Victimless Crimes - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Drlee
#14624420
Did you see my earlier post about prescribing drugs to addicts?
Do you think it's workable?


We already do. Doctors prescribe drugs like Methadone to Opium addicts and long acting benzodiazepines to those addicted to short acting benzodiazepines for the purpose of eventually weaning them from drugs that are potentially harmful to the patient. And that is the rub.

"First do no harm to your patient". This is one of the guiding principles to which virtually every doctor subscribes. What you are asking about is the possibility that doctors should be in the business of prescribing recreational drugs. And in doing so potentially do harm to their patient and put his family, friends, and neighbors at additional risk. I know few doctors who are willing to do such an unethical thing.

Along with the white coat and stethoscope comes massive credibility. People expect (and have every right to expect) physicians to act only in the best interests of the patient. I can't imagine any circumstance where prescribing heroin would be in the best interests of the patient.

There is this notion among those who do not study the epidemiology of heroin use that the only harm is to the patient him/herself. This is, of course, not true. Do we really want strung out folks driving high? Of course not. Is there a justification for getting someone who does not have an anxiety disorder strung out on alprazolam? So from the standpoint of a physician or public heath person the argument for legalization under the supervision of a doctor takes on a whole new perspective. I get that the patient may think he/she wants to calm down every night after work. I get that they enjoyed the feeling they got from the Vicodin prescription they had when they got there tooth pulled. But are they wise enough to know what a doctor knows about Vicodin? Nope. Do they know that this drug (which is used frequently in the US) can be deadly if used even a little wrong? Do they know that the acetaminophen (Paracetamol for our UK friends) is a serious liver toxin? Doctors do. So what happens when the doctor says no? What if he says, "you see Susan, you have liver problems and Vicodin could be deadly for you not just because of the danger of opioids but also because acetaminophen is a liver toxin." So off she goes doctor shopping until she finds a doctor who does not care about her history and general health and gives her what she wants.

But, you say....what about the guy who is already addicted? Well. If as a doctor I am sworn to try and heal my patient, rather than prescribe for them a drug that I know may well eventually kill them, I should do everything in my power to try and get them into rehab. And if there is a drug that is called for it is methadone, not heroin, and in diminishing doses over time.

I am not arguing for or against the decriminalization of drugs. But I am saying that having doctors prescribe these drugs is a very poor idea. It goes against everything that it means to call oneself a physician.

Addiction is an illness. Alcoholism is a disease. A physicians role is to cure that disease not make it easier to catch and keep. Lexington's brave post shows this exactly. He is receiving the correct treatment from his physician. What a downright shame it would be if his doctor gave him opiates and a handshake instead.
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14624426
DrLee, what is your opinion on the provision of clean needles and safe injection sites to drug users? If doctors monitor the self-administration of drugs or test the drugs for purity before returning them to users do they feel like they are condoning risky behaviour or working to mininmise harm?
User avatar
By Drlee
#14624453
DrLee, what is your opinion on the provision of clean needles and safe injection sites to drug users?


I favor needle exchange programs and the provision of alcohol swabs and such. Taking it one step further I favor physician participation in addict education to prevent not only the diseases that are caused by needle sharing but also to inform addicts of the other dangers of injectable drugs.

Here is one I'll bet few people know.

Did you know that the term overdose can be a bit of a misnomer. Without going into much detail about it, studies show that an addict who injects in an environment he/she does not routinely associate with drug use is at increased risk that they will experience an "overdose" event (including death). In one study 52% of all "overdoses" were associated with taking the drug in an unfamiliar environment (and here is the cool part) even when the user did not increase their accustomed dosage at all!

So doctors can educate addicts about stuff like that too.


If doctors monitor the self-administration of drugs or test the drugs for purity before returning them to users do they feel like they are condoning risky behaviour or working to mininmise harm?


This is tougher. Of course there is no practical field test for drug purity when that drug is made in uncontrolled circumstances. This, of course, would argue for "medicinal" heroin or meth. The problem with this is not about condoning behavior as a physician does not believe an addict is "naughty", he believes he/she is ill. So the correct action for the physician is to attempt to cure the illness. So let me ask you. Does the physician give this patient better heroin or does he give them treatment for addiction?

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that your idea is necessarily a bad one. On the contrary. I work with homeless people every week. Many are addicted to opiates, meth, or benzodiazepines (rarely). The issue of drug purity is HUGE. Take the case of spice....


At one time what is called spice was a mild synthetic cannabinoid and while more dangerous than you might think, not excessively so. What we are seeing now is "street spice" that is (and I am not making this up) dried leaves sprayed with insecticide. The effect of this is catastrophic. Not a week goes by that we don't find someone in complete collapse, near death, often suffering severe organ failure (the shit just aces the kidneys) and have to haul them off to the hospital to spend time on life support. So what do we do? Well one thing we do is highly encourage them to use pot rather than spice. The problem is that pot is a bunch more expensive. This encouragement is not far from prescribing, is it. So here are medical people advocating the use of an illegal drug. Hmmm.

Another one. Did you know that meth cookers have their own recipes? Some (many) are throwing lithium battery parts into the stew. Care to imagine what the effects of chronic lithium overdose are? Not pretty. But imagine a person taking a prescription lithium dose for a mental condition and then using meth cooked with lithium. They are, to use a highly technical medical term, well and truly fucked. Or we could discuss the recurrence of "phossy jaw" because these sub-human meth cookers like to throw matches and strikers from highway flares into the mix. Seen it.

So it is a real dilemma for medical people. What do you do? Being close to many people who use heroin and meth, I could be tempted to support giving them a "clean" source of these drugs. I like them, value their friendship and trust, and want them not to die. The problem is that even with the clean source, both of these drugs are still death on the installment plan. So....first do no harm to your patient. It is a tough and ugly call and one with which I and my associates struggle all of the time.

(Remember that although I am involved in emergency and direct patient care with homeless people I am a public health type not a physician. I have medical training and treat minor illnesses and injuries for these patients, almost always working under the supervision of a primary care provider. From a public health perspective I can tell you that this is a subject for frequent and spirited debate. I have tried to give you an idea of how that debate shakes out. Suffice it to say that there are a great many public heath types who come down on the other side of the issue and advocate for greater access to "better" drugs.)
User avatar
By Hong Wu
#14624509
http://sputniknews.com/asia/20151114/10 ... imals.html
Just after proposing a prison island for drug convicts surrounded by the most ferocious crocodiles, Indonesia's anti-drug chief, apparently inspired by Crocodile Dundee movie, went further on Friday and suggested that tigers and piranhas could help to guard prisoners.

In the face of Indonesia's corrupt prison system, the National Narcotics Agency chief Budi Waseso is not afraid to sound odd and introduce severe measures, explaining that imprisoned drug dealers could not bribe crocodiles to escape from a life sentence.

Media cited Waseso as saying that he had already obtained two crocodiles from a farm to study their power and aggression and may ultimately put as many as 1,000 in place to keep convicts from escaping.

Indonesia is awesome. I would have considered moving there if I could handle the constant heat. There are liberal people saying that their war on drugs will fail. Well, the Taliban's didn't fail (until we started blowing them up). It's hard to lose when you put crocodiles, piranhas and tigers on your side. This is a historic fact.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14624866
Truth To Power wrote:No, that's objectively false and absurd. The state is not an entity with will or consciousness. It is an institution created and maintained by people, and if it doesn't do its job, they change it or get rid of it.

[prohibition]It was a massive and catastrophic failure, and that fact is known to everyone who is familiar with the facts.

? I'll assume that was a joke, as no one over the age of 10 could possibly believe it.

Because cocaine is much more dangerous, and people (with some notable exceptions) are not stupid.

At aggravating the problem of addiction by adding on crime.

It does, and any other addiction, too. People smoke tobacco. People eat junk food. People drink alcohol. People impoverish themselves by gambling. When I went to university, lots of people flunked out of first year because they played bridge instead of studying. In Germany, thousands of students flunked out when "Settlers of Catan" was a craze there, because they played Settlers instead of studying. So what? As long as they don't drive drunk, and their taxes pay for the extra costs they impose on society, what gives YOU the right to control THEIR addictive behavior?

Flat wrong.

Nope. Consumption is the ultimate purpose of all economic activity, and many kinds of consumption do NOT contribute to survival, quite the contrary.

Nope. Flat wrong AGAIN. Not as long as it isn't prohibited. It's too easy to add to the supply if the price gets too high.

Wrong again. Farmers are far from being the only source of food. They are just the CHEAPEST source, because that is their profession.

No, they would not, because they are not stupid. Only deeply stupid people -- socialists, communists, etc. -- seek to kill those who provide them with necessities of life.

Flat false. Food was cheap before there was ever any such thing as politics, and it is cheap in places where politics is irrelevant.

Flat false. Farm subsidies exist for one reason and one reason only: to give unearned wealth to the owners of farmland at taxpayer expense.

Fact which you cannot refute.

No, I did not. I said that prohibition's attempt to reduce supply raises prices and costs of production.

That is indisputable.

<sigh> Which just proves how little you know of business and economics. If their products were prohibited, they would be in competition with ruthless, violent killers, like other purveyors of illegal drugs, not with fellow businessmen. Dodging bullets is not on their agenda.

NO, it is NOT.

Fact.

There is more to economics than that, but there is no economics WITHOUT that.

No. I identified the fact that a new addict is effectively a captive market for his supplier until he acquires the street smarts to figure out who is trustworthy.

It's a temporary situation that decays as the new user becomes a more experienced and sophisticated user.

It is definitely not an open market, as you know very well.

Your strawman is not an argument, sorry.

It's not a good thing, because it creates a profit opportunity for criminals and places the addict in an even worse position than if he could get his dangerous addictive poison for a lower price, and in known purity and strength.

Your claims continue to be anti-logical garbage.

No, I am objectively correct, and you are objectively wrong, as every single large-scale, scientifically credible study of drug policy has found. Every single one, starting with the British India Hemp Drugs Commission of 1894.

No, it is not. Your claims are false and absurd. Portugal legalized all drugs, and their drug problem has largely gone away.

And the one that caused by far the most problems was... alcohol.

No, they most certainly did not.

The price was already high enough to attract criminals. And you saw what happened when they tried to corner the market, right?

Street dealers have competition for the BUYERS. They DON'T have to compete with actual pharmaceutical companies, who could undercut them by an order of magnitude.
Which you would do well to heed...

No, you did not.

Fact which you have offered no evidence whatever against.

<yawn> Logic isn't exactly your strong suit, is it?

Restatement of a fact that refutes the opposing claim is just as much proof that that claim is false the second time as the first time.

Oh, really? So before there were any state-granted monopolies, water was expensive...?

ROTFLMAO!!!

Stick a fork in yourself, chum. You are done.

False and absurd.
I'm actually arguing with someone who thinks it is a state monopoly on water that makes it cheap.

Incredible.

What do you think all the fish do, with no state monopoly to make their water cheap enough for them to afford, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

ROTFLMAO!!!


The state (like every actual thing in reality) exists to perpetuate its existence. States which don't will cease to exist. In the long run, nature selects for those states that were best at not being destroyed or radically changed. Whether they are conscious entities is irrelevant. Bacteria are not conscious entities, most animals aren't, and computer viruses are not either, yet they all resist being destroyed. People cannot easily change or destroy the state. Just try it and see what happens. The state is much more than the sum of its parts, just like a living organism.

The state can have no possible purpose if it cannot even sure its own existence. A state which does not exist can protect no one's rights. When the chips are down, states will always favor their own survival over the rights of citizens. This is simply the way it is. Existence over rights and liberties is an inescapable consequence of living in the real world. What I or what you personally want doesn't matter.

However, states are still material things made of stuff (mostly people), so the state requires that its people continue to exist and to continue to be productive and to support it. They can't do that if they are constantly doing stupid and unproductive things like consuming drugs. Resources and time that end up in the drug industry are resources and time that will not be spent more effectively, that is, in ways that help perpetuate the state.

So what gives me the right to control what people put in their bodies. Nothing. The state, nor anyone else, has no inherent right to anything. But it does have the might to stop people from doing things that harm it. That's all that matters.

The same goes for the economy. No one can consume anything if the economy does not exist. In the end, economic activity exists to ensure that economic activity exists. You are right to point out that many kinds of consumption do not contribute to the survival of anything. These are the kinds of consumption that I deem wasteful and that must be eliminated.

Food is extremely fundamental to the economy. Without it, nothing else could work. Starving people aren't going to waste their time making video games or whatever. If the price of food were to increase too much, the whole economy would be in danger of imminent collapse. Everyone stands to lose from high food prices. Your objection that supply could increase easily if the price gets too high is impotent, for the simple reaso that supply is not magic. If the producers of the food are determined and organized, they can restrict the supply of food in an attempt to hold society at ransom in exchange for higher prices. If this happens, where is the extra supply going to come out of? Your ass?

What would actually happen is that everyone would get together and force the farmers to give them the food they need. Suggesting otherwise is such a stupid idea that it's not even worth discussing, to be quite honest. To call people who are threatened with starvation "stupid" for killing those who are hoarding all the food is beyond ridiculous.

This truth is timeless. Food was always cheap because it always had to be cheap. Every society with millions of members must make sure that an overwhelming majority of that population be fed on a regular basis, for the simple reason that those societies which don't cease to exist in a very short amount of time. Farm subsidies are absolutely necessary, because they ensure that the price of food remains affordably low. This was as true in ancient Rome as it is in the modern era. Bread and circuses. Whether they are a form of "unearned" wealth is totally beside the point. The price of food is an inherently political matter, except maybe in Neverland, where you apparently live.

The same goes for water.

It is an objective fact that drugs, tobacco, and alcohol do not contribute in any way to the survival of the state. That's why they must be eliminated, period. Prohibition is the attempt by the state to prevent its resources from being wasted. The war on drugs has been enormously successful from my point of view, considering how unbelievably addictive some of them are, because the vast majority of people are not drug addicts.

I am not going to respond to your post line by line, and point by point, because as it is now, it is an utterly incoherent mess. Either learn to respond to your opponent's central point or don't bother. Because there's no chance in hell I am going to go through that whole thing again, trying to piece together your thoughts for you, and neither will anybody else.
#14625126
Truth To Power wrote:<huge, unanswered quote snipped>

What exactly was the point of quoting all that text when you knew you couldn't answer any of it?
Saeko wrote:The state (like every actual thing in reality) exists to perpetuate its existence.

No, that's just some sort of mystical Marxist garbage you just made up. To exist TO DO something requires INTENTION, and the state is an entity that is INCAPABLE of having INTENTIONS.

Learn correct English usage, or talk nonsense permanently. Your choice.
States which don't will cease to exist.

All physical entities will eventually cease to exist.
In the long run, nature selects for those states that were best at not being destroyed or radically changed.

That's a different claim, but an equally vacuous one. To be "best at not being destroyed" simply means to persist.
Whether they are conscious entities is irrelevant.

I didn't say "conscious." You are trying to shift the ground.
Bacteria are not conscious entities, most animals aren't, and computer viruses are not either, yet they all resist being destroyed.

States are not life forms. They are institutions.
People cannot easily change or destroy the state. Just try it and see what happens.

One person will certainly find it difficult, if others do not share his intention. If they do, it is much easier.
The state is much more than the sum of its parts, just like a living organism.

Yes, there are some analogies between states and organisms, but organisms are not institutions.
The state can have no possible purpose if it cannot even sure its own existence.

Claim lacking evidence (and imagination). Marx claims the state will wither away, having fulfilled its legitimate purpose of enabling communism.

It is certainly true that if the state's role is to perform some function or service, it won't be able to do that if it doesn't exist. But that doesn't mean its purpose is simply to exist. It just has to exist in order to serve its purpose. Two different things. Which you seem to be very confused about.
A state which does not exist can protect no one's rights. When the chips are down, states will always favor their own survival over the rights of citizens.

Wrong. Look at the history of ancient Athens.
This is simply the way it is.

No, it is not.
Existence over rights and liberties is an inescapable consequence of living in the real world.

No, it is not.
What I or what you personally want doesn't matter.

Yes, it does.
However, states are still material things made of stuff (mostly people), so the state requires that its people continue to exist and to continue to be productive and to support it.

Correct.
They can't do that if they are constantly doing stupid and unproductive things like consuming drugs.

Incorrect. People have consumed drugs in every single state that has ever existed. They have often consumed A LOT of drugs. One of the most successful states was the USA in the 19th century, and at that time, a substantial fraction of the adult male population was drunk most of the time.
Resources and time that end up in the drug industry are resources and time that will not be spent more effectively, that is, in ways that help perpetuate the state.

How do you know using drugs doesn't help perpetuate the state?
So what gives me the right to control what people put in their bodies. Nothing. The state, nor anyone else, has no inherent right to anything. But it does have the might to stop people from doing things that harm it. That's all that matters.

Prohibition harms the state more than drug use.

You never thought of that, did you? But it's obviously true, as you can see by the threat of anarchy in Mexico, and what happened in Colombia.
The same goes for the economy. No one can consume anything if the economy does not exist. In the end, economic activity exists to ensure that economic activity exists.

Absurd.
You are right to point out that many kinds of consumption do not contribute to the survival of anything. These are the kinds of consumption that I deem wasteful and that must be eliminated.

But you have no basis for that belief. In most cases, you have no way of knowing if any given kind of consumption is wasteful or useful. People who are addicted to nicotine die younger, but they work harder and think faster.
Food is extremely fundamental to the economy. Without it, nothing else could work. Starving people aren't going to waste their time making video games or whatever.

Well, starving people go to church -- they often insist on it -- so I think it's premature to say they won't waste their time on other pointless activities.
If the price of food were to increase too much, the whole economy would be in danger of imminent collapse. Everyone stands to lose from high food prices.

Except food producers.
Your objection that supply could increase easily if the price gets too high is impotent, for the simple reaso that supply is not magic.

That's an irrelevancy, not a reason.
If the producers of the food are determined and organized, they can restrict the supply of food in an attempt to hold society at ransom in exchange for higher prices.

Not by just declining to produce food, they can't. But if they go farther, and stop OTHER people from producing food, then there is nothing special about their being food producers. ANYONE can hold society to ransom if they have the intention and ability to abrogate others' rights. The truck drivers' union can do it if they have the will to just block traffic.
If this happens, where is the extra supply going to come out of? Your ass?

It can be imported, or people can produce it themselves. You would be surprised at how little greenhouse space is needed to feed a person.

It seems to me you might not have had the experience of hunting, gathering, or growing your own food, and don't understand what is involved. I have, and while it is not a very efficient or easy process, it can certainly be done. Our remote ancestors did it for millions of years.
What would actually happen is that everyone would get together and force the farmers to give them the food they need.

No, that is incorrect. You can't force farmers to give you food they have not produced. You seem to be very unclear on elementary logic points like that.
Suggesting otherwise is such a stupid idea that it's not even worth discussing, to be quite honest.

No, the stupid idea here is the idea that farmers could all agree not to sell food they've grown. You clearly haven't the slightest understanding of farming or food production. Where do you think the farmers are going to store all that food?

You didn't think of that, did you?
To call people who are threatened with starvation "stupid" for killing those who are hoarding all the food is beyond ridiculous.

<sigh> If you want eggs, is it stupid to kill the chickens who are hoarding them all?
This truth is timeless.

It's not truth, it's nonsense.
Food was always cheap because it always had to be cheap.

Nonsense. Food DOESN'T have to be cheap, and has sometimes been expensive. It's only cheap in advanced capitalist countries because in a market economy, it is pretty easy -- and can be quite profitable -- to produce a lot more of it than people want to eat.
Every society with millions of members must make sure that an overwhelming majority of that population be fed on a regular basis, for the simple reason that those societies which don't cease to exist in a very short amount of time.

Irrelevant. Those people are quite capable of obtaining food.
Farm subsidies are absolutely necessary, because they ensure that the price of food remains affordably low.

Garbage. Farm subsidies just shovel money into the pockets of those who own farmland, and food is often cheaper in countries where such subsidies are minimal or non-existent.
This was as true in ancient Rome as it is in the modern era. Bread and circuses.

Your ignorance of history is showing. The Roman bread distribution system was a subsidy to those who owned land near the bread distribution depots, where rents were far higher than the level at more distant locations. The Romans started out by giving away enough bread for people to live on, but soon found the people were just as poor and hungry as before -- because their RENTS had gone up to compensate. They doubled and then tripled the bread allowance, and it made no difference: the poor's landlords just took it all in increased rent.
Whether they are a form of "unearned" wealth is totally beside the point.

Wrong. It is very much the point.
The price of food is an inherently political matter, except maybe in Neverland, where you apparently live.

Lots of things that you don't understand are political. That doesn't mean you understand them.
The same goes for water.

LOL!! How have all the fish survived without government monopoly water?
It is an objective fact that drugs, tobacco, and alcohol do not contribute in any way to the survival of the state.

No, it most certainly is not. It is your OPINION, and a particularly shallow, ill-considered, and uninformed one.

You haven't even bothered to consider the possibility that drug prohibition is a bigger threat to the state than drug use.
That's why they must be eliminated, period.

Nonsense, period.
Prohibition is the attempt by the state to prevent its resources from being wasted.

By wasting an order of magnitude more...?
The war on drugs has been enormously successful from my point of view,

I.e., gazing firmly at your navel....
considering how unbelievably addictive some of them are, because the vast majority of people are not drug addicts.

? ROTFLMAO!!!

The vast majority weren't drug addicts when they were all legal, either.

HELLO??? Do you have ANY UNDERSTANDING OF LOGIC AT ALL?
I am not going to respond to your post line by line, and point by point, because as it is now, it is an utterly incoherent mess.

No it isn't. It is very cogent, logical, and clear. You just can't refute any of it.
Either learn to respond to your opponent's central point or don't bother.

I have demolished your central point, and all the peripheral ones, too.
Because there's no chance in hell I am going to go through that whole thing again, trying to piece together your thoughts for you, and neither will anybody else.

Anyone can read my post, and see that you have been comprehensively and conclusively pwned.
User avatar
By Hong Wu
#14625227
Social liberalism is dumb. How can any ideology expect me to be in brotherhood with complete strangers if I'm not in brotherhood with my own flesh and blood? Talk about selfish. Build a successful family before you start telling other people how to get along with strangers. A crime can only be "victimless" when we don't care about each other.
By mikema63
#14625289
Talk about spreading a victimization mentality, literally everybody is a victim whenever someone takes drugs?

You people like to claim the left cultivates victim hood.
User avatar
By Hong Wu
#14625351
You are using the right wing definition of it to make your argument. Now you are trying semantics but people understand the concept.
User avatar
By Drlee
#14625366
No, that is incorrect. You can't force farmers to give you food they have not produced. You seem to be very unclear on elementary logic points like that.


You know, it is not necessary for you to be insulting on every point you make. It does not contribute to the debate and it makes you look a tad foolish. But look at what you posted.

No, that is incorrect. You can't force farmers to give you food they have not produced. You seem to be very unclear on elementary logic points like that.


This is not an argument. The fact is that a state CAN force farmers to produce food. It has been done since the beginning of time. (Google serfdom in Russia for a quick example. Or slavery in the US for a more recent one.) So you descended into irrelevancy. IF YOU wanted to make this point:

Not by just declining to produce food, they can't. But if they go farther, and stop OTHER people from producing food, then there is nothing special about their being food producers. ANYONE can hold society to ransom if they have the intention and ability to abrogate others' rights. The truck drivers' union can do it if they have the will to just block traffic.


Rather than insult someone?

But you see, "anyone" can't hold society ransom, can they? What do we have armies, police and, if necessary vigilantes and militia for? Insurrection can and throughout history has been put down. I totally get the point that farmers cease to be farmers when they cease to farm. But their liberty to do that or to prevent people from doing that is not a foregone conclusion. Is it.

It can be imported, or people can produce it themselves. You would be surprised at how little greenhouse space is needed to feed a person.

It seems to me you might not have had the experience of hunting, gathering, or growing your own food, and don't understand what is involved. I have, and while it is not a very efficient or easy process, it can certainly be done. Our remote ancestors did it for millions of years.


As you said, it is not very efficient or easy. Certainly the idea that people can hunt for meat is absurd. There are not enough game animals in North America to feed our population for very long at all. We are not guessing about this. We have historical data. In 1930 it is estimated that the white tail deer population in the US was about 300,000. Why? Primarily because they were hunted excessively (though increased natural predation was somewhat greater then too.) In 1930 the US population was 122 million mostly rural folks. Today it is 322 million far more urban folks. SO. At least as far as animal protein is concerned, we can't do the "hunting" part of hunting and gathering for very long.

How about the gathering part. Well we can't do that either. There is not enough edible wild biomass to feed 322 million people.

Could they raise their own food?

Look at this:
[url]
http://www.organicgardening.com/learn-a ... s?page=0,0[/url]

Until you refute this consider that a family of four would require 25,000 square feet of space to raise their food. But at even 1/10th of this it can't be done in an urban environment.

If raising subsistence levels of food were doable as an individual practice among large groups of people starvation would not exist in our world. Particularly in rural populations. IF YOU had been "involved" in this you would be familiar with the basics. It would appear you are not. Getting enough salad from a greenhouse is a far-cry from feeding a family. Shooting a deer once a year is not the same as "hunting and gathering".

If you want eggs, is it stupid to kill the chickens who are hoarding them all?


If your family is starving it is not stupid to eat them however.

Garbage. Farm subsidies just shovel money into the pockets of those who own farmland, and food is often cheaper in countries where such subsidies are minimal or non-existent.


Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

But. Even though descent into Latin is always perilous, I could also post....duh?


Irrelevant. Those people are quite capable of obtaining food.


What are you saying here? Surely you are not saying that "those people" could exist absent farmers. The very notion would be preposterous. Are you saying that absent "government" people would figure out how to feed each other? Equally without historical precedent. We have no examples of societies existing without some form of government.

The Romans started out by giving away enough bread for people to live on, but soon found the people were just as poor and hungry as before -- because their RENTS had gone up to compensate. They doubled and then tripled the bread allowance, and it made no difference: the poor's landlords just took it all in increased rent


You are fallaciously arguing a point not in dispute. Actually you both are wrong. Farm subsidies are NOT absolutely necessary, not because of the risk of social unrest or the vagaries of market based systems. It is quite possible, and I can give you any number of modern and historical examples, for a government to survive in the face of widespread famine and or economic starvation. While it is preferable to most governments to have the people fed and entertained it is not in any absolute sense necessary.

A crime can only be "victimless" when we don't care about each other.


Though our care for each other could be misplaced (such as caring what religion one practices) this is a reasonable point WRT some illegal drugs.
#14626503
No, that is incorrect. You can't force farmers to give you food they have not produced. You seem to be very unclear on elementary logic points like that.

Drlee wrote:You know, it is not necessary for you to be insulting on every point you make.

When someone's "argument" consists of straight-faced absurdity, it is useful to remind them of the fact.
It does not contribute to the debate and it makes you look a tad foolish.

In your opinion.
But look at what you posted.

No, that is incorrect. You can't force farmers to give you food they have not produced. You seem to be very unclear on elementary logic points like that.

This is not an argument.

Yes, it most certainly is.
The fact is that a state CAN force farmers to produce food.

No, it can't, if they don't want to produce food. Oh, it can find ways to compel a few recalcitrants, but if the farmers decided en masse not to grow food, there would be no way to compel them. They'd just "farm" in such a way as to produce no food.
It has been done since the beginning of time.

Not with people who didn't want to produce food.
(Google serfdom in Russia for a quick example.

Those were people who wanted to produce food. They just didn't want to have it stolen.
Or slavery in the US for a more recent one.)

That was compulsion by individuals, not the state.
So you descended into irrelevancy.

No, my statement was correct, relevant, and refuted his claim.
But you see, "anyone" can't hold society ransom, can they?

They can if they have the will to do so.
What do we have armies, police and, if necessary vigilantes and militia for?

To preserve the peace.
Insurrection can and throughout history has been put down.

Ah, but insurrection is a completely different phenomenon from non-production.
I totally get the point that farmers cease to be farmers when they cease to farm. But their liberty to do that or to prevent people from doing that is not a foregone conclusion. Is it.

Their capacity to just not produce is a foregone conclusion. Their ability to stop others from producing is a different matter: it is the point at issue. If the farmers can prevent others from producing food, then they can hold society to ransom. If not, then those others can produce food for themselves.
It seems to me you might not have had the experience of hunting, gathering, or growing your own food, and don't understand what is involved. I have, and while it is not a very efficient or easy process, it can certainly be done. Our remote ancestors did it for millions of years.

As you said, it is not very efficient or easy. Certainly the idea that people can hunt for meat is absurd.

No, it is not. Lots of people do it.
There are not enough game animals in North America to feed our population for very long at all.

Game animals? The subject was FOOD. People who want to eat are not looking for trophy bucks. Eliminate the predators, and you might be surprised at how much meat can be extracted from an acre of woodland in a year.
At least as far as animal protein is concerned, we can't do the "hunting" part of hunting and gathering for very long.

Sure we can. Just go lower on the food chain. If you eliminate the predators, you can eat their prey. If you eliminate the herbivores, you can eat the plants.
How about the gathering part. Well we can't do that either. There is not enough edible wild biomass to feed 322 million people.

Not wild biomass, because it supports too many animals. People who need food aren't going to leave it wild for animals to eat.
Look at this:
http://www.organicgardening.com/learn-and-grow/row-covers?page=0,0
Until you refute this consider that a family of four would require 25,000 square feet of space to raise their food. But at even 1/10th of this it can't be done in an urban environment.

It's true that high-density urban populations can't be supported without intensive agriculture and a well-tuned transportation system. But look at what happens in places where the system is destroyed, like Iraq or Syria. People still manage to get fed.
If raising subsistence levels of food were doable as an individual practice among large groups of people starvation would not exist in our world.

Wrong. Starvation exists because people are PREVENTED from exercising their liberty to grow their own food, especially by the institution of private property in land. This is the key point we have been getting to: if the farmers can STOP OTHER PEOPLE FROM USING THE LAND TO GROW THEIR OWN FOOD, then yes, they can hold society to ransom just as landowners have historically always done. But if they can't, then people will be at liberty to feed themselves one way or another. Obviously, most would need a crash course to manage, but it could be done.
Particularly in rural populations. IF YOU had been "involved" in this you would be familiar with the basics. It would appear you are not.

Oh, I am very familiar with the basics.
Getting enough salad from a greenhouse is a far-cry from feeding a family.

With higher temperatures and CO2 as well as better pest control, a greenhouse can be an order of magnitude more productive per area than open-field agriculture.
Shooting a deer once a year is not the same as "hunting and gathering".

I agree that typical hunters are not a viable model for feeding a large population.
If you want eggs, is it stupid to kill the chickens who are hoarding them all?

If your family is starving it is not stupid to eat them however.

Not eating your capital is a basic survival skill, and those who couldn't manage to learn it perished.
Garbage. Farm subsidies just shovel money into the pockets of those who own farmland, and food is often cheaper in countries where such subsidies are minimal or non-existent.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

LOL! There is a clear line of economic reasoning showing why food is cheaper without subsidies.
Irrelevant. Those people are quite capable of obtaining food.

What are you saying here? Surely you are not saying that "those people" could exist absent farmers. The very notion would be preposterous.

It's not preposterous in the least. Look at what happens when war or other calamities cut people off from farm production.
Are you saying that absent "government" people would figure out how to feed each other? Equally without historical precedent.

OTC, we can see it in action in places like Somalia.
We have no examples of societies existing without some form of government.

Government arises to administer possession and use of land. Hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding societies that do not have permanent land tenure can typically do without it. They have a social structure, of course, but often no government per se.
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14650395
I just discovered a couple of interesting articles about drug prohibition and I'd be interested to hear Dr Lee's response if he has the time. I'll post some highlights.

The Guardian Feb 2001 wrote:Until the early 1970s, Britain was a haven of enlightenment: every doctor in the country had the right to prescribe heroin for the welfare of patients. This reflected the idea, powerfully proposed by the Rolleston Committee in 1926, that drug use should be seen as a problem which needed help, not as a sin which needed punishment. There were fewer than 500 addicts in the country, most of them musicians or Chinese. With a clean, legal supply of their drug, they remained healthy and were able to live normal lives. Then three London doctors were caught selling inflated prescriptions; there was a moral panic; and Britain's resistance to prohibition started to crumble under political pressure, some of it from the United States which was already committed to imposing a global policy of prohibition.

[...]

Since then, it has emerged that the government's favourite heroin substitute, methadone, is more addictive than heroin and also more likely to cause fatal overdose. In a detailed study, 'Methadone and Heroin, an exercise in medical scepticism', Dr Ben Goldacre found that: "Methadone is a more dangerous drug than heroin, and causes more deaths than even adulterated street heroin". A study by Dr Russell Newcombe, senior lecturer at John Moores University, Liverpool found that methadone was four times more likely than heroin to cause fatal overdose. And yet - for entirely political reasons - this is the drug which the government insists be prescribed to heroin addicts.
http://www.flatearthnews.net/footnotes- ... s-drug-war

The Guardian Feb 2001 wrote:Start with the allegation that heroin damages the minds and bodies of those who use it, and consider the biggest study of opiate use ever conducted, on 861 patients at Philadelphia General Hospital in the 1920s. It concluded that they suffered no physical harm of any kind. Their weight, skin condition and dental health were all unaffected. 'There is no evidence of change in the circulatory, hepatic, renal or endocrine functions. When it is considered that some of these subjects had been addicted for at least five years, some of them for as long as twenty years, these negative observations are highly significant.'

Check with Martindale, the standard medical reference book, which records that heroin is used for the control of severe pain in children and adults, including the frail, the elderly and women in labour. It is even injected into premature babies who are recovering from operations. Martindale records no sign of these patients being damaged or morally degraded or becoming criminally deviant or simply insane. It records instead that, so far as harm is concerned, there can be problems with nausea and constipation.

Or go back to the history of 'therapeutic addicts' who became addicted to morphine after operations and who were given a clean supply for as long as their addiction lasted. Enid Bagnold, for example, who wrote the delightful children's novel, National Velvet, was what our politicians now would call 'a junkie', who was prescribed morphine after a hip operation and then spent twelve years injecting up to 350 mgs a day. Enid never - as far as history records - mugged a single person or lost her 'herd instinct', but died quietly in bed at the age of 91. Opiate addiction was once so common among soldiers in Europe and the United States who had undergone battlefield surgery that it was known as 'the soldiers' disease'. They spent years on a legal supply of the drug - and it did them no damage.

We cannot find any medical research from any source which will support the international governmental contention that heroin harms the body or mind of its users. Nor can we find any trace of our government or the American government or any other ever presenting or referring to any credible version of any such research. On the contrary, all of the available research agrees that, so far as harm is concerned, heroin is likely to cause some nausea and possibly severe constipation and that is all. In the words of a 1965 New York study by Dr Richard Brotman: "Medical knowledge has long since laid to rest the myth that opiates observably harm the body." Peanut butter, cream and sugar, for example, are all far more likely to damage the health of their users.

Now, move on to the allegation that heroin kills its users. The evidence is clear:
you can fatally overdose on heroin. But the evidence is equally clear, that - contrary to the claims of politicians - it is not particularly easy to do so. Opiates tend to suppress breathing, and doctors who prescribe them for pain relief take advantage of this to help patients with lung problems. But the surprising truth is that, in order to use opiates to suppress breathing to the point of death, you have to exceed the normal dose to an extreme degree. Heroin is ununusally safe, because - contrary to what those US congressmen were told in 1924 - the gap between a therapeutic dose and a fatal dose is unusually wide.

Listen, for example, to Dr Teresa Tate, who has prescribed heroin and morphine for 25 years, first as a cancer doctor and now as medical adviser to Marie Curie Cancer Care. We asked her to compare heroin with paracetomol, legally available without prescription. She told us: "I think that most doctors would tell you that paracetamol is actually quite a dangerous drug when used in overdose, it has a fixed upper limit for its total dose in 24 hours and if you exceed that, perhaps doubling it, you can certainly put yourself at great risk of liver failure and of death, whereas with diamorphine, should you double the dose that you normally were taking, I think the consequence would be to be sleepy for a while and quite possibly not much more than that and certainly no permanent damage as a result." Contrary to the loudly expressed view of so many politicians, this specialist of 25 years experience told us that when heroin is properly used by doctors, it is "a very safe drug".

Until the American prohibitionists closed him down in the 1920s, Dr Willis Butler ran a famous clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana for old soldiers and others who had become addicted to morphine after operations. Among his patients, he included four doctors, two church ministers, two retired judges, an attorney, an architect, a newspaper editor, a musician from the symphony orchestra, a printer, two glass blowers and the mother of the commissioner of police. None of them showed any ill effect from the years which they spent on Dr Butler's morphine. None of them died as a result of his prescriptions. And, as Dr Butler later recalled: "I never found one we could give an overdose to, even if we had wanted to. I saw one man take 12 grains intravenously at one time. He stood up and said, 'There, that's just fine,' and went on about his business."

These articles appear to contradict DrLee's earlier claim that prescribing recreational drugs is immoral and that he knows few doctors who would be willing to do so. Perhaps their opinions have been shaped by the propaganda of our age and they'd hold different opinions if certain drugs hadn't been demonised as inherently dangerous.

Dr Lee wrote:"First do no harm to your patient". This is one of the guiding principles to which virtually every doctor subscribes. What you are asking about is the possibility that doctors should be in the business of prescribing recreational drugs. And in doing so potentially do harm to their patient and put his family, friends, and neighbors at additional risk. I know few doctors who are willing to do such an unethical thing.
User avatar
By Drlee
#14650521
With all due respect to the Guardian these articles are preposterous. The very notion that Heroin is not a dangerous drug defies credulity. Where is there research? Do I really need to post statistics about heroin deaths? I can't think of a single credible source that would assert that self-administered OR physician administered heroin is inherently safe.

The assertions in your article are deliberate and cynical half-truths and outright deceptions.

We cannot find any medical research from any source which will support the international governmental contention that heroin harms the body or mind of its users.


Then you (the source) did not even bother to Google an answer. There is abundant research to prove that Heroin is harmful. Name your effect. Brain damage from cyanosis works for me. Dental problems are nothing. You can always gum your food. Extreme depression is nice and who doesn't miss that stuff you can't remember? Intellectual performance takes a huge hit but ignorance is bliss, isn't it? Then there is the slow death of the immune system. OF course overdoses are increasing. We have newly learned that overdose is situational to some extent. Then there are the usual dangers of opioid intoxication. Driving while nodding is really fun. All of these things carefully documented in innumerable studies.


Nor can we find any trace of our government or the American government or any other ever presenting or referring to any credible version of any such research. On the contrary, all of the available research agrees that, so far as harm is concerned, heroin is likely to cause some nausea and possibly severe constipation and that is all. In the words of a 1965 New York study by Dr Richard Brotman: "Medical knowledge has long since laid to rest the myth that opiates observably harm the body." Peanut butter, cream and sugar, for example, are all far more likely to damage the health of their users.


Every single piece of the above statement is patentlyly untrue.

So the thing is I don't really know how to answer this. It is so beyond absurd that it is not worth refuting every point individually. Here is what an epidemiologist would tell you. There are few things as carefully researched and well documented as the adverse effects of opioid drug abuse. Certainly under carefully controlled clinical situations it can be a wonderful tool in the hands of careful doctors. Move that careful use into the arena of recreational drug intoxication and you have done harm to your patient....and his family.....and the community.....and...

Now let us see who the first mental midget is who tries to say that alcohol is worse and therefor......
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14650555
Theses articles were published in February 2001 so they may not have had access to the studies you are thinking of, they also discuss heroin only and don't mention other drugs. The author argues that it is the black market that makes heroin use dangerous since addicts who accessed their heroin from doctors rarely suffered any ill effects whilst those who purchase heroin on the black market are regularly exposed to contaminants which the heroin is cut with or consume too much when the drug isn't cut. They inject the heroin since this provides better value for money than smoking it, cannot access a reliable supply of clean needles, and decline to seek assistance when they witness an overdose due to fear of arrest.

You keep mentioning the risk of driving whilst under the influence. Surely this applies to other intoxicants and implies that all recreational alcohol consumption should be banned too. Many medical professionals consider alcohol to be a hard drug and some even rank it as the most dangerous drug currently available. (LINK) Another study published by The Lancet found that if the criteria the UK uses to classify illegal drugs was applied to alcohol and tobacco they would be considered class A and class B drugs respectively. (LINK)
User avatar
By Drlee
#14650561
Well I asked this:

Now let us see who the first mental midget is who tries to say that alcohol is worse and therefor......


You have to own that one.

I am not going to argue the relative merits of two things fraught with danger. And smoking is worse than both. What is your point? Care to guess how many people die every year because of the smoke created by our electric power industry? You are trying to divert the argument. So shall we keep talking about heroin or do you want to talk about alcohol or the price of pig-iron in Japanese scrap yards? You criticize me for lumping opioids together than go off on some nonsense about alcohol. So to your posts about alcohol I will simply say that if you want to start a thread about tobacco and alcohol then do so. If you want to discuss heroin then let's do that. OK?


Theses articles were published in February 2001 so they may not have had access to the studies you are thinking of, they also discuss heroin only and don't mention other drugs.


The data about the dangers of heroin (and a wide variety of other opiates) is old and very well known.

First of all you did not carefully read their deliberately deceptive statements. Watch.

The author argues that it is the black market that makes heroin use dangerous since addicts who accessed their heroin from doctors rarely suffered any ill effects whilst those who purchase heroin on the black market are regularly exposed to contaminants which the heroin is cut with or consume too much when the drug isn't cut.


There were fewer than 500 addicts in the country, most of them musicians or Chinese. With a clean, legal supply of their drug, they remained healthy and were able to live normal lives.


Really. A sample size of 500 comprised only of these few who got legal prescription? You call that research. We have much larger numbers than that and have for years. And oh by the way, they didn't really get heroin. They got a similar drug.

Make no mistake. It is not contaminants which kill heroin addicts. It is the heroin. Sure they get HIV, Hepatitis, MERSA, Strep infections and a variety of other diseases because of dirty needles and some die. I treated a few of them for infections last Sunday. But when they die it is usually because of heroin. Now you seem to have the impression that there is some sort of maintenance dose of heroin. There is not. People who take opiates tend to take more and more to get the same effect. There is some evidence that those provided an unlimited source tend to max out at a very high dose. But at that dose they are not really functioning individuals. They are alive. That is about it.

Heroin use more than doubled among young adults ages 18–25 in the past decade.

More than 9 in 10 people who used heroin also used at least one other drug.

45% of people who used heroin were also addicted to prescription opioid painkillers.


Hmm. From opioid pain killers to heroin. Why? Because they could not get the opioid pain killers anymore. Why? Because they are soul-killing, body destroying, mind numbing drugs. Drugs with very specific purposes and safe ONLY when used properly.

What you are forgetting in this process is that you are asking severely intoxicated and addicted individuals to act consistently. You are asking them never to use that "other" drug with they are high. Never to increase their dose. And never to get better.
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14650635
You're being rude, combative and cherry picking what you want to respond to so I'm not interested in discussing this further.
User avatar
By Heinie
#14650637
Some countries are primitive in how they lock-up so many people for little or nothing. Moralizing windbags make crimes of small misdemeanors and choices others make and an inhumane police with the judiciary arrest and put people in prisons from their childhood. Their so-called judicial systems are completely broken and hypocritical. Shame on them.
User avatar
By Drlee
#14650641
AFAIK wrote:You're being rude, combative and cherry picking what you want to respond to so I'm not interested in discussing this further.


Nonsense.

You wanted to discuss heroin then went off on a tangent about alcohol after I warned against just that.

Your source is shit and wrong. I gave you better sources. I am happy to discuss any subject but utter nonsense gets dismissed out of hand.

Do what you want.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

Another resource of degenerates who want to watch […]

There are many ways to approach a construction si[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I disagree with this, but I also don't think &quo[…]

The actual argument (that the definition is being[…]