from the WoD. The unPatriot Act (judge shopping and sneak and peak) was based on a Clinton proposal to combat the WoD. Debt increases in corrections budgets because of drug crimes. Sudafed controls for those with allergies.

[DiogenesLamp]

I say the same thing to you...go look at the cleaning supplies under your kitchen sink, or wherever it is that you keep your cleaning supplies, and tell me that there aren't poisonous items amongst them.

So by your illustration you would rather have a filthy, dirty kitchen than trust yourself as a rational human being who is able to safely handle poisonous cleaning products.

Got it.

Your analogy is weak.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Libertarians believe in almost NO governmental control. Conservatives believe in having only so much government as is necessary, and not more.

How do you know "only so much government as is necessary, and not more" is more than "almost NO governmental control"?

I regard the issue of Drugs as being an issue of Law Enforcement.

That's a circular statement - if there were no laws against drugs, drugs would no longer be an issue of law enforcement.

I've known people who killed themselves with drug abuse.

People kill themselves with alcohol. Should we return to Prohibition?

The stuff is like a disease which needs to be quarantined. If it is not, it spreads to others.

False analogy - a communicable disease infects a person with no element of choice on their part, whereas drugs don't leap down people's throats.

[philman_36]

Liberals believe in Total governmental control.
Then judging by your reply at @reply 43 you're a liberal.

Libertarians believe in almost NO governmental control. Conservatives believe in having only so much government as is necessary, and not more.
You can no more paint all Libertarians as being the same than you can paint all conservatives as being the same.

I regard the issue of Drugs as being an issue of Law Enforcement. I've known people who killed themselves with drug abuse.
So you're letting personal issues cloud your judgement and your argument. Got it.
And the logical extension of your argument would indicate that you believe gun control should be "an issue of Law Enforcement" since people have killed themselves with firearms. Or hadn't you thought of that?

The stuff is like a disease which needs to be quarantined. If it is not, it spreads to others.
Then you're being idiotic and jaundiced in looking at the issue. @"Illicit drugs" are readily available yet only a small portion of the populace uses them and that percentage has remained relatively steady for decades.

Not in today's meaning of the term.
To use your own words..."Who said anything about modern day? "
Thomas Jefferson himself proposed the Law in Virginia to castrate homosexuals.
And? Homosexuality was viewed as a perversion in his time. To many people in modern day America it's still viewed as a perversion despite efforts to depict it as "normal" behavior instead of abnormal behavior.

Don't bother with the image. Any search engine can yield results for the image, even the website you linked.
It's enough that you tried and failed to pass it off as a current event when it wasn't.