Jim Henderson wrote:

> The people who are for the prohibition of drugs use the same logic that 
> brought about alcohol prohibition in the 30's.  It's not about the costs 
> to cover treatment and such - it's about it being "bad" for people to do 
> that.  It's about one group of people asserting their sense of moral 
> superiority.

This entire subthread baffles me. (And for once, I don't just mean "how 
the **** did we end up *here*?")

Of course, you're entirely right. Why would a team of medical experts 
who've studied the addictive effects of drugs and the damage they do to 
the human body know more about it than some random guy on the street? 
Everyone agrees - wait, let me change that - almost everyone agrees we 
shouldn't let people commit suicide. It is therefore completely logical 
that we should allow people to slowly poison themselves to death, while 
at the same time causing untold misery around them.

Hold on - no, actually that entire paragraph makes *no* sense at all! :-P

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:13:22 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Why would a team of medical experts
> who've studied the addictive effects of drugs and the damage they do to
> the human body know more about it than some random guy on the street?

If it were the team of medical experts who were asserting what I'm 
terming the "moral superiority", that would be one thing.  But here in 
the US, it's largely the same people who insist that because Evolution is 
a "theory", the "theory" of creationism should also be taught AS PART OF 
SCIENCE CURRICULUM.  (Caps for emphasis)

In other words, it's not people who have medical training or even 
chemistry training.  It's people who think Evolution is a myth 
perpetrated by the liberal media (in extreme cases) and who don't think 
there's such a thing as mutation even though it's *all around them* - and 
they religiously go and get flu vaccinations because the flu strain has 
evolved to be able to counter the last vaccination.

Look at the case for medical marijuana, for example - here in the US, it 
is a federal crime to grow or smoke pot, even though some states have 
legalized it to some extent.  The *doctors* (who I'd consider to have 
medical training and who have studied the effects and have decided that 
there's a benefit, for example, for people with chronic untreatable pain) 
are in favor of it, and it's the anti-science people who think it should 
be left illegal.

What is a real problem with drug use today (at least in the US) is that 
the quality control for those drugs is nonexistent - and that's part (but 
not the entire) of the reason why there are problems with drug users.  
Now, turn it into a well-regulated industry with standards of production, 
and you see several positive side effects:

 * "Product" quality increases and you end up with fewer accidental 
overdoses (which can happen when one batch is really weak and the next is 
overly strong - IOW, no consistent quality control).  
 * You have fewer people being locked up for non-violent offenses (such 
as possession or possession with intent to use/intent to distribute). 
 * Those who are distributing have to be licensed to do so - so you know 
most of who is distributing them and you know they have met some standard 
of knowledge in order to legally distribute.
 * You will have created a market that you can collect taxes from where 
money is currently changing hands and nothing goes to pay for services 
that those users consume as a result of their use (just like smoking/
drinking)
 * Prices can be standardized and normalized, potentially reducing 
violent crime from people who can't afford to get their 'fix' today

None of the crime reduction benefits is a total reduction, just as you 
see people buying oxycodone on the black market, a black market would 
still exist, but it would be a much smaller black market than it is now.

There are also plenty of people who think suicide should be allowed as an 
option in certain circumstances - not just Dr. Kevorkian.  I had a friend 
in the Netherlands (if memory serves - I knew him only online as part of 
a very close group) who had terminal cancer, and he decided he didn't 
want to suffer until he died - so he chose to end his life on his terms, 
and he had the assistance of a qualified and trained medical professional.

Life is a terminal condition, and I personally think it's a little crazy 
that the government and the insurance companies can decide that I should 
*suffer* against my will if I'm in a terminal situation.

But that's a discussion for another day.  It's 3:05 AM here now, and I 
*have* to get some sleep.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> If it were the team of medical experts who were asserting what I'm 
> terming the "moral superiority", that would be one thing.  But here in 
> the US, it's largely the same people who insist that because Evolution is 
> a "theory", the "theory" of creationism should also be taught AS PART OF 
> SCIENCE CURRICULUM.  (Caps for emphasis)
> 
> In other words, it's not people who have medical training or even 
> chemistry training.  It's people who think Evolution is a myth 
> perpetrated by the liberal media (in extreme cases) and who don't think 
> there's such a thing as mutation even though it's *all around them* - and 
> they religiously go and get flu vaccinations because the flu strain has 
> evolved to be able to counter the last vaccination.

So... the people who think pot should be illegal are the people who are 
apparently already smoking it? :-.

> Look at the case for medical marijuana, for example - here in the US, it 
> is a federal crime to grow or smoke pot, even though some states have 
> legalized it to some extent.  The *doctors*
> are in favor of it, and it's the anti-science people who think it should 
> be left illegal.

Presumably "legal under prescription" though?

> Now, turn it into a well-regulated industry with standards of production, 
> and you see several positive side effects:
> 
>  * "Product" quality increases and you end up with fewer accidental 
> overdoses (which can happen when one batch is really weak and the next is 
> overly strong - IOW, no consistent quality control).  
>  * You have fewer people being locked up for non-violent offenses (such 
> as possession or possession with intent to use/intent to distribute). 
>  * Those who are distributing have to be licensed to do so - so you know 
> most of who is distributing them and you know they have met some standard 
> of knowledge in order to legally distribute.
>  * You will have created a market that you can collect taxes from where 
> money is currently changing hands and nothing goes to pay for services 
> that those users consume as a result of their use (just like smoking/
> drinking)
>  * Prices can be standardized and normalized, potentially reducing 
> violent crime from people who can't afford to get their 'fix' today

Well, that does make logical sense.

On the other hand, make it legal and 5,000x more people will be doing it.

In my opinion, tobacco should be illegal. We'd see far fewer people 
dying a slow, lingering death from cancer. But it's far more profitable 
for the government to allow its sale and tax it to hell. So it will 
forever more be legal. Stupid but true...

> There are also plenty of people who think suicide should be allowed as an 
> option in certain circumstances.

Sure. And *that* is a whole *other* debate...

Post a reply to this message

On 27/07/2010 7:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> (Though I wouldn't have said 'lawmakers' but rather 'moral majority' here
> in the US)
>

We call them "the press"

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 28/07/2010 5:22 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:15:23 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Oh, give me a break. Yeah, there are some "low level" things, like pot,
>> for which this is a believable assertion.
>
> The people who are for the prohibition of drugs use the same logic that
> brought about alcohol prohibition in the 30's.  It's not about the costs
> to cover treatment and such - it's about it being "bad" for people to do
> that.  It's about one group of people asserting their sense of moral
> superiority.
>

I'm with you on this.

> Understand, I have never done drugs, I never intend to do drugs, and I
> have no desire to do them.  I personally wouldn't because I do think it
> would be bad for me (in a number of ways).  I come at this from a
> standpoint of not having experienced anything related to the types of
> drugs we're talking about (I once got pretty tripped out on Hydrocodone,
> which I react very badly to, but that's a slightly different story
> because it was something obtained with a prescription).
>
> If someone wants to be addicted to cigarettes, pot, alcohol, etc - as
> long as they're not impacting me (through secondhand smoke, for example),
> I don't care.  They can knock themselves out.  Once it leaves them, just
> as with alcohol, then there are consequences and let the consequences be
> steep (as they are for DUI, for example).
>
Understand that I have taken (not done :-)) drugs and I’ve seen people 
get into bad states with them. I’ve seen young and old people of both 
sexes lying unconscious in the street covered in their own vomit, 
fights, dui, families kept poor and abused, lives ruined. The list is 
endless and then we move away from alcohol.
If you tell some people that something is not allowed then that will 
make it exciting and glamorous to them. Prohibition did not work in the 
USA and the “war on drugs” is IMO a waste of time and resources.

> Legalization can make those drugs a tax base (as with cigarettes and
> alcohol, and being in Utah, I know a thing or three about alcohol taxes
> because they're DAMNED high here) and legalization can turn it into an
> actual industry, with quality control and the like.  I don't think it's
> naive to think that - I think that's what we saw with alcohol when
> prohibition was repealed.  Sure, some people still make their own hooch
> at home (we've been known to make wine ourselves), but the vast majority
> comes from licensed establishments and sales venues, and there are pretty
> strict controls over the production of alcohol.
>

Consider the Netherlands where pot while not legal is controlled and 
sold in coffee shops. This has not made the Dutch into a nation of pot 
heads. Most Dutch people I’ve met and worked with are quite dismissive 
of cannabis, it’s what you try when you are young.

> It's been done before, and the only thing stopping it from being done
> again is people who - as I said - try to assert that they have a moral
> imperative (and hence a moral superiority) to prohibit those substances,
> and I for one, thing that's total BS.
>

Total BS, I agree

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:07:18 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 27/07/2010 7:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> (Though I wouldn't have said 'lawmakers' but rather 'moral majority'
>> here in the US)
>>
>>
> We call them "the press"

LOL

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:21:14 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> Understand that I have taken (not done :-)) drugs and I’ve seen people
> get into bad states with them. 

"Two countries separated by a common language". ;-)  I've known people 
who have taken/used/done (just to cover the bases) drugs, and yeah, some 
of them have described "bad trips" to me.

> I’ve seen young and old people of both
> sexes lying unconscious in the street covered in their own vomit,
> fights, dui, families kept poor and abused, lives ruined. The list is
> endless and then we move away from alcohol. 

Indeed.  I've got a family member who served time in prison for a DUI 
offense that involved someone dying.  Pot?  Gives one the munchies (so 
I'm told).

> If you tell some people that
> something is not allowed then that will make it exciting and glamorous
> to them. Prohibition did not work in the USA and the “war on drugs” is
> IMO a waste of time and resources.

Exactly.  But don't get me started on the whole phraseology of "the war 
on 'x'", because I think the whole idea is stupid.  A war is something 
that *should* be winnable, and you can't win against a concept.

> Consider the Netherlands where pot while not legal is controlled and
> sold in coffee shops. This has not made the Dutch into a nation of pot
> heads. Most Dutch people I’ve met and worked with are quite dismissive
> of cannabis, it’s what you try when you are young.

Yep.  There's no mystery, no sense of "I'm doing something bad/wrong" or 
"I'm getting away with something I shouldn't be", and the mystique and/or 
novelty wears off as a result.

It's the same reason many kids try cigarettes when they're in High School 
(or earlier) here in the US:  They're not allowed to.  So they rebel and 
do it behind the school while nobody's watching.   Oooooo, dangerous.  
You're SUCH a bad boy.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 10:15:04 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> If it were the team of medical experts who were asserting what I'm
>> terming the "moral superiority", that would be one thing.  But here in
>> the US, it's largely the same people who insist that because Evolution
>> is a "theory", the "theory" of creationism should also be taught AS
>> PART OF SCIENCE CURRICULUM.  (Caps for emphasis)
>> 
>> In other words, it's not people who have medical training or even
>> chemistry training.  It's people who think Evolution is a myth
>> perpetrated by the liberal media (in extreme cases) and who don't think
>> there's such a thing as mutation even though it's *all around them* -
>> and they religiously go and get flu vaccinations because the flu strain
>> has evolved to be able to counter the last vaccination.
> 
> So... the people who think pot should be illegal are the people who are
> apparently already smoking it? :-.

No, it's people who have no background in medicine or even chemistry at 
all (for the most part), who want to assert authority they feel is 
derived from their self-serving sense of moral superiority.

>> Look at the case for medical marijuana, for example - here in the US,
>> it is a federal crime to grow or smoke pot, even though some states
>> have legalized it to some extent.  The *doctors* are in favor of it,
>> and it's the anti-science people who think it should be left illegal.
> 
> Presumably "legal under prescription" though?

To which part of the quoted section would this question apply?

>> Now, turn it into a well-regulated industry with standards of
>> production, and you see several positive side effects:
>> 
>>  * "Product" quality increases and you end up with fewer accidental
>> overdoses (which can happen when one batch is really weak and the next
>> is overly strong - IOW, no consistent quality control).
>>  * You have fewer people being locked up for non-violent offenses (such
>> as possession or possession with intent to use/intent to distribute).
>>  * Those who are distributing have to be licensed to do so - so you
>>  know
>> most of who is distributing them and you know they have met some
>> standard of knowledge in order to legally distribute.
>>  * You will have created a market that you can collect taxes from where
>> money is currently changing hands and nothing goes to pay for services
>> that those users consume as a result of their use (just like smoking/
>> drinking)
>>  * Prices can be standardized and normalized, potentially reducing
>> violent crime from people who can't afford to get their 'fix' today
> 
> Well, that does make logical sense.
> 
> On the other hand, make it legal and 5,000x more people will be doing
> it.

Maybe.  Probably not.  But if they do, the taxes pay for services that 
they might need.  In the UK, I'm fairly certain that part of the 
cigarette taxes that the users pay go to the NHS, for example.

> In my opinion, tobacco should be illegal. We'd see far fewer people
> dying a slow, lingering death from cancer. But it's far more profitable
> for the government to allow its sale and tax it to hell. So it will
> forever more be legal. Stupid but true...

Well, yes, but again, it comes down to personal choice, too.  I had a 
great-uncle (ie, my mother's uncle) who had emphysema.  It was serious 
enough that he was on oxygen pretty much 24x7.  He used to sneak into the 
garage - WITH HIS OXYGEN TANK - to sneak cigarettes.

That was his choice.  It was painful to watch (I was very young when he 
died and I don't remember him very well, but I know my mother was 
heartbroken over it - even though she and my dad were both smokers at the 
time), but uncle Mac made his choice, and he lived (and died) with the 
consequences.

The thing is - if tobacco had been illegal, he probably would have bought 
his cigarettes on the black market.  People will find a way.

>> There are also plenty of people who think suicide should be allowed as
>> an option in certain circumstances.
> 
> Sure. And *that* is a whole *other* debate...

It certainly is.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4c4ff2fb@news.povray.org...

> If it were the team of medical experts who were asserting what I'm
> terming the "moral superiority", that would be one thing.  But here in
> the US, it's largely the same people who insist that because Evolution is
> a "theory", the "theory" of creationism should also be taught AS PART OF
> SCIENCE CURRICULUM.  (Caps for emphasis)
>
> In other words, it's not people who have medical training or even
> chemistry training.

Such policies have little or nothing to do with science. It's mainly an
economic, sociological and logistic issue.

You don't need the professional opinion of a chemist to decide what drunk
driving fines or sentences should be, or whether to fine them at all, for
instance. You just ask the chemist or doctor to provide you with the means
of measuring the amount of alcohol in blood. That's it.

> legalized it to some extent.  The *doctors* (who I'd consider to have
> medical training and who have studied the effects and have decided that
> there's a benefit, for example, for people with chronic untreatable pain)
> are in favor of it,

Doctors can only look at it from a limited perspective, so they don't make
good policymakers. You duly note their professional opinion. The economic
and social implications are a completely different and larger part of the
entire picture. I'm not arguing pro or con, but it's naive to think that
those who are con are anti-doctor, anti-medicine and anti-science.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:06:15 -0600, somebody wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4c4ff2fb@news.povray.org...
> 
>> If it were the team of medical experts who were asserting what I'm
>> terming the "moral superiority", that would be one thing.  But here in
>> the US, it's largely the same people who insist that because Evolution
>> is a "theory", the "theory" of creationism should also be taught AS
>> PART OF SCIENCE CURRICULUM.  (Caps for emphasis)
>>
>> In other words, it's not people who have medical training or even
>> chemistry training.
> 
> Such policies have little or nothing to do with science. It's mainly an
> economic, sociological and logistic issue.

True, but the people who push that agenda misrepresent facts about the 
science as well in order to get their way.  "By any means necessary" is 
the motto for many people with such an agenda.

> You don't need the professional opinion of a chemist to decide what
> drunk driving fines or sentences should be, or whether to fine them at
> all, for instance. You just ask the chemist or doctor to provide you
> with the means of measuring the amount of alcohol in blood. That's it.

Sure.  But with regards to the bogus reason that it should be illegal 
"because it's bad for you".  By that logic, eating eggs should be illegal 
because they can elevate your "bad" cholesterol.  Drinking water should 
be illegal because you can drown in it (or die of water intoxication by 
significantly "overhydrating").

>> legalized it to some extent.  The *doctors* (who I'd consider to have
>> medical training and who have studied the effects and have decided that
>> there's a benefit, for example, for people with chronic untreatable
>> pain) are in favor of it,
> 
> Doctors can only look at it from a limited perspective, so they don't
> make good policymakers. You duly note their professional opinion. The
> economic and social implications are a completely different and larger
> part of the entire picture. I'm not arguing pro or con, but it's naive
> to think that those who are con are anti-doctor, anti-medicine and
> anti-science.

Sure, I didn't mean to paint everyone who's against it with a broad 
brush, but the majority (in my observation) use bogus science to push 
their agenda.  I live in Utah, and I see this quite regularly with 
regards to the sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco (highest in the nation 
IIRC), and given that there are a significant number of the population 
here who are LDS who believe that even caffeine is "evil" (I've heard 
some people say that - and if you think it's not against the C&Ds, try 
ordering a Coke, coffee, or black tea at The Roof, which is a restaurant 
owned by the church).

Granted, that's going to be something typically held by the purists.  I 
know plenty of inactive church members who drink alcohol and/or smoke as 
well.  But the alcohol laws in Utah have been backwards for longer than 
pretty much everywhere else in the US (I think Kansas now has more strict 
laws regarding alcohol than Utah).  When I moved out here, a friend said 
"Welcome to Utah:  Step back 20 years" and at least regarding the alcohol 
laws, he was right.  There still are strange laws on the books, but at 
least now you can order beer at a bar without ordering food, and I think 
they might even be allowed to put more than one drink down - when I moved 
out here, you had to finish the first one ("Don't worry, I'll wait" said 
one waitress as I finished my first beer - and she held the second one 
while I did).

So now I think we're probably only about 12 years behind the rest of the 
nation. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message