GM Thuggery

[jhwalker]

Found this quote -

"The sole condition which is required in order to succeed in centralizing the supreme power in a democratic community, is to love equality, or to get men to believe you love it. Thus the science of despotism, which was once so complex is simplified, and reduced . . . . to a single principle."
-- Alexis de Tocqueville

James, I only partly follow your reference when you say "too Darwinian." People can and do resist temptation; there are people who are able to indulge without addiction. And why would that be? At this stage of life believe less in free will and more in genetic determination. Tools exist that show two different brains react very differently to a substance (legal and illegal). Why? We don't know. But we know that some folks dabble with drugs and conclude that the high is not worth the low and the potential loss. To have a risk of loss, there has to be something to lose. Hopes, dreams, a future
Further, if addictive drugs were legal, and untaxed, they'd be cheap, eliminating the personal and societal dysfunctions that accompany illegality. I believe the dysfunction comes from a person being in an altered, unreal mental state, first.
In the late 1800s and on up until the first Food & Drug Act there were tens of thousands of opium and laudanum addicts who maintained themselves. People should be allowed to be self-destructive - fast cars, motorcycles, extreme sports, and couch surfing, for examples. Addictive and non-addictive illegal drugs are similar. After 40 years of the "war on drugs" it is now clear that the costs of enforcement, incarceration, fatherless families, and the many other side effects of illegality are too high.
Making addictive drugs readily, cheaply available without understanding and addressing the conditions that lead a person to choose to be disconnected and non-productive rather than productive feels like a prescription for genocide. I'm just a recovering stroke geezer, thinking out loud.
But I spent some intense time in the hard-core world, and pulled out of it by the grace of 'something' (maybe hopes and dreams, family ??) I'd talk to my hard-core drug friends about it, but they are dead or have disappeared -- men and women, across the board. I am clearly biased by those years.

I agree with you on police more than may appear from my comment; I just think that that rare bad apple might be deterred if he knew he had less civil and criminal immunity from the wrath of a jury than he presently enjoys. After all, the man on the street is told "if you're not committing a crime, whatdaya have to complain about."
Officers who have to make split-second life and death decisions bring their street experiences into their responses. While I hate the bad apples, to expect that a group of people who are willing and able to perform in an enforcement role, to have no bad apples and never screw up seems unrealistic to me.

And this will not be a long discussion. I'm playing the 'stroke card'. It is just too hard to think and write in my current condition.

[xbacksideslider]

James -

I won't let you claim "stroke" when you make so much sense.

[SonicVenum]

I agree about the stroke smoke screen. Typical sand-bagger.

About the drug topic. I don't think all drugs should be made readily available, and dirt cheap, in other words, inviting people to try anything and everything. I think simple decriminalization would go along way. Part of what keeps people in bad drug habits is the stigma and isolation involved with being a drug user, and the legal problems that come with it. I'm pretty sure I've mentioned the cocaine rat study before, but I'll do it again. Keep a rat in an empty cage with two water bottles, one plain water, one cocaine-laced water. The rat drinks the coke water until it dies. Put a rat in a cage with other rats, and plenty of rat activities to do, both bottles of water again, the rats leave the coke water alone, and just drink the regular one. I know that's not a 1:1 comparison to the human experience, but I bet it covers the basic gist of it. It seems most drug abuse stems from other, external issues (i.e. childhood, stresses of life, etc.), but throwing someone with issues into prison for a long time is hardly a way to help them.

[jhwalker]

I agree about the stroke smoke screen. Typical sand-bagger.

About the drug topic. I don't think all drugs should be made readily available, and dirt cheap, in other words, inviting people to try anything and everything. I think simple decriminalization would go along way. Part of what keeps people in bad drug habits is the stigma and isolation involved with being a drug user, and the legal problems that come with it. I'm pretty sure I've mentioned the cocaine rat study before, but I'll do it again. Keep a rat in an empty cage with two water bottles, one plain water, one cocaine-laced water. The rat drinks the coke water until it dies. Put a rat in a cage with other rats, and plenty of rat activities to do, both bottles of water again, the rats leave the coke water alone, and just drink the regular one. I know that's not a 1:1 comparison to the human experience, but I bet it covers the basic gist of it. It seems most drug abuse stems from other, external issues (i.e. childhood, stresses of life, etc.), but throwing someone with issues into prison for a long time is hardly a way to help them.

Another Darwinian, eh??? I will have to ponder more. Doesn't feel right...

[xbacksideslider]

There is no perfect solution, we don't know what would result from legalization; we do know that the present arrangement doesn't work. I say look to Prohibition, before, during, and after.

As for the police, George Soros funded/promoted Black Lives Matter so that wrecks their credibility. Even though I think that they do have a point, that point is greatly exaggerated. Can't cite the stats here and now but as I understand it, the numbers don't support the claims. That said, on principle, no person, be they me, you, or any public official should be immune from civil or criminal liability. We all should be concerned with the personal consequences of our bad conduct. The possibilities of shame, pain, and penalty deter.

[jhwalker]

There is no perfect solution, we don't know what would result from legalization; we do know that the present arrangement doesn't work. I say look to Prohibition, before, during, and after.

As for the police, George Soros funded/promoted Black Lives Matter so that wrecks their credibility. Even though I think that they do have a point, that point is greatly exaggerated. Can't cite the stats here and now but as I understand it, the numbers don't support the claims. That said, on principle, no person, be they me, you, or any public official should be immune from civil or criminal liability. We all should be concerned with the personal consequences of our bad conduct. The possibilities of shame, pain, and penalty deter.

shame and humiliation never stopped me

[jhwalker]

Once again, laspeedgarage is leading the nation to discussion...

https://www.pressreader.com/usa/los-ang ... 4025039827

[xbacksideslider]

That's a decent commentary. While it mentions government subsidies for pain relief, it fails to condemn that fact as a driver of the present problem. Sort of, government saying "here, you're in a lot of hurt, I'm here to help, oh, you're addicted now? . . . . OOPs! my bad, gee, now I have to pull it away, and . . . you are such a problem! we have to criminalize it now."


Then the article slides past the point that addiction that's cheap is a hell of a lot less of a problem than when its not.

There were millions of laudanum addicts in the late 19th century who got by, maintaining, while dealing with their underlying pains, because it was cheap. It was cheap because it was legal, broadly in demand, and the government kept its hands off.

[jhwalker]

[quote="xbacksideslider"]That's a decent commentary. While it mentions government subsidies for pain relief, it fails to condemn that fact as a driver of the present problem. Sort of, government saying "here, you're in a lot of hurt, I'm here to help, oh, you're addicted now? . . . . OOPs! my bad, gee, now I have to pull it away, and . . . you are such a problem! we have to criminalize it now."


Then the article slides past the point that addiction that's cheap is a hell of a lot less of a problem than when its not.

There were millions of laudanum addicts in the late 19th century who got by, maintaining, while dealing with their underlying pains, because it was cheap. It was cheap because it was legal, broadly in demand, and the government kept its hands off.[/quote

I never tried laudanum. Never did LSD - figured I was already crazy enuf. Never did PCP, crack, and other newer drugs. I do know that drugs cost me some time and money. My addict friends are all gone/missing. (I repeat myself) Having been in the world of addicts for a little while, I just can't believe making it easier for a person to be a drug addict is a solution to anything. Maybe the other solutions are harder. Hopes & dreams come to mind. I donno -- playing the stroke card again. Today has been a severe pain day -- and I will not take an Advil or Tylenol, just don't want to have that kind of solution.

[xbacksideslider]

Yeah, Im the same, don't take otc pain meds
And I have to admit that you speak from experience I don't have