war on drugs getting bigger?

[ivan]

So I think what?

The V-act didn't outlaw the consumption of alcohol (which is what you were talking about in the first place)

 

"no person shall manufacture, sell, barter, transport, import, export, deliver, furnish or possess any intoxicating liquor except as authorized by this act.

 

It did not specifically prohibit the purchase or use of intoxicating liquors.

 

this act is not what impacted the death of prohibition; it was the social changes going on at the time that rose up in reaction to the orginal pressures that caused Prohibition to come around. This pendulum seems to always occur in societies with many topics. We just can't seem to find the balance and stick with it.

you misunderstood - i knew what the volstead act said w/o consulting wikipedia - i asked if you thought consumption would have been less if the act had been written to deny possesion or consumption too

 

the problem w/ the pendulum of course is there's a lot more than one pendulum swinging - in the end, i think it's probably for the good - that whole philosophy of "there's no good if there's no evil" - a brief period of prohibition makes the good times of today all the more pleasant - it will be a thousand times so when the long night of pot-prohibition goes the way of the dodo

[archenemy]

We are talking in circles.

 

And congratulations on memorizing the Volstead Act.

 

Freak.

[ivan]

We are talking in circles.

 

And congratulations on memorizing the Volstead Act.

 

Freak.

it's one of my very few talents

 

shall i recite a few thousand lines of "beowulf" as an encore?

 

well - 2:52 - it's quitting time!

[archenemy]

Just when I was getting excited. Figures.

[ivan]

"so, the spear-danes in days gone by, and the kings who ruled them, had courage and greatness...."

[archenemy]

*wetness*

 

We could probably rope Frikadeller into this one; I think he is the only other Dane on the site.

[archenemy]

not that one Viking isn't enough

[tvashtarkatena]

Drug addiction is a disease of the brain. You don't treat a disease with prison time. There are a whole raft of new, effective drugs coming out that will help people regain lives broken by addiction, thanks to advances in brain imaging and other technologies.

Yeah, but I'm not sure that more 'good' drugs are the answer. I think the bottom line is that human beings are socially and psychologically susceptible to using addictive drugs, and that this problem won't be solved until we as a society learn better.

You could stand to update yourself on the dynamics and physiological causes of addictive behavior. Your philosophy of a 'society that needs fixin' is dated. Only a percentage of human beings have a predeliction for addiction, not all. And a newer generation of 'good' drugs are already helping millions of people quit smoking and other harmful addictions. Coupled with other forms of support and treatment, such a regimen can put a significant percentage of addicts, although of course not all, back on their feet. Read up, then review your society wide (impossible to implement) solutions, whatever they may be.

 

Finally, your model of a society waiting to explode into a cocaine fulled, heroin addled frenzy/catatonia is silly. Meth Crazed Zombies Rape and Pillage Squaresville Suburb! Come on, man. You don't really buy that Drug War generated myth. As Ivan stated, social norms, responsibilities, values, and genetic predisposition make addiction unattractive for most of the population and will continue to do so regardless of the legal picture.

 

 

Edited May 18, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[ivan]

*wetness*

 

We could probably rope Frikadeller into this one; I think he is the only other Dane on the site.

i need to climb w/ this fool then - nothing chews up a long approach hike faster than a bard-fest, we could tag-team stanzas! - and no matter how much of that poem i burn into my brain, there alwasy seems to be a thousand more lines to learn...

[tvashtarkatena]

*wetness*

 

We could probably rope Frikadeller into this one; I think he is the only other Dane on the site.

i need to climb w/ this fool then - nothing chews up a long approach hike faster than a bard-fest, we could tag-team stanzas! - and no matter how much of that poem i burn into my brain, there alwasy seems to be a thousand more lines to learn...

 

Nooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[sk]

*wetness*

 

We could probably rope Frikadeller into this one; I think he is the only other Dane on the site.

i need to climb w/ this fool then - nothing chews up a long approach hike faster than a bard-fest, we could tag-team stanzas! - and no matter how much of that poem i burn into my brain, there alwasy seems to be a thousand more lines to learn...

 

one of my favorite memories climbing/camping at smith... listening to you and mike go song for song...I do not know how you keep so much in your brain

[ashw_justin]

Drug addiction is a disease of the brain. You don't treat a disease with prison time. There are a whole raft of new, effective drugs coming out that will help people regain lives broken by addiction, thanks to advances in brain imaging and other technologies.

Yeah, but I'm not sure that more 'good' drugs are the answer. I think the bottom line is that human beings are socially and psychologically susceptible to using addictive drugs, and that this problem won't be solved until we as a society learn better.

You could stand to update yourself on the dynamics and physiological causes of addictive behavior. Only a percentage of human beings have a predeliction for addiction, not all.

I've taken courses and studied primary research in psychobiology, psychopharmacology, biochemistry, and animal physiology to name a few. I will assume you must be in pharmtech or something, since you extoll the virtues of a pill for fixing a fundamental social problem. I suggest you go back and read your notes, which if they exist, will include primary research on the addictive activity of cocaine that unambiguously shows that most if not all test subjects will choose the refined drug over food and water, to the point of death. How presumptuous of you to assume that just because you don't know many cocaine addicts, that most brains are immune to addiction. It's my amateur psychological opinion that the reasons that people choose not to do coke are far more complicated than simple physiology.

 

And a newer generation of 'good' drugs are already helping millions of people quit smoking and other harmful addictions. Coupled with other forms of support and treatment, such a regimen can put a significant percentage of addicts, although of course not all, back on their feet. Read up, then review your society wide (impossible to implement) solutions, whatever they may be.

This might be an effective way to treat drug addiction, but it doesn't really address the issue of the original drug abuse. Is greater education, awareness, and mentorship to prevent people from losing control in the first place "impossible to implement?" Or is the regulation of consumer markets for decriminalized drugs "impossible to implement?" Or should they sell not only cocaine, but also the antidote? Sounds lucrative.

 

Finally, your model of a society waiting to explode into a cocaine fulled, heroin addled frenzy/catatonia is silly. Meth Crazed Zombies Rape and Pillage Squaresville Suburb! Come on, man. You don't really buy that Drug War generated myth. As Ivan stated, social norms, responsibilities, values, and genetic predisposition make addiction unattractive for most of the population and will continue to do so regardless of the legal picture.

You are free to express that belief, but I think it ignores the potency that mass marketing campaigns and media saturation can have on influencing consumption in this country.

Edited May 19, 2007 by ashw_justin

[ashw_justin]

I just realized that I am addicted to this thread. I blame you all for not passing laws to stop me from posting here.

[ivan]

why do you keep on bringing up "mass marketing campaigns and media saturation?" folks have said a dozen times already that legalization of possesion and consumption would still be accompanied by restrictions in marketing, just as w/ tobacco and alcohol now. people have already sued the holy-hell out of the tobacco companies and forced them to change their behaviors, this kind of pressure would clearly effect coke/pot/meth/etc companies as well. i'm sure uncle sam would require money made on drug sales to be reinvested at least in part in anti-drug adds, just like w/ tobacco today.

 

speaking of tobacco, what worries me currently is the drift of arguments like yours is leading towards the outlawing of that drug too - the militant sheep of sam's flock would accept that too.

[JayB]

'..why do you keep on bringing up "mass marketing campaigns and media saturation?"

 

Manufactured Dissent.

 

 

 

 

[ashw_justin]

'..why do you keep on bringing up "mass marketing campaigns and media saturation?"

 

Manufactured Dissent.

 

Nice.

Maybe someday another clever word beginning with neo will be used to describe the folly embarked upon by the current period's contrarians.

 

Don't make me get even more tool on you.

We must dare to think 'unthinkable' thoughts. We must learn to explore all the options and possibilities that confront us in a complex and rapidly changing world. We must learn to welcome and not to fear the voices of dissent. We must dare to think about 'unthinkable things' because when things become unthinkable, thinking stops and action becomes mindless.

[ashw_justin]

why do you keep on bringing up "mass marketing campaigns and media saturation?" folks have said a dozen times already that legalization of possesion and consumption would still be accompanied by restrictions in marketing, just as w/ tobacco and alcohol now. people have already sued the holy-hell out of the tobacco companies and forced them to change their behaviors, this kind of pressure would clearly effect coke/pot/meth/etc companies as well. i'm sure uncle sam would require money made on drug sales to be reinvested at least in part in anti-drug adds, just like w/ tobacco today.

Yeah I guess I didn't need to repeat myself. That only works for commercials anyway.

 

speaking of tobacco, what worries me currently is the drift of arguments like yours is leading towards the outlawing of that drug too - the militant sheep of sam's flock would accept that too.

Can we talk about smoking in bars and restaurants? I'm against it. But only because EVERY bar and most restaurants allowed smoking, even though only a pollutive minority of patrons smoked, while the majority of those who didn't, hated it. If half of the bars had been non-smoking before the ban, I wouldn't be saying this. I argue that the system of choice was broken, because even though most people were against smokey bars, there were no non-smoking bars to choose from.

 

The main reason that every bar allowed indoor smoking was because it was considered crucial to drawing business--a notion that was immediately dispelled following the ban. Again I can't help but point out the influence of economics. But on the issue of rights: was it fair to the rest of us to breathe smoke in every bar (a health rights issue), in order to respect owners' rights to run an air-polluted establishment?

 

(Just to avoid any undue hate here, I exercised my choice to stay home when I couldn't deal.)

[ivan]

the whole world's turned against smoking in bars - even fawking france and ireland - truly a sign of impending armagedeon! i really only smoke when hanging out w/ people and drinking, so not being able to smoke there pretty much cuts me out of smoking period (well, layton'll tell you different - i smoke all his cigs when climbing, but that's just to slow me down like, so he can keep up and what-not )

 

i can live w/ not smoking in bars, though didn't that law kill cigar bars too? i'm not down w/ the particulars of the law, so don't know, but it seems entirely wrong to ban a person starting a business completely for smokers. a law creaating a more meaningful smoking/no-smoking section would have been better imho opinion too - that is, requiring the smoking section to be contained by walls/doors/glass, w/ its own ventilation system.

[tvashtarkatena]

You could stand to update yourself on the dynamics and physiological causes of addictive behavior. Only a percentage of human beings have a predeliction for addiction, not all.

I've taken courses and studied primary research in psychobiology, psychopharmacology, biochemistry, and animal physiology to name a few. I will assume you must be in pharmtech or something, since you extoll the virtues of a pill for fixing a fundamental social problem.

 

...and Paul Wolfowitz taught post graduate level foreign relations. Any time someone reaches for their 'credentials' rather than debating the point at hand, the audience detects the distinct sound of their credibility flushing itself down the shitter. Your next sentence indicates that you know little about a new generation of drugs that would help a human choose the healthier alternative in the scenario you describe below. And again, your references are very, very dated. It's a broad field, one can't be an expert in every aspect of it, regardless of how many 'classes you've taken'.

 

I suggest you go back and read your notes, which if they exist, will include primary research on the addictive activity of cocaine that unambiguously shows that most if not all test subjects will choose the refined drug over food and water, to the point of death. How presumptuous of you to assume that just because you don't know many cocaine addicts, that most brains are immune to addiction.

You might also take a class in basic reading comprehension. My statement was that only some brains have a prediliction for addiction, not all. In addition, upon re-reading (as many times as you need to to comprehend it) my last paragraph, you might find that I suggested the drug therapy is only part of a more comprehensive solution. Nonetheless, the new generation of drugs has already produced some startling results. And finally, we're not talking specifically about cocaine addiction, although you seem to be, perhaps because you read a case study on it. Each of us knows many addicts: their called alcoholics.

It's my amateur psychological opinion that the reasons that people choose not to do coke are far more complicated than simple physiology.

 

Nuff said there.

 

And a newer generation of 'good' drugs are already helping millions of people quit smoking and other harmful addictions. Coupled with other forms of support and treatment, such a regimen can put a significant percentage of addicts, although of course not all, back on their feet. Read up, then review your society wide (impossible to implement) solutions, whatever they may be.

This might be an effective way to treat drug addiction, but it doesn't really address the issue of the original drug abuse. Is greater education, awareness, and mentorship to prevent people from losing control in the first place "impossible to implement?" Or is the regulation of consumer markets for decriminalized drugs "impossible to implement?" Or should they sell not only cocaine, but also the antidote? Sounds lucrative.

Drug addicts come from all walks of life and all upbringings; be and excellent parent, and your kid might still become an addict. There is a huge brain chemistry, and thus genetic component, at work here.

 

 

[ashw_justin]

I'm not claiming to be an expert in the field of brain chemistry. By having taken classes I meant that I am capable of understanding and discussing the biological phenomenon of addiction. I thought that by explicitly saying that my opinion was amateur, I could save you the trouble of cutting me down for it. I guessed wrong. (Then again, I guess I was asking for it, given my tone.)

 

I just think it's incredibly simplistic to discount social and 'nuture' factors that relate to addiction, in favor of a simple neurochemical theory of individual "predilection."

[ashw_justin]

i can live w/ not smoking in bars, though didn't that law kill cigar bars too? i'm not down w/ the particulars of the law, so don't know, but it seems entirely wrong to ban a person starting a business completely for smokers. a law creaating a more meaningful smoking/no-smoking section would have been better imho opinion too - that is, requiring the smoking section to be contained by walls/doors/glass, w/ its own ventilation system.

 

I'm also not very impressed by the heavy-handedness of the ban; it's implementation ought to be more sophisticated, although granting variances brings up issues of fairness. Every bar in Seattle might claim to be a 'cigar bar.'

 

But I still maintain that this ban was a necessary evil, as would be any other version of it that imposed restrictions on the activities of private businesses. Evil for banning a voluntary legal activity, but necessary because nonsmoking bars were not even considered a possibility, for all intents and purposes. I'd actually like to see the ban lifted, to see how many bars would voluntarily continue to be non-smoking now that certain misconceptions have been eliminated.

[Crux]

Mealy mouth pseudo-intellectual drip, drip, drip

[ashw_justin]

I'm glad you like my autosig

It's spray time