patrick.net

Dan, are you blaming the drug war on conservatives? I will grant that most people who call themselves "conservative" (even though they aren't really) support the drug war. But look what the Democrats did when they had power: Fast & Furious, and Obamacare. This is a bipartisan problem, and it continues for the same reason; the waste that you interpret as a bug is actually a feature, indeed the primary function. The war is a huge success, a perennial gusher of power especially in the form of revenue. The river of blood flows mainly through other countries. Even if you could somehow stop all the "conservatives" from voting ("LOOK - MARY AND JESUS ARE HOVERING OVER A FIELD!), how are you going to wean the Democrats off the ALEC teat?

Did you watch the video? He said the arguments of both the right wing AND the left wing are wrong.

Bigsby says

Did you watch the video?

You didn't specify to whom you were addressing your question, but I think it's fair to assume Dan watched the video that he posted. I don't watch many videos (other than music) but I read an excerpt and summary of Johann's book, enough to recognize that he stated essentially the obvious from a public health POV. The issue is, the drug war is not about health, it's about power including especially money. The "left" (really the pseudo-liberals who have done to the word "liberal" what the neocons did to the word conservative) see an opportunity to sell unproven or disproven "treatment" / rehab programs that have a ~10% success rate, while the pseudo-conservatives see an opportunity to stoke the prison industrial complex and tap that patronage network. The Republicans had the Merida Initiative, the Democrats had Fast & Furious, same show different day. You have to understand, the failure of the policy to achieve its stated goal is by design, the purpose of the program being its own perpetuation. This happens over and over again; to paraphrase Chris Rock's observation about medicine, there's no money in a cure. The purpose of government programs is to convert problems into perennial revenue models; therefore, by design, the purported problem must not get solved. It isn't a conscious bgamall conspiracy, rather it is what Noam Chomsky would describe as the predictable (even inevitable) result of rational actors pursuing their own self interest within the system as it is currently structured. As Kurt Vonnegut might say, the moment is structured that way. The drug war must continue, on its present terms, because jobs depend on it. The only conceivable alternative that the commercial media will even allow to be seriously considered is more treatment, by modalities that are equally unlikely to interfere with the ongoing revenue stream. What outside observers perceive as failure is, in fact, success, as in a successful career, a successful investment, achieving the American dream by incarcerating your fellow Americans for smoking the wrong sort of cigarette or selling ordinary morphine instead of Oxycontin. When you see a "failure" get extended every year for decades, through administrations of ostensibly opposing parties, you must consider that the results are in fact intentional, a success by other terms.

Damnit! I've got a drug problem.

I DON'T HAVE ANY!

The views on addiction in the OP are incredibly shallow and simplistic with that good ole dose of foolish linear idealism that libs love and that they regard as brilliant thought. The problems in Portugal are reduced, not eliminated. It's been known for a long time that not everybody who uses becomes addicted, and not everybody who becomes physically addicted necessarily becomes psychologically addicted to the point of being incapable of NOT using the substance. However, there is always a subset of users who become more or less hopelessly hooked to the point of using until severely compromised and/or dead, legal status notwithstanding.

The experiment has already been run in the early 1900's when narcotics and cocaine were legal. They were advertised broadly as wonder drugs (of course, anything profitible will be advertised as a wonder cure for all of lifes social and physical maladies) and narcotics and cocaine added to all kinds of things, including the original Coca Cola. The results in terms of addiction were so horrific that the laws were passed as a RESULT.

I'm perfectly all right with legalizing substances, but that does not mean that addicts and users are immune from responsibility for their actions, become employable when impaired, or should be operating cars and machinery, or hold responsible jobs as if nothing is wrong with them. Addiction also leads to severe mental and personality problems. Addicts are a hazard to themselves and others and should be treated as such. Arresting them in the criminal justice system isn't working all that well, but addicts will always be segregated and marginalized because of their using, at least until they undergo effective treatment and become sober.

That goes to the point made by curious 2 that the recovery industry will simply start soaking up the bucks that went to the prison industry, or at least some of them. Impaired users of drugs will still have extended liability for shit they do while impaired and will still wind up in jail for one reason or another. You will just have some different, embedded, self serving, money soaking lobbies, they'll be tossing rose petals and idealistic bullshit instead of handcuffs.

Ceffer says

I'm perfectly all right with legalizing substances, but that does not mean that addicts and users are immune from responsibility for their actions, become employable when impaired, or should be operating cars and machinery, or hold responsible jobs as if nothing is wrong with them.

That should be the actual conservative position, as opposed to the neocon chickenhawk drug warrior position, with the possible exception of the last part. I remember reading years ago rates of surgical complications, and found (perhaps surprisingly) that alcoholic surgeons had a lower rate of complications than VA surgeons. (These were counted separately, I didn't see the overlap of alcoholic VA surgeons, who I would guess were probably somewhat worse than those who had either risk factor alone.) In other words, a patient during that period would literally have been safer with an alcoholic surgeon than going to the VA. Evidently, even impaired ability proved better than none at all. There are no perfect people in the world, no perfect job candidates; we are all of us sinners, but we don't need to get fooled into the downward spiral of endless divisiveness and penalties.

It is a little hard to envisage a study that would establish criteria for alcoholism for surgeons and would then allow them when impaired to continue to operate on patients. That would be grotesque and reckless negligence.

It is more likely that known alcoholic surgeons who had gone through recovery and were sober were the subjects i.e. they were probably guaranteed sober and would therefore outperform any control group in which randomly selected surgeons, as well those still using and drinking, were included.

Ceffer says

That would be grotesque and reckless negligence.

In that case, how would you describe the VA surgeons, whose performance (under a previous Commander in Chief) was worse?

Ceffer says

guaranteed sober

No such thing - there are no guarantees in life.

Ceffer says

outperform any control group in which randomly selected surgeons

They did not, actually. Their performance was a bit worse than average, but not as bad as the VA surgeons. I am sorry if the data contradict some cherished notion of patriotism that you might hold sacred, but the facts are what they are.

curious2 says

Ceffer says

That would be grotesque and reckless negligence.

In that case, how would you describe the VA surgeons, whose performance (under a previous Commander in Chief) was worse?

or maybe va surgeons operate on people who have worse health problems than the general population. How did the study control for that? Data doesn't become a fact until all factors are accounted for.

Dan8267 says

his is an utterly brilliant discussion on the cause of drug addition and how to end drug abuse and the entire drug problem world-wide. Of course, conservatives are too stupid and closed-minded to benefit from the knowledge in this video, so we'll never solve the problem even though Portugal has. Portugal cut heroin usage by 50% by decriminalizing it and spending the money on their drug war instead on reconnecting drug addicts with society

Have you been smoking dope yourself dan? The article says nothing of the kind and the numbers in the video are just wrong. Portugal didn't cut herion usage by 50% or even close. Best numbers are around 30% and that's pretty suspect. I've been advocating ending the drug war, decriminilizing, and treating addicts for 30 years. But it's not going to end drug abuse and the entire drug problem world wide. That's just idiotic. Addicts are addicts. Some will be treatable, some won't. It's certainly worth getting as many drug abusers as possible reconnected to society, but some just aren't going anywhere.

Turning this issue into a rant about conservatives should be at best a massive embarrassment to you providing proof that liberals can be just as closed minded and hypocritical as anyone. We had 8 years of clinton and 7 years of obama and the drug war expanded under both. Plenty of "liberal" politicians are just as addicted to the drug war spending and kickbacks (sorry free speech through campaign contributions) from the police/prison industry as conservatives.

Of course the drug war is conservative. Curious has conflated Democrats with "liberal". Insofar as the Democratic party has problems, it comes from either acquiescing or adopting conservative positions for political expediency.

CL says

Of course the drug war is conservative. Curious has conflated Democrats with "liberal". Insofar as the Democratic party has problems, it comes from either acquiescing or adopting conservative positions for political expediency.

Exactly. Obama is a perfect example of this.

Dan8267 says

Bigsby says

Did you watch the video? He said the arguments of both the right wing AND the left wing are wrong.

Yes, and the solution he proposed, which was empirically proven to work by Portugal is to decriminalize all drugs and redirect the money wasted on the War on Drugs to social help to reintegrate drug addicts into society.

That comment was directed at Curious as his response seemed to indicate that he hadn't even watched the video (which his subsequent response then confirmed).

Bigsby says

That comment was directed at Curious as his response seemed to indicate that he hadn't even watched the video (which his subsequent response then confirmed).

Curious is correct that Democrats are also to blame for the War on Drugs and that they are unethically profiting from it. However, there are many Democrats who want to end the War on Drugs. There are only two Republicans, Ron Paul and Rand Paul, who want to end the War on Drugs. Both parties are not remotely equal in causing the problem.

More to the point, most non-conservative American public citizens would be open to the Portugal approach. Few conservative Americans will. Granted there are a few non-conservatives who think drugs are the devil's work and want tough anti-drug laws, but most people would be happier just solving the problem rather than punishing drug addicts.

Maher is a terrible interviewer and obnoxious.

So the upshot is legalize drugs, yup. Government intervention has unintended expensive consequences, yup.

As usual your chart does not indicate what you think it does.

No it does show the bales of cotton and the number of slaves between 1790 and 1860, but that is all it shows. Remember lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Wogster my nervous little friend, it shows that they brought more slaves to the US than they lost to attrition and escapees. It also implies that the fugitive slave law worked quite well.

No need to belly ache about the Fed. It will die off on its own.

Dan8267 says

bob2356 says

The article says nothing of the kind and the numbers in the video are just wrong. Portugal didn't cut herion usage by 50% or even close. Best numbers are around 30% and that's pretty suspect.

From the paper,

The chart shows an actual increase across the board. The numbers are very subjective and hard to pin down. But a 50% decrease, no way. Cutting drug overdoses isn't the same thing as cutting drug usage. There are too many factors to consider.

indigenous says

So the upshot is legalize drugs, yup. Government intervention has unintended expensive consequences, yup.

If you don't know the difference between legalizing and decriminilizing or why it matters then perhaps you should stay out of the conversation.,

bob2356 says

If you don't know the difference between legalizing and decriminilizing or why it matters then perhaps you should stay out of the conversation.,

Fuck off, go try and figure out how the De Beers used force...

Nope I don't know the particulars of that time frame. But to post one graph and proclaim that it explains the entirety of slavery at that time is absurd.

indigenous says

Nope I don't know the particulars of that time frame. But to post one graph and proclaim that it explains the entirety of slavery at that time is absurd.

Let me guess, you're still going to claim you won the argument.

Bigsby says

And with good reason.

And what would that be?

Apparently the demand was up for cotton so the farmers needed more labor to grow cotton. That and the American slaves reproduced organically. The fugitive slave act was definitely a factor. There were also more free black slaves in the south than there was in the north. They apparently stayed there by choice.

The rest of the world was able to resolve abolition without war, the better question would be why was a war necessary?

Bigsby says

indigenous says

Nope I don't know the particulars of that time frame. But to post one graph and proclaim that it explains the entirety of slavery at that time is absurd.

Let me guess, you're still going to claim you won the argument.

He wins all arguments. Just ask him. He's a legend in his own mind.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

If you don't know the difference between legalizing and decriminilizing or why it matters then perhaps you should stay out of the conversation.,

Fuck off, go try and figure out how the De Beers used force...

That's great, you've gotten the 3 period thing down just like CIC. Is it a right wingnut thing? It certainly establishes a certain level of credibility. About zero I would say.

bob2356 says

That's great, you've gotten the 3 period thing down just like CIC. Is it a right wingnut thing?

Ellipsis abuse is among the most reliable markers of advanced wingnuttism. Overuse, plus using too many dots, as well as neglecting spaces before and after: all of these point toward rabid wingism as the underlying disorder.

I think it's because they never read anything but Newsmax and glossy conservative fund-raising mailers which avoid big words and complex sentences. They don't understand that people naturally pause at a period.

Heroin is some bad bad shit. One use is all it takes for most people to become addicted, simply because the chemistry is so powerful. It's such an overload of neurotransmitters that self production of them is powerfully suppressed, necessitating another dose for maintenance of basic brain function without agonizing pain.
Marijuana might be ready for legalization, but it can't be compared with heroin or crystal meth for sheer destructive power. I've known a family member on each of these drugs and the results were just awful. One is off and been off for years. The other is still in rehab, and she's never been very strong. It will be a miracle if she stays off the stuff.

At some point, necessities of public health will have to trump individual liberty. I draw that line with these two drugs.

bob2356 says

He wins all arguments. Just ask him. He's a legend in his own mind.

Certainly the last one and force being required to maintain a monopoly.

bob2356 says

That's great, you've gotten the 3 period thing down just like CIC. Is it a right wingnut thing? It certainly establishes a certain level of credibility. About zero I would say.

That is a two way street.

Quigley says

At some point, necessities of public health will have to trump individual liberty.

I doubt if anymore would be addicted if it were legal, of the two meth is far worse IMO.

Quigley says

necessities of public health will have to trump individual liberty

Advocates of gun control and Obamneycare make exactly the same argument, skipping over the vital question: does the policy they advocate solve the problem, or merely convert it into a perennial source of political power (including patronage revenue) for them? Letting them take away liberty, only to see the same problem continue, empowers them to grow their patronage networks and take ever more of your liberty (and money too of course). For this reason, the commercial media narrow the presented policies only to those that do not solve the problem, so that the resulting revenue can continue. If you care about addiction, then you should support research into solving that problem, not more of the same policies that enabled the problems you have observed.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

He wins all arguments. Just ask him. He's a legend in his own mind.

Certainly the last one and force being required to maintain a monopoly.

You said government was required to maintain a monopoly. Slippery,slippery,slippery. I guess if you constantly redefine your terms then winning is easy. You are the undisputed master of this.

bob2356 says

You said government was required to maintain a monopoly. Slippery,slippery,slippery. I guess if you constantly redefine your terms then winning is easy. You are the undisputed master of this.

Right...

I guess it is about form God knows it is not about content.

Call it Crazy says

bob2356 says

That's great, you've gotten the 3 period thing down just like CIC.

What's up with such a concern with punctuation with you knuckleheads? Are you frustrated second grade English teachers? When all else fails, and you losers have nothing to offer, you just complain about punctuation?

Really??

Says the man who never has anything to offer except bad punctuation.