dagblog - Comments for "Michael Phelps may have been on(to) something ... "

Because we have a significant

DF — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:03:00 +0000

Because we have a significant section of the voting public who would rather stay uninsured (or, worse still, insured but denied coverage on a per incident basis) than become "socialist". Like you Canuckistanis.

Think of them as the literal "better dead than Red" crowd.

Incidentally, I can also recommend this episode of Frontline. I thought it did a much better job, in shorter time, of examining what the rest of the developed world is doing about health-care.

My personal favorite is

DF — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:22:04 +0000

In reply to that's a good example of

My personal favorite is Christians who support capital punishment.

I think it's axiomatic that

DF — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:20:00 +0000

In reply to Well, your argument seems to

I think it's axiomatic that people get high. Laws or no laws. Some animals do, too.

So, the question is: As a society, how do we relate to this reality? Right now, we do largely through very ineffective prohibition. As I've noted, it's failed. Doesn't work. The whole aim of the completely bogus "war on drugs" is to eliminate supply. However, this never happens because of the inelastic demand for drugs. The harder you make it to get the drug, the more expensive it gets. The more expensive it gets, the more lucrative it gets for suppliers and, thus, the more risk they're willing to take on. It's a game you can't win, so I'd rather not play.

FWIW, I have friends and family that aren't here because of drugs, but these personal anecdotes aren't going to color my views on the subject. That's because I realize that they would have been better served by a society that would have treated them as someone who was sick, who was hurting inside emotionally until it manifested physically, and decided that, as a society, we ought to help them instead of criminalizing their pain. In a nutshell, that's what's wrong with how we relate to drugs. We let morally superior blowhards tell us what insufferably weak people these criminals are while they have their illegal housekeepers go on oxycontin runs in seedy motel parking lots.

Ain't that America? I've stated the above to conservative drug war proponents and been laughed at for it.

Speaking of hypocrisy, that's the real problem with the harm argument. Legalizing alcohol and not marijuana seems hypocritical and inconsistent on the basis assessing harm. Then you consider that we tried prohibiting alcohol, along with considering what I've mentioned previously, it seems downright crazy to think that we're dead set on spending billions upon billions to do the same thing with another substance that is arguably less harmful. Perhaps you don't find that compelling, but I do.

You mention upthread that you don't want people driving high or drunk, but these things are already illegal and people are still doing them anyway. Something else that we do that flies in the face of reality: When someone is arrested for DUI (at least here in CA), they are forced to attend mandatory AA meetings. Why? Because this is supposed to help people with their drinking problem. This sounds like a nice idea, but the AA success rates are laughably low. Oh, and it's a religious institution, so it's nice to be compelled by the state to attend meetings which force you to admit: A) That you actually don't have the will to fix the problem yourself! (this always astonishes me) and B) That the only way for you to get better is to let God help you! (though it isn't explained why he didn't help you not have a drinking problem in the first place or maybe why he didn't craft creation in such a way that getting drunk and driving cars into people wasn't even possible).

But I digress. Again, we put resources into a system that doesn't work. Most importantly, the reason it doesn't work is because it's constructed on ideas that can only appear rational if one is in denial of reality.

that's a good example of

Deadman — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:52:02 +0000

In reply to And there is a part of our

that's a good example of hypocrisy, O. one that for some reason bothers me even more are pro-choice folks who believe prostitution should be illegal.

And there is a part of our

Orlando — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:30:19 +0000

In reply to I'm not being obtuse at all.

And there is a part of our culture that is less familiar with and far more hostile to drugs than I am.

That's very true. Most of them are also hostile to safe and legal abortion, but scream and yell for less government intervention. Go figure.

(P.S. Not comparing you to them, rest assured.)

I'm not being obtuse at all.

Donal — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:22:01 +0000

In reply to I second DF's argument. Also,

I'm not being obtuse at all. Adults can make up their own minds, but I am against drugs, gambling and consumerism being thrust at me and my children, and I see hands off legalization as another step in the wrong direction. And there is a part of our culture that is less familiar with and far more hostile to drugs than I am.

I second DF's argument. Also,

Orlando — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:46:38 +0000

In reply to I would have no idea where to

I second DF's argument.

Also, Donal, I don't know how to get drugs either, sitting here today. But I'm pretty sure that if I wanted them tonight, I could head for a bar, ask a few questions, and be on my way. I think you know that you could too and you're being just a tad bit obtuse on purpose. The point is, if you want to take drugs, you can get them, legal or not. So why not stop spending money and other resources to try to impact the supply side (which is like trying to pick up individual grains of sand at the beach) and use the revenue from taxes to work to reduce demand?

btw, there's a lot of good,

Deadman — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:24:25 +0000

In reply to Again, the track record of

btw, there's a lot of good, conflicting research and stats (and yeah, DF, as I said earlier, people are going to take the stats that confimr their hypotheses and ignore the rest) on this page - http://www.wowessays.com/dbase/ad2/arn148.shtml - which is apparently off a service that helps students write school essays.

Again, the track record of

Deadman — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:57:00 +0000

In reply to I would have no idea where to

Again, the track record of countries trying legalization is mixed regarding usage. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes it goes down, sometimes it spikes at first and then falls. there's probably not a big enough sample size to accurately guage how legalization would affect usage here.

But Donal, I really feel you're missing the point here. Whether or not you know how to get ahold of drugs or not, most people in America do know how to get ahold of them, esp. those that want them.

All that money we're spending chasing dealers and users and incarcerating them could be spent on other areas (some likely on helping the addicted get help and some likely to increase prosecution of people who committ actual crimes like driving while under the influence) while billions of new tax revenue would flow into the public coffers.

We have laws on the books already that address crimes you often see occur by drug users and dealers. Most of those crimes by the way would be greatly reduced when you take away the huge profit motive and black market activities associated buying and selling an illegal substance.

We shouldn't compose our laws based on the assumption that some people may abuse a substance that in small quantities is not particularly harmful. you can obviously take that to extremes since there are many things in life that are addictive but that the vast majority of people enjoy in moderation.

I would have no idea where to

Donal — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:57:56 +0000

In reply to I want to be protected from

I would have no idea where to get drugs.