DEA "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization" - a rebuttal

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

[philman_36]

Just how many semester hours of Saul Alinsky training do you have?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA
Long enough to recognize when somebody is using such tactics against me and long enough to learn how to turn those same tactics back on the originator.

[DiogenesLamp]

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".

Two points.

1. In my opinion, it matters not if it was yesterday or 200 years ago. Humans still behave the same way regarding drugs.
2. The 2009 article of which you speak is the SOURCE of that picture. (With link provided)

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.

Again, two points.

1. The age of information regarding drug addiction is immaterial in my opinion. Human physiology hasn't changed much in 10,000 years.
2. I gave the link fully EXPECTING people to go to the website and read the article from which the picture came.

A further clarification of this point is that I KNEW of this incident and it's aftermath, and knew that it serves as a real world example of what actually happens when Libertarian ideas regarding drugs are implemented. (China is the BIGGEST Real world experiment involving legal drugs.)

[JustSayNoToNannies]

I and others have already rebutted your China comparison (shame on you for recycling it as if we hadn't).

As for AIDS: apart from a few aberrant 'bug hunters' those infected with AIDS didn't know they were exposing themselves to infection, whereas most drug users are well aware that they're using drugs.

[DiogenesLamp]

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!

Supply and Demand dude. It's that simple. We have a ~2% addiction rate and severe social and legal stigma attached to it, with interdiction of supply.

Let the stuff in, and you will see a slow crawl upward of the addiction rate, which accelerates over time.

In other words, We aren't like China (yet) because we have been choking off the supply as much as possible.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

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.

Then automobiles, though not a substance and by using your standards, need to be outlawed as well as they're almost as deadly with about 40,000+ deaths a year IIRC.

The vast majority of such deaths that are not ordinary accidents, are caused by drunk drivers. Apart from that, the utility of Automobiles is so valuable to our population that we would be willing to tolerate an even higher death rate than that.

Toleration of ordinary vehicular accidents is unavoidable, and is therefore necessary.

Getting back to the original point: are alcohol deaths (non-driving) avoidable? Shall we attempt to avoid them by returning to Prohibition?

[DiogenesLamp]

Nobody can control where an indigenous plant comes from, not even the federal government.

Irrelevant to the point. ONLY the Federal Government has the constitutional authority to interdict contraband coming into the nation. Now that Contraband can be Uranium 235, Sex Slaves, Drugs, Non-Tariff-paid French wine, or tainted Chinese Dog food, but it is still the responsibility of the Feds to deal with it. Where it comes from is irrelevant, the fact that it comes from elsewhere makes it a Federal interdiction issue. Especially regarding efforts *INSIDE* the source country.

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.

I REGARD it as an issue of National Defense. So did the Chinese when they fought a war with England to stop it. In my mind it is no different than trying to smuggle in toxic anthrax spores.

[philman_36]

Your analogy is weak.
Why is my analogy weak?
Do you have poisonous cleaning products in your home? Do you have bleach for washing? That will kill you in a heartbeat if you drink enough of it. How about vinegar for a vinegar/water solution for cleaning your mirrors and windows? Oh, you didn't know about that? It's an old trick.
What happens when you combine vinegar and bleach?
Are you unable to safely use those products and avoid killing yourself with them?
Since you're still here I would say that you do know how to safely use deadly household products.

@Dangerous Household Chemicals

[DiogenesLamp]

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

I have no problem with substances which are used as MEDICINE and controlled by trained Doctors and Pharmacists. Cocaine, Heroine and other drugs have long been used for Medical purposes, but the notion that Prescription medications should be completely available to anyone who wants them is just nuts.

[CodeToad]

So, you’re saying the people will turn into total freaks if we legalize drugs and therefore the only reason they haven’t turned into freaks is that drugs are illegal.

Got it. You believe government begets civility and not that government are created by the people.

Alcohol is legal, yet, I don’t see total mayhem. So, I guess you are for prohibition once again, too.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

You may feel differently, but in my opinion the only similarities which matters are physiology and availability.

You light a fire to paper, it burns. It doesn't matter what kind of stacks it is organized in. Drugs bind to receptors in the human body. It's that simple.

[CodeToad]

“I have no problem with substances which are used as MEDICINE and controlled by trained Doctors and Pharmacists. “

This country was founded without such laws, yet, they did just fine. Prescription drug laws are a recent invention.

[DiogenesLamp]

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

I answered it, but not in a way you wished it to be answered. Regarding Alcohol Prohibition, I would suggest the best way to handle the abuse of it is through regulation, as is done now.

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).

What this shows is that those who support legalization can write stuff.

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

Not at all. I know people who have died from drug abuse. Why would I think *I* am immune?

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

And as China's experience shows, blanket legalization in multiple large areas is also the worst way to do legalization.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

~2% of the population is addicted, and the market supplies that addiction. Raise demand by 100% and the availability will dry up. The market is in a sort of balance currently. One or even hundreds of additional purchases will not reduce supply appreciably.

Drugs are bad. The war on some drugs is worse.

How do you know? China became so weak that it was overrun by much smaller Japan. I have long postulated that a dictator eventually lurks behind the legalization of drugs. (Mao)

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.

Now this I more or less agree with, but I argue this issue with Libertarians all the time, and they say "Why are you bringing tyranny down upon us because you insist on banning drugs?" To which I respond "Why are you bringing tyranny down upon us because you insist on USING drugs? "

Apparently they don't worry about tyranny enough to quit smoking their drugs.

Yes, the Feds have gone too far in the war on drugs, and they represent a threat to our freedom. If people would just stop using drugs, the Feds wouldn't have an excuse for what they are doing. What i'm saying is that the shoe fits on both of our feet.

[philman_36]

Let the stuff in, and you will see a slow crawl upward of the addiction rate, which accelerates over time.
What about this can't you understand? There is no "let it in". It's already in!

In other words, We aren't like China (yet) because we have been choking off the supply as much as possible.
And for every pound that gets stopped 5 more go through.
So why not stop it all together? There is no desire to actually stop it ...at the federal level! If there were it would already be a done deal.

[G Larry]

Ah...so, you admit to the Saul Alinsky training!

[DiogenesLamp]

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

Someone MUST enforce the laws to protect our Liberties.
Someone MUST defend the nation to protect our Liberties. That Someone is the Various Governments. With the Feds solely responsible for protection from Foreign dangers.

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

If there were no laws against murder, murder would not be an issue of law enforcement. I can see how YOUR statement is circular.

I regard drugs as CAUSING an injury to innocent people, and is therefore wrong even in accordance with Libertarian philosophy. Libertarians simply refuse to see any "injury" and so contend that no one is being harmed by someone else.

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

All or nothing eh? I think there is an appropriate middle between the two extremes.

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.

Drugs soak in through atmosphere and osmosis. Friends talk friends into trying it, with absolutely no understanding that it might burn them for the rest of their life. Same thing with cigarettes; An addiction that kills millions of people every year, yet which is spread through social contact.

You might recover from a communicable disease more easily than a substance addiction.

[philman_36]

...the notion that Prescription medications should be completely available to anyone who wants them is just nuts.
Who has presented such as a notion? Not me. However, with Ritalin being only one molecule away from cocaine I can see that prescription medicine is a valid concern. Anybody can take "the test" and, with a little coaching, fail the test therefore qualifying for that prescription drug. And when you thing about it...that pretty much makes it completely available to anyone who wants it.

And it's gotten to the point, because of control freaks like you, that even some over the counter medicines are no longer available unless you "jump through the hoop" so there are unintended consequences.

I don't believe alcohol should be available to anyone who wants it either. I sure there are tons of teens who "want it" and I know they shouldn't have it and I agree to laws that restrict them from purchasing it.
However, an adult is a different matter altogether.

When does it stop and how far does it go? An immature, inexperienced young woman can have an unborn child murdered in the womb and yet an adult can't smoke a joint or give their own teenage child a beer in the privacy of their own home?

[DiogenesLamp]

Then judging by your reply at @reply 43 you're a liberal.

That is a non sequitur. Just because I believe the government should enforce normal and proper laws does not mean I believe government should control every human behavior or activity.

You can no more paint all Libertarians as being the same than you can paint all conservatives as being the same.

The philosophy of Libertarians identify them as such. My experience is that Libertarians have a more consistent adherence to their philosophy than does any other political group. They seem more unified of thought and purpose than any other demographic.

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.

I am simply not making my argument understood. Yes, it HAS remained steady for decades because we've been fighting a drug war at the same time. The NORMAL progression looks like this.

In the absence of the drug war, our addiction rate would look something like the above chart.

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.

And Libertarians of today regard it as "just another lifestyle choice between consenting adults." I point out that the founders didn't see it that way, and so did not adhere to modern ideas of Libertarian philosophy.

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.

You keep repeating that. It won't become true because you keep saying it. Look, I regard you as an ally. If this conversation is going to turn derogatory, I will just leave you in peace.

To me, the drug issue is a relatively minor problem compared to other more serious issues, such as the growth of the Federal Behemoth, and it's insatiable demands for the fruits of our labor.

Let us just agree to disagree on this issue, and leave it at that. I will even refrain from discussing it here on Free Republic in the future.

[philman_36]

Ah...so, you admit to the Saul Alinsky training!
No, I'm not "admitting" to Alinsky training.
I've read up on such tactics, as many others have, so that I can recognize what they are and when they're being used.
And when I recognize that they're being used against me, like you're doing now, I turn it around on the user...like I'm doing with you now.

Haven't you ever heard of "Know Your Enemy"?
Or do you only know "Know Your Enema" since you're obviously full of "it"?

[DiogenesLamp]

I am done discussing this issue. You win. You are right, I am wrong.