Sheriffs Try to Overturn Legalization of Pot in Colorado

Time ^ | March 05, 2015 | Tessa Berenson

[ConservingFreedom]

all I get from tracking down and posting sources is nothing.

What is it you think you ought to get?

[DiogenesLamp]

You, on this very page: "Yes, 60 years is a very short time for a nation that has existed for nearly four thousand years."

I figured you would come back with that. As Adam Smith pointed out, "there's a lot of ruin in a nation." It takes a long time to wreck one, but drugs in China managed to do that in ~70 years. A Four thousand year old form of government collapses 70 years after drugs wrecked their economy and their society.

But see, you were arguing that the revolution was the result of a lack in faith for their government as a result of their defeat by the British. It's easy to see why a collapse in economic and social activity might take seventy years, but it is not at all easy to see why political anger would take so long.

But you know what? I recognize that you aren't trying to illuminate anything. To the contrary, you are trying your very best to steer people away from reasonable understanding in an effort to save your "Idee Fixe".

You are a deceiver.

[philman_36]

So who is the source you use? Here is some help for you...

B. The Contemporary Conventional Wisdom
Since 1964, Soldier's Disease, in essence, was mentioned in about 100 works by drug experts, half of these since 1973.11 It was also mentioned in several studies by prestigious government agencies and Drug and Crime Commissions.12 Among the experts are many renowned critics of U.S. drug policies -- including Edward Brecher, Alan Dershowitz, John Kaplan, Arnold Trebach and Norman Zinberg. In the early 1970's a few writers questioned the factuality of Soldier's (Kramer, 1971 and 1972; Swatos, 1972; Musto, 1973; and Quinones, 1975), but shortly thereafter they were rebutted in a detailed historical analysis. (Courtwright, 1978 and 1982)13 Since the mid- 1970's the mention of Soldier's Disease has diminished, maybe because the critics had an impact or because most experts stopped probing the roots of U.S. drug policy after the early 1970's.

Soldiers Disease is, however, still mentioned by many experts ... and no one, yet, has responded to Courtwright.

Though briefly stated, a consistent theme involving three components is reiterated by almost all the cited drug experts, the only variation being in the synonyms used. First, morphine in particular, and opiates in general, were administered by naive doctors "indiscriminately" (also termed " promiscuous", "imprudent", "uncontrolled", "overdosage", "ignorant", etc.). Second, as a consequence of such medical naivete, addiction among soldiers was massive (also termed "prevalent", "commonplace", "thousands", wholesale usage", "rampant", etc.). Third, so widespread was the addiction among soldiers and veterans that it became known as Soldier's Disease (also termed "army disease", "soldier's illness", or "soldier's sickness."),14

The only clear disagreement is the few who estimate the number of addicted Civil War veterans. Some claim 45,000 (Ashley, 1972 and 1978; Geis, 1973; Health PAC, 1970; and Kenny, 1972); others 400,000. (H. Jones and Jones, 1977; Lingeman, 1969; Schwartz, 1980; Starkey, 197 1; Summers et. al., 1975; and Westin and Shaffer, 1972) Since no writer in either camp provides one clue for their claim, the possibility that both estimates arose out of the thin air circa 1970 is not ruled out.

Is today's conventional wisdom about Soldier's Disease an intellectual version of the children's game of Telephone where a simple message, after innumerable repetitions, becomes distorted and a new "catchy" message takes on a life of its own ... or have recent writers captured the essence of opiate addiction in a past era? That depends on the evidence during and just after the Civil War.

There are only so many you can choose from.

[muir_redwoods]

I’m dealing with humans, I don’t foresee a utopia. I do see an end to wasteful government spending, oppressive paramilitary police actions, dangerous compromises of the constitution and asset-forfiture laws that make everything you own subject to government seizure on a whim w/o due process.

Its odd you favor such things but, that’s on you.

[philman_36]

If sources are routinely ignored by your side in this discussion, why should I make the effort to cite them?

I haven't ignored any of your sources as is evident in the course of this conversation. Perhaps you don't cite sources because they are quickly picked apart for the pablum they are as soon as they are posted.

I actually think I waste too much time arguing with people who are completely unpersuadable, and all I get from tracking down and posting sources is nothing.
You post far more of your own opinions than sources, as is evidenced by the rest of your reply to me.

[DiogenesLamp]

Soldiers Disease is, however, still mentioned by many experts ... and no one, yet, has responded to Courtwright.

You seem to be taken with Courtwright, and it appears this individual is David T. Courtwright who is affilliated with the University of North Florida, but what he actually wrote doesn't seem to be available online unless you care to buy one of his books.

I'm not interested in reading quotes from the Druglibrary.org out of context. That website is exactly what I mean when I point out Libertarians who have been scouring the bowels of history looking for evidence to support their pet theories about how harmless is drug addiction. If they have statement's against interest, i'll buy those, but nothing they say in favor of their agenda is credible in my opinion.

I did get some excerpts from a googlebooks reference to his book, and what little bits I can garner from that appear to indicate that he is well aware of the addiction occurring in civil war vets.

But you want me to buy his alleged conclusions as reported by you or the druglibrary.org people? I don't think so. This is not my first rodeo, and misleading or out of context quotes are all too common on this topic.

You may think I want to spend several days reading books cited in your links, but I assure you I do not. That fake quote I found the other day also came from some guy who wrote a book. It came from this guy, also known as the "Emperor of Hemp."

I'll believe something is scholarly and objective when I can find out more about who wrote it and what was their agenda, and then only after i've read it myself, not just seen bits and pieces from other people with agendas.

[DiogenesLamp]

I’m dealing with humans, I don’t foresee a utopia. I do see an end to wasteful government spending, oppressive paramilitary police actions, dangerous compromises of the constitution and asset-forfiture laws that make everything you own subject to government seizure on a whim w/o due process.

This is exactly what I mean. You do not have a realistic view of the world.

[muir_redwoods]

You cannot see the legal sewer you already occupy. You’re up to your neck in sewage and think that’s how the world is supposed to smell and nothing better is possible.

The statists want you to believe that ceding freedom to them will protect you from the horrors of drugs or terrorism or gun-owners. This cure is literally worse than the disease.

[philman_36]

You seem to be taken with Courtwright...

I'm not taken with Courtwright at all. I simply meant to draw attention to what happened after Courtwright...everybody pretty much dropped the subject.

[DiogenesLamp]

I haven't ignored any of your sources as is evident in the course of this conversation. Perhaps you don't cite sources because they are quickly picked apart for the pablum they are as soon as they are posted.

Dismissed without appropriate consideration.

You post far more of your own opinions than sources, as is evidenced by the rest of your reply to me.

Sure. It takes less time, and the result is the same anyway. I don't live, eat and breath this stuff the way you advocates do. I consider this one of the more stupid discussions in which I bother to engage, and the fact that I don't really consider it worth my time tends to show through in my responses.

I've been arguing it for seven years with another nutbag I know on a different website. You get to a point where you just don't care to put out the effort to once again prove someone wrong with complicated references to statistics and studies because they are just going to be ignored anyway.

Adherents to the Church of the Green Weed will not have their faith shaken by anything so mundane as reality. If the simple and easy to understand stuff like this doesn't work ...

Then what point is there in putting forth more complicated arguments or more complicated facts?

[DiogenesLamp]

You cannot see the legal sewer you already occupy. You’re up to your neck in sewage and think that’s how the world is supposed to smell and nothing better is possible.

Not going in the direction you want to go. Deeper into the sewer is only likely to increase the bad smell.

This cure is literally worse than the disease.

And this is your utter delusion based on the observable fact that you have not the slightest clue as to how bad the disease can get.

You don't actually know any drug addicts, do you? You have no actual experience with dope fiends, i'll wager.

[philman_36]

But you want me to buy his alleged conclusions as reported by you or the druglibrary.org people?

Yet you unflinchingly "buy the conclusions" of others. Got it.

[philman_36]

...I don't really consider it worth my time...

And yet, here you are, Chief.

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm not taken with Courtwright at all. I simply meant to draw attention to what happened after Courtwright...everybody pretty much dropped the subject.

And this proves something? Just looking at your excerpts of quotations I saw problems with the proffered line of reasoning. Your claims regarding his arguments seems to be "because I didn't find very many references to "army disease" it must not be a real thing."

This is what is known as a "non sequitur." The conclusions do not follow from the available evidence. That others did not come along to rebut him also does not prove anything either. (and I don't even know if that is actually true.)

What you are doing here is using leverage. You know that it takes an enormous amount of time and effort to rebut some scholar somewhere, and all you have to do is toss out his name and a few quotes.

I don't think this game is worth the cost of playing to me.

[DiogenesLamp]

And yet, here you are, Chief.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

[muir_redwoods]

You keep impugning my intelligence, education and understanding and yet everything you’ve written shows an inability to understand the issues and the risks we actually face with the status quo. It is inescapable that what you favor, if extended to the deadly drug alcohol, would fail utterly and yet you cling to the notion that it will succeed with other drugs. It’s simply an absurd position with no basis in logic or experience. To you, what is the lesson of prohibition?

[DiogenesLamp]

Yet you unflinchingly "buy the conclusions" of others. Got it.

This is a pretty easy conclusion to buy.

[philman_36]

I don't really consider it worth my time...
I've been arguing it for seven years with another nutbag I know on a different website.

Seven years and you're still at it. It must be worth your time after all.

And thanks for the backhanded "nutbag" insult. Your true character shows through nicely.

[philman_36]

A graph, in German no less, showing the amount of opium being imported into China over 100 years ago. WOO-HOO!

You've convinced me to completely change my views on the whole War On (some) Drugs. /sarcasm

[philman_36]

You know that it takes an enormous amount of time and effort to rebut some scholar somewhere, and all you have to do is toss out his name and a few quotes.

Kind of like you did with your inappropriate and off topic Burke quote?