Jump to content

Drain the swamp - Cocaine, Honduras and the Trump administration


hasher

Recommended Posts

Well, it seems to have suddenly come to light during the Trump administration after years of ignoring it.

Another job well done and a reason to beef up border security.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Well, it seems to have suddenly come to light during the Trump administration after years of ignoring it.

Another job well done and a reason to beef up border security.

 

Yes the newspaper, website, reveals real news.  Do you accept truth?

It was little don's chief of staff on the scene.

Connect the dots.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Another job well done and a reason to beef up border security.

Like the wall? And jailing children? This is "tons" of drugs. It flies into Ohio on 747's. It comes to Newark in uninspected shipping containers. Roars thru Texas border checkpoints in railcars. All this pretend "border security" is just a drama for the masses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Well, it seems to have suddenly come to light during the Trump administration

A document filed by prosecutors on Tuesday in the Southern District of New York mentions Hernández as part of a group of individuals investigated by the DEA since about 2013

And who put this Hernandez guy in charge anyway?

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, El Boracho said:

Like the wall? And jailing children? This is "tons" of drugs. It flies into Ohio on 747's. It comes to Newark in uninspected shipping containers. Roars thru Texas border checkpoints in railcars. All this pretend "border security" is just a drama for the masses.

That's all part of border security, isn't it?  WHy are you pretending there  is no drug traffic across our southern border or flights into Florida?  Ohio and Newark aren't the only points of entry.  Here is a nice list of the 20 largest drug hauls in History (although it may be dated).  https://moneyinc.com/the-20-largest-drugs-seizures-in-world-history/

But all you can see is a wall and TRUMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Discuss the issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

That's all part of border security, isn't it?  WHy are you pretending there  is no drug traffic across our southern border or flights into Florida?  Ohio and Newark aren't the only points of entry.  Here is a nice list of the 20 largest drug hauls in History (although it may be dated).  https://moneyinc.com/the-20-largest-drugs-seizures-in-world-history/

But all you can see is a wall and TRUMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Discuss the issue.

Those locations were examples. The minuscule amount of drugs interdicted cannot be extrapolated to show how most is smuggled.

However comparing the Wall to the War on Drugs is useful. Two absolute expensive failures. One proven the other incipient.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hasher said:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/31/honduras-president-dea-investigation-1348514

I know some of us would like to see legalization of drugs.  But there are drugs that should not flood our society.

They flood because of the demand. For what we spend in the "war" on drugs we could fund treatment centers and have lots of $$ left over for, I don't know, stuff that would motivate people to not seek drug escapism?

Prohibition! oh yeah, that didn't work either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, d'ranger said:

They flood because of the demand. For what we spend in the "war" on drugs we could fund treatment centers and have lots of $$ left over for, I don't know, stuff that would motivate people to not seek drug escapism?

Prohibition! oh yeah, that didn't work either.

I don't know how to fix it.  Thankfully, my children don't indulge.  

I don't know what else to say.  It is a scourge upon humanity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, hasher said:

 

 It is a scourge upon humanity.

Nope, it ain't.  It's just another thing to put in your body, and drugs have literally been a part of human society since there was a human society.  Not only that, some drugs may in part be responsible for human society.  

The scourge is the lack of education and transparency in all of it, which comes entirely from prohibition advocates who early on figured out that demonizing drug users was the way to solve their problems, guaranteeing that no one actually worked to address the real issues.  The die was cast early on that the paid-for legislators and the corporate overseers (whether Hearst, McCarthy, private prison vendors, or big pharma) had to destroy and dehumanize drug users rather than regulate,  educate, treat, and provide transparency. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hasher said:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/31/honduras-president-dea-investigation-1348514

I know some of us would like to see legalization of drugs.  But there are drugs that should not flood our society.

They are already flooding your society and have been for decades.

Time America woke up and tried a different strategy.

In case you missed it almost 100 years ago, Prohibition was repealed because the consequences of it were worse than the booze.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Well, it seems to have suddenly come to light during the Trump administration after years of ignoring it.

Another job well done and a reason to beef up border security.

 

And once again you win "Stupidest Post of the Day".

And it's only morning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SloopJonB said:

They are already flooding your society and have been for decades.

Time America woke up and tried a different strategy.

In case you missed it almost 100 years ago, Prohibition was repealed because the consequences of it were worse than the booze.

It is an obvious issue.

I know the solution does not involve locking people in jail or prison.

There are more basic issues involved.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the drug problem is caused by the illegality of it rather than the drugs themselves.

Legalizing weed here and elsewhere has been a non-event in terms of societal impact - just for example.

Well, other than boring us to death with the constant chatter and news stories about it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Most of the drug problem is caused by the illegality of it rather than the drugs themselves.

Legalizing weed here and elsewhere has been a non-event in terms of societal impact - just for example.

Well, other than boring us to death with the constant chatter and news stories about it.

 

Actually, the emergency rooms and jails are overloaded with addicts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hasher said:

Actually, the emergency rooms and jails are overloaded with addicts.

I guess you missed the bit about the illegality of it.

It's not uncommon for medical practitioners to have productive lives while being addicted - because they don't have to dwell in the underworld and use street drugs.

Just for example.

It's not like it would be an experiment - It's been done in other countries and the problems and deaths declined dramatically.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

I guess you missed the bit about the illegality of it.

It's not uncommon for medical practitioners to have productive lives while being addicted - because they don't have to dwell in the underworld and use street drugs.

Just for example.

It's not like it would be an experiment - It's been done in other countries and the problems and deaths declined dramatically.

I do believe addiction to hard drugs is a problem.

Even Holmes may have had an issue, fictionally he did quite well.  Take it from there Sherlock. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hasher said:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/31/honduras-president-dea-investigation-1348514

I know some of us would like to see legalization of drugs.  But there are drugs that should not flood our society.

 

What am I missing here?  i saw no mention of the Trump administration in the linked article???

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, billy backstay said:

 

What am I missing here?  i saw no mention of the Trump administration in the linked article???

Hernández had especially curried favor with Gen. John Kelly who had led the U.S. military’s Southern Command and later became President Donald Trump’s chief of staff. Kelly advocated for continued U.S. support of Hernández’s government, noting their contributions to the war on drugs and progress in combatting corruption.

Read the article.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hasher said:

Hernández had especially curried favor with Gen. John Kelly who had led the U.S. military’s Southern Command and later became President Donald Trump’s chief of staff. Kelly advocated for continued U.S. support of Hernández’s government, noting their contributions to the war on drugs and progress in combatting corruption.

Read the article.

 

I skimmed it, and missed that bit....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, billy backstay said:

 

I skimmed it, and missed that bit....

No problem.  I'm just being a prick today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, kmacdonald said:

Buffy could come home knocked up and stoned out of her fucking gord and you wouldn't notice.

You speak of that which not you know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hasher said:

I do believe addiction to hard drugs is a problem.

Did someone say it wasn't?

Drinking too much is a problem too but only a moron would want Prohibition reinstated to deal with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hasher said:
4 hours ago, kmacdonald said:

Buffy could come home knocked up and stoned out of her fucking gord and you wouldn't notice.

You speak of that which not you know.

He's used to it, does it all the time

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

You all need to study the Opium Wars in China. Some drugs are worse than others and widespread easy access to opiates and opioids is enormously destructive to society, legal or not legal. Hopefully the Sackler family can roast in hell forever for their 21st century recreation of it. At least the US and UK in the 1800s were getting rich off *some other country's* misery  :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

“Why have U.S. officials — from the State Department to the White House to the Southern Command — continued for years now to celebrate, and pour security funding into, a government whose very topmost officials and security figures it has known were drug traffickers?” Dana Frank said.

OMG Dana. It's, like, tradition. Governments have been doing this for centuries!  Modern naivety is sometimes shocking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Not only that, some drugs may in part be responsible for human society. 

Do folks round here not chase links, or does everybody here just already know everything?  I had not heard the hypothesis before, Clean.  It's hard to explain exactly how, but I certainly think my thinking was changed - for the better - from some experimentation with mushrooms in my youth.  I know of folks who still take them, have heard of others for whom they are a psychological godsend, much as cannabis is for chemo and pain patients, and it's not impossible I might try some again. :P  

The argument of drug abstainers who advocate strict control against users who advocate freedom of choice reminds me of the way my brother-in-law once argued to a lippy teenager: "Listen kid, I've been nineteen.  You haven't been forty."  It is arguing from a relatively uninformed position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only effect the War on Drugs has had is to greatly increase the violence. That is what a war does. Opium was absolutely legal and available retail no so long ago in the USA. One can still get opium (or commercial synthetic substitutes) delivered to one's doorstep quicker than Tylenol. But it is expensive and comes from a dark and violent industry. Legalize it all and find a better solution. Big Pharma and self-righteous law-and-order prison-loving racist assholes are the true obstacles to a humane solution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate hearing bullets flying.

Life is nice to have, especially for your loved ones. 

Hard drugs do not work in that direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I should note that I also understand the dangers of addiction - to anything - including playing in virtual playgrounds with a bunch of Turing-experiments like y'all.  

I think government policy for involvement in drugs should be something like:
- if it just grows, it is pretty much none of your business.
- if it is processed and sold from something that grows, and is addictive (heroin, cocaine, crack...) you might want to do some regulation, public rehab, etc
- if it is some fully synthetic invention of BIgPharma, you better look very, very closely at what is going on... maybe throw some execs in jail.

I have seen plenty of the effects of the legal, doctor-prescribed, pharma-engineered (and many physically addictive!) substitutes for our natural drugs.  It's horrible, unconscionable.  Words fail me.  All the natural drugs should be legalized.  Everywhere.  Even "hard" ones.  Any other position is stupid and/or uninformed.  Illegality of hard drugs in particular often leads to violence that often escalates to war.  Maybe one has to have tried psilocybin in one's youth to see just how fucking obvious this is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bacq2bacq said:

I should note that I also understand the dangers of addiction - to anything - including playing in virtual playgrounds with a bunch of Turing-experiments like y'all.  

I think government policy for involvement in drugs should be something like:
- if it just grows, it is pretty much none of your business.
- if it is processed and sold from something that grows, and is addictive (heroin, cocaine, crack...) you might want to do some regulation, public rehab, etc
- if it is some fully synthetic invention of BIgPharma, you better look very, very closely at what is going on... maybe throw some execs in jail.

I have seen plenty of the effects of the legal, doctor-prescribed, pharma-engineered (and many physically addictive!) substitutes for our natural drugs.  It's horrible, unconscionable.  Words fail me.  All the natural drugs should be legalized.  Everywhere.  Even "hard" ones.  Any other position is stupid and/or uninformed.  Illegality of hard drugs in particular often leads to violence that often escalates to war.  Maybe one has to have tried psilocybin in one's youth to see just how fucking obvious this is.

Perhaps we disagree.  Let's sail.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, hasher said:

Hernández had especially curried favor with Gen. John Kelly who had led the U.S. military’s Southern Command and later became President Donald Trump’s chief of staff. Kelly advocated for continued U.S. support of Hernández’s government, noting their contributions to the war on drugs and progress in combatting corruption.

Read the article.

So, when he actually worked with Honduras instead of a calendar in the White House it was under Obama, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Legalizing weed here and elsewhere has been a non-event in terms of societal impact - just for example

Well except on my bike ride home. I more often ride though a bigger/smellier cloud of second hand smoke. Well except maybe on Fridays; that's about the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

The scourge is the lack of education and transparency in all of it, which comes entirely from prohibition advocates who early on figured out that demonizing drug users was the way to solve their problems, guaranteeing that no one actually worked to address the real issues.

CLEAN is right and that same behavior can be seen from advocates of any prohibition program.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, hasher said:

Debilitating addiction.

You mean like I've seen in alcoholics? Prohibition made that worse, not better. No one would ever bootleg alcohol-free beer. Only a legal market produces such things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, hasher said:

I do believe addiction to hard drugs is a problem.

I do believe it's a declining problem in Portugal. Where they have smarter policies about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Some drugs are worse than others and widespread easy access to opiates and opioids is enormously destructive to society, legal or not legal.

Widespread and easy access to treatment that doesn't involve prison is working in other countries. Prohibition isn't working anywhere, except to make government more powerful and dangerous to our rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Well, it seems to have suddenly come to light during the Trump administration after years of ignoring it.

Quote

prosecutors said “the charges against the defendant arise out of a long-term investigation of politically connected drug trafficking in Honduras” that began in 2013.

In between TV appearances, Trump somehow caused that back in 2013?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

Widespread and easy access to treatment that doesn't involve prison is working in other countries. Prohibition isn't working anywhere, except to make government more powerful and dangerous to our rights.

Well sure. This is not a binary choice. What we do now is obviously a massive fail on both ends. Mindless prohibition strategies turn sick people into criminals and when the might of big pharma got interested in the recreational narcotic industry they bulldozed right through law and regulation to create a bigger mess than any army of illegal pushers ever could.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Well sure. This is not a binary choice. What we do now is obviously a massive fail on both ends. Mindless prohibition strategies turn sick people into criminals and when the might of big pharma got interested in the recreational narcotic industry they bulldozed right through law and regulation to create a bigger mess than any army of illegal pushers ever could.

That was a while ago.

Even Keith looks like he might live a few more years in that pic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, hasher said:

Perhaps we disagree.  Let's sail.

We might well disagree, but going sailing doesn't make the problem go away.  When we do disagree, it is quite important that the dispute resolves in the direction of the absence of coercion, and towards the limitation of state power.  The US was ostensibly founded on that principle, but seems to have forgotten it.

You started this thread with exactly the wrong position, hasher:

On 5/31/2019 at 8:58 AM, hasher said:

I know some of us would like to see legalization of drugs.  But there are drugs that should not flood our society.

The drugs that should not flood our society are the ones that have horrible side effects and are flooded for profit by Pharma.  You have absolutely no right to dictate how my wife or anyone else self-medicates.  I don't think you have much experience in the matter, yet would like to dictate to others, through collective social coercion.  If that's not the case, state the right one, else, yes, go sail, try not to port-tack over right-of-way boats,  and while you are there, please ruminate on your position expressed here.  I do seriously hope you come around.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bacq2bacq said:
On 5/31/2019 at 8:58 AM, hasher said:

I know some of us would like to see legalization of drugs.  But there are drugs that should not flood our society.

The drugs that should not flood our society are the ones that have horrible side effects and are flooded for profit by Pharma.  You have absolutely no right to dictate how my wife or anyone else self-medicates.  I don't think you have much experience in the matter, yet would like to dictate to others, through collective social coercion.  If that's not the case, state the right one, else, yes, go sail, try not to port-tack over right-of-way boats,  and while you are there, please ruminate on your position expressed here.  I do seriously hope you come around.

I disagree with the bolded statement. Your private actions have tremendous potential to impact others.

For example, do you believe that your community should, by rights, have no say whatever in your taking opioids while driving? How about mowing your lawn? How about allowing your kids friends access to your self-medication cabinet?

What you do impacts others. Willful misconduct, criminal intent, or not; the body of laws we have built up is for the maintenance of a functional community. Some make good sense, others less so; we are lucky to live in a socio-politi-economic system that allows individual rights including the right to suggest & lobby for changes in the laws.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I disagree with the bolded statement. Your private actions have tremendous potential to impact others.

For example, do you believe that your community should, by rights, have no say whatever in your taking opioids while driving? How about mowing your lawn? How about allowing your kids friends access to your self-medication cabinet?

What you do impacts others. Willful misconduct, criminal intent, or not; the body of laws we have built up is for the maintenance of a functional community. Some make good sense, others less so; we are lucky to live in a socio-politi-economic system that allows individual rights including the right to suggest & lobby for changes in the laws.

-DSK

Opioids are not as dangerous as people tend to think they are, they are addictive but so is sugar, nicotine, alcohol you name it.

Its the availability and the illegality that makes it so much more dangerous, I know whole communities taking opium starting from when they were weaning off their mothers milk to the day they die, I personally know professionals on opiates for decades who are still functioning well. Some people will just destroy themselves and the blame goes to the substances they abuse, some will find something anything to abuse but if drugs are legal, clean and low priced the amount of damage seen will drastically go down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, VhmSays said:

Opioids are not as dangerous as people tend to think they are, they are addictive but so is sugar, nicotine, alcohol you name it.

Its the availability and the illegality that makes it so much more dangerous, I know whole communities taking opium starting from when they were weaning off their mothers milk to the day they die, I personally know professionals on opiates for decades who are still functioning well. Some people will just destroy themselves and the blame goes to the substances they abuse, some will find something anything to abuse but if drugs are legal, clean and low priced the amount of damage seen will drastically go down.

Russia raised the tax on alcohol under Gorbechev. 

Gorbachev's anti-alcohol campaign[edit]

During 1985–87, Mikhail Gorbachev carried out an anti-alcohol campaign with partial prohibition,[7] colloquially known as the "dry law". Prices of vodka, wine and beer were raised, and their sales were restricted in amount and time of day. People who were caught drunk at work or in public were prosecuted.

The reform had an effect on alcoholism in the country, as evident from statistics showing some fall in criminality and rise in life expectancy...

He repealed the reforms to boost his popularity.

Real world experience, not pie in the sky dreaming.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

What you do impacts others.

Yes.  And when I impact others in ways that violate their rights, I grant to our society that I be punished.  If I do not violate someone else's rights, I should not be punished.  It's really not that hard to understand the principle that without a victim, there is no crime.  If you grant that as a basic principle, we could discuss the details.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bacq2bacq said:

Yes.  And when I impact others in ways that violate their rights, I grant to our society that I be punished.  If I do not violate someone else's rights, I should not be punished.  It's really not that hard to understand the principle that without a victim, there is no crime.  If you grant that as a basic principle, we could discuss the details.

Yep..... the people around you who are negatively impacted by your drug use....... those are "victims"

Otherwise, take your libertarian bullshit and go live in the wilderness with no other people around you.

This attitude is a slight degree better than the god squad wanting to shove their sky-fairy bullshit down everybody's throats; but when I have to pay extra taxes to help you or yours thru drug rehab, or the ambulance crew can't help me because they are busy resuscitating you after an overdose, it doesn't help the appreciation.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

You all need to study the Opium Wars in China. Some drugs are worse than others and widespread easy access to opiates and opioids is enormously destructive to society, legal or not legal. Hopefully the Sackler family can roast in hell forever for their 21st century recreation of it. At least the US and UK in the 1800s were getting rich off *some other country's* misery  :rolleyes:

Ever wonder if Chinese produced Fentanyl in the US is revenge for the underpinnings of the Opium Wars?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, VhmSays said:

Opioids are not as dangerous as people tend to think they are, they are addictive but so is sugar, nicotine, alcohol you name it.

Its the availability and the illegality that makes it so much more dangerous, I know whole communities taking opium starting from when they were weaning off their mothers milk to the day they die, I personally know professionals on opiates for decades who are still functioning well. Some people will just destroy themselves and the blame goes to the substances they abuse, some will find something anything to abuse but if drugs are legal, clean and low priced the amount of damage seen will drastically go down.

Not only that but opioid use, properly done, can be a key part of recovery from surgery. Especially orthopedic surgery, ironically this is one of the feeders for the greatest numbers of addicts.

Some people can wean themselves off the shit, some people cannot. And there are drugs that have an extremely urgent addictive response on the brain, you cannot take it and not be addicted..... kinda scary that we've learned that much about biochemistry and still haven't learned to get along with each other.

You're right that some people are self-destructive and it makes no sense to blame the drugs they use as a vehicle to self-destruction. However I disagree that it is possible to be addicted to recreational drugs long-term and not suffer ill effects. All those people you know would be smarter and healthier if they could get themselves off the shit..... or accept help to do so.

I also disagree with the way the US gov't has implemented it's prohibition. All abou'da money

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Steam Flyer Did you read any of the links on IP's thread, linked above?  Did you even read my post?  Where are your crazy straw-men coming from?  There are wonderful natural medicines that are denied people because of antiquated prohibitions.  There are no victims created when people get healed, there are only healed people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the late 1980's one could walk around San Pedro Sula, and the Caribbean coast towns freely. 

Now, it's gang central. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/04/world/americas/honduras-gang-violence.html

Of course the Gray Lady (NYT) will not tell you that this dire transformation is in large part due to the US govt., starting with Reagan, and the neo-cons. HR Clinton & Obama share some responsibility. 

Y'all are so worried about drugs in Gringolandia, and ignore the human wreckage in Central America. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, hasher said:

Russia raised the tax on alcohol under Gorbechev. 

Gorbachev's anti-alcohol campaign[edit]

During 1985–87, Mikhail Gorbachev carried out an anti-alcohol campaign with partial prohibition,[7] colloquially known as the "dry law". Prices of vodka, wine and beer were raised, and their sales were restricted in amount and time of day. People who were caught drunk at work or in public were prosecuted.

The reform had an effect on alcoholism in the country, as evident from statistics showing some fall in criminality and rise in life expectancy...

He repealed the reforms to boost his popularity.

Real world experience, not pie in the sky dreaming.

You believe the stats coming to the west from behind the curtain?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, VhmSays said:

You believe the stats coming to the west from behind the curtain?

Read Oswald's Tale.  Or just read.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Yep..... the people around you who are negatively impacted by your drug use....... those are "victims"

Otherwise, take your libertarian bullshit and go live in the wilderness with no other people around you.

This attitude is a slight degree better than the god squad wanting to shove their sky-fairy bullshit down everybody's throats; but when I have to pay extra taxes to help you or yours thru drug rehab, or the ambulance crew can't help me because they are busy resuscitating you after an overdose, it doesn't help the appreciation.

-DSK

Thats the thing...in Rajasthan tribes have been using opium for centuries and yes quite a few families have been destroyed but its the same with alcohol. Its the illegality with all that comes with it that does more harm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hasher said:

Read Oswald's Tale.  Or just read.

I'm currently living in a state with prohibition and yes public drunkenness and the petty crimes associated with it are now negligible and alcohol is available with a call, home delivery. Corruption of course is associated and so is death and disability from drinking Methanol. 

In the long run yes I do believe less alcoholics will be created but those with addictive and destructive personalities will just find something else to use. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

And there are drugs that have an extremely urgent addictive response on the brain, you cannot take it and not be addicted.....

Which drug would that be?

I know most of the "hard" drugs have very fast addiction development rates but you have to take them multiple times. Usually it starts out once in a while then the frequency grows to the stage you are taking them as soon as blood levels dip. Thats the dangerous sort of addiction with withdrawal and everything and all "hard" drugs are physically addictive. If you do not require the drug after the last dose has metabolized and left your body then its psychologically addiction and yeah that can happen with one dose sometimes even with a substitute they believe to be a drug.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bacq2bacq said:

Yes.  And when I impact others in ways that violate their rights, I grant to our society that I be punished.  If I do not violate someone else's rights, I should not be punished.  It's really not that hard to understand the principle that without a victim, there is no crime.  If you grant that as a basic principle, we could discuss the details.

If I fly you and your family someplace and I am drunk and/or high, is there a problem as long as I don't crash?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, VhmSays said:
14 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

And there are drugs that have an extremely urgent addictive response on the brain, you cannot take it and not be addicted.....

Which drug would that be?

I was wondering the same thing.

Drug warriors used to say stuff like that about cannabis. They've toned it down a bit but search the prohibition thread for "reefer madness" to find recent examples.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:
18 hours ago, VhmSays said:
19 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

And there are drugs that have an extremely urgent addictive response on the brain, you cannot take it and not be addicted.....

Which drug would that be?

I was wondering the same thing.

Drug warriors used to say stuff like that about cannabis. They've toned it down a bit but search the prohibition thread for "reefer madness" to find recent examples.

Ah good, I knew you'd pull out this old chestnut. That old devil Mary Jane! You're too cool for school Tom

Anyway, if you're interested in facts, look up the treatment regimens for addiction to synthetic opioids like Fentanyl. It's a fantastic anesthetic, and not generally considered a hazard for abuse (other than by doctors) because you can't get it. However there have been labs synthesizing variants on the street (I've heard the stuff called "crocodile") and now there very sophisticated labs overseas manufacturing and smuggling it in. This stuff causes a chemical change in your brain which has to be reversed.

Of course, if you can't get it, you can't get addicted to it.

The idea that addiction is always a personality problem is old-fashioned Puritanism. Often it is, often it isn't, best IMHO to regard it as a medical problem

-DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

best IMHO to regard it as a medical problem

Exactly.

How many decades of the failed WOD will it take to wake people up?

It's approaching 1/2 century now.

People woke up after only 13 years of alcohol prohibition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Anyway, if you're interested in facts, look up the treatment regimens for addiction to synthetic opioids like Fentanyl.

If I try to source your claim for you, will I really find that

 

22 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

there are drugs that have an extremely urgent addictive response on the brain, you cannot take it and not be addicted

Because I've never heard of such a drug and don't wish to try to source your claims without at least some indication that the search might be fruitful. So far, I have no such indication.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:
22 hours ago, bacq2bacq said:

If you grant that as a basic principle, we could discuss the details.

If I fly you and your family someplace and I am drunk and/or high, is there a problem as long as I don't crash?

These are the details.  @kent_island_sailor do you grant the basic premise that without victims we do not have crime?  If not, there's not much point in continuing this Turing experiment, in which I attempt to discover if you have a brain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

take your libertarian bullshit and go live in the wilderness with no other people around you.

@Steam Flyer That's a pretty strong reaction to my rationalizing why other people have no right to push horrible addictive drugs with brutal debilitating and permanent side effects at my wife (legally, and at great cost to me and great profit to Big Pharma) while there exist naturally occurring plants and compounds that offer great relief and fewer side effects, yet which are made illegal by legislators.  If you have any balls and brains you'll suck that toxic shit right back up the pie-hole it spewed from. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a starter, do some research on Lyrica, folks.  The studies that allowed it to be put on the market.  The things that is is prescribed for, and the duration.  The side effects.  The physical addiction.  The psychological damage it does, the nightmares.  The nature of the irreversible physical changes to the body.  The horror stories.  The natural alternatives.  Come back and try and argue with me.  Yes, it can help *some* people if used SHORT TERM and if the patient is rapidly weaned.  But, mostly, it destroys people's lives.  Then we could talk about all the other legal (and debilitating) drugs BigPharma pushes at us.

But this isn't meant to be a thread about how fucked up the legal drugs are, it's meant to be about how keeping naturally occurring drugs illegal, and making sure we keep the WOD going (@SloopJohnB: correction: >10 decades, and counting...) is going to "solve the drug problem", right @hasher?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Anyway, if you're interested in facts, look up the treatment regimens for addiction to synthetic opioids like Fentanyl.

If you are interested in facts, talk to someone to whom this shit has been prescribed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Ah good, I knew you'd pull out this old chestnut. That old devil Mary Jane! You're too cool for school Tom

Anyway, if you're interested in facts, look up the treatment regimens for addiction to synthetic opioids like Fentanyl. It's a fantastic anesthetic, and not generally considered a hazard for abuse (other than by doctors) because you can't get it. However there have been labs synthesizing variants on the street (I've heard the stuff called "crocodile") and now there very sophisticated labs overseas manufacturing and smuggling it in. This stuff causes a chemical change in your brain which has to be reversed.

Of course, if you can't get it, you can't get addicted to it.

The idea that addiction is always a personality problem is old-fashioned Puritanism. Often it is, often it isn't, best IMHO to regard it as a medical problem

-DSK

 

People doing fenty are usually those who have abused prescription drugs then gone on to heroin which may be cut with fentanyl and then to fentanyl. There are no beginners on fentanyl because they are dead. Even addicts dont offer that shit to beginners unless they are intent on murder. 

Like you said most fentanyl abuse was by professionals who kind of know what they are doing but now fentanyl is flooding the market because its easier to transport, the same amount makes much more profit.The synthetic shit is used to cut or cut down to heroin strength before it hits the street. When the guy cutting makes a mistake there is a rash of overdoses in the area. When the amount ingested is guesswork people die, wouldn't it be better if they knew what they were getting?

Addiction will always exist unless we become a society which tinkers with brains to control behavior. Treat drug addicts as patients who needed help not criminals.

Edit: BTW I am familiar with opiates and their treatment regimens. Also with addicts who injure themselves to get more prescriptions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that so far, no one has agreed with the principle that without a victim, we cannot have a crime.  Have we really all been "educated" that far towards totalitarian mindsets?  It's an incredibly important consideration in making law.  The thing we must consider in all law is "who am I trying to help (ie, who is the "victim"), and is helping them worth the social cost?"

@Mismoyled Jiblet. "actually no": Actually, yes, but I didn't just pay for mere contradiction.  You make an excellent point about the non-existence of effective tests for cannabinoid intoxication.  Yet we have very effective tests for alcohol-induced inebriation.  Ask yourself: why?   Largely, because drunk drivers are a huge problem and high drivers aren't very much of a problem.  If the latter were false, one can be quite sure we would have better tests already, MAHD in addition to MADD, etc...

@Steam Flyer  Yes, these are mainly medical issues.  So whence all your "libertarian bullshit" strawmen?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bacq2bacq said:
6 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Anyway, if you're interested in facts, look up the treatment regimens for addiction to synthetic opioids like Fentanyl.

If you are interested in facts, talk to someone to whom this shit has been prescribed.

ummm yeah, because that's quite rare and I almost certainly would not have known anybody like that.

I also find it interesting that you cannot seem to understand the definition of the word "victim"

 

2 hours ago, VhmSays said:

People doing fenty are usually those who have abused prescription drugs then gone on to heroin which may be cut with fentanyl and then to fentanyl. There are no beginners on fentanyl because they are dead. Even addicts dont offer that shit to beginners unless they are intent on murder. 

Like you said most fentanyl abuse was by professionals who kind of know what they are doing but now fentanyl is flooding the market because its easier to transport, the same amount makes much more profit.The synthetic shit is used to cut or cut down to heroin strength before it hits the street. When the guy cutting makes a mistake there is a rash of overdoses in the area. When the amount ingested is guesswork people die, wouldn't it be better if they knew what they were getting?

Addiction will always exist unless we become a society which tinkers with brains to control behavior. Treat drug addicts as patients who needed help not criminals.

Edit: BTW I am familiar with opiates and their treatment regimens. Also with addicts who injure themselves to get more prescriptions.

Unfortunately I have known a number of professionals who thought they were smart enough to enjoy a little of the -real- stuff..... it's a great way to de-stress...... and avoid the crash-n-burn of hardcore addiction.

They were wrong. One will be in jail for the rest for the rest of his life. A couple are dead, OD'd, some even went through several rounds of rehab and jumped thru all the hoops to get back in the game. Although I don't feel that my life has been particularly close to drugs or drug culture (well, no more so than anybody else who lived thru the '60s), I've seen some pretty bad results. My wife can tell you more of the real horror stories, being more on the inside of a medical profession.

Someday in the not-too-distant future I am going to need a couple of knees and hips replaced, that shit scares me silly but I know that to do proper PT you need serious pain relief.

Yes I agree, we will always have addiction. Yes I agree that the USA's current drug enforcement system needs reforming, urgently and profoundly. I also believe there are classes of drugs that should not simply be poured out onto the open market.

-DSK

[edit to add] Very much agree with your statement above "Treat drug addicts as patients who needed help" because it is not a moral judgement..... OTOH addicts who robbed or harmed other people should be punished for their crimes IMHO, being drunk is not an excuse neither is being an addict. But they shouldn't be turned loose into society to try and self-treat their addiction

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

ummm yeah, because that's quite rare and I almost certainly would not have known anybody like that.

I also find it interesting that you cannot seem to understand the definition of the word "victim"

 

Unfortunately I have known a number of professionals who thought they were smart enough to enjoy a little of the -real- stuff..... it's a great way to de-stress...... and avoid the crash-n-burn of hardcore addiction.

They were wrong. One will be in jail for the rest for the rest of his life. A couple are dead, OD'd, some even went through several rounds of rehab and jumped thru all the hoops to get back in the game. Although I don't feel that my life has been particularly close to drugs or drug culture (well, no more so than anybody else who lived thru the '60s), I've seen some pretty bad results. My wife can tell you more of the real horror stories, being more on the inside of a medical profession.

Someday in the not-too-distant future I am going to need a couple of knees and hips replaced, that shit scares me silly but I know that to do proper PT you need serious pain relief.

Yes I agree, we will always have addiction. Yes I agree that the USA's current drug enforcement system needs reforming, urgently and profoundly. I also believe there are classes of drugs that should not simply be poured out onto the open market.

-DSK

[edit to add] Very much agree with your statement above "Treat drug addicts as patients who needed help" because it is not a moral judgement..... OTOH addicts who robbed or harmed other people should be punished for their crimes IMHO, being drunk is not an excuse neither is being an addict. But they shouldn't be turned loose into society to try and self-treat their addiction

Who are addicts, bums shooting up and nodding off? Addiction is when your body requires the drug just to be in a "normal" state, not high but not in withdrawal mode. Ask a chain smoker, heavy coffee drinker what happens when they are forced to go without. Addicts do get high but for many the drug is a requirement to function. Making it hard to get, illegal and them a criminal for using, no security about their supply leads to problems.

Do you know any professionals who were alcoholics? It's the same with opioids, you only hear about those who crash and burn. I've seen those horror stories amongst my colleagues and I've referred addicts for treatment but I've also seen the same situations with legal substances. The illegality creates more problems and habits remain hidden longer without treatment.

Commit a crime, face the consequences no out for drunks or being high.

It's been quite some time since Portugal legalized all drugs. Have you seen their results? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

That's the kind of false madeup bullshit thats why nobody listens to libertarians. A quick spell in an ER should disabuse you of the notion high drivers aren't a problem. Or you could just read from the stoners at High Times who have a more erudite and nuanced take than you do https://hightimes.com/news/laws/driving-high/

Quote

The good news is that even if driving laws based on cannabis-blood levels aren’t effective, marijuana legalization hasn’t led to a spike in cannabis-fueled car accidents. In both Washington and Colorado, for example, government officials note traffic safety hasn’t been negatively impacted by the states’ new recreational-cannabis markets. Reports like this lead Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, to call these new cannabis-driving laws “a solution in search of a problem.”

Your article seems to confirm what you were trying to refute.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

ummm yeah, because that's quite rare and I almost certainly would not have known anybody like that.

I also find it interesting that you cannot seem to understand the definition of the word "victim"

 

Unfortunately I have known a number of professionals who thought they were smart enough to enjoy a little of the -real- stuff..... it's a great way to de-stress...... and avoid the crash-n-burn of hardcore addiction.

They were wrong. One will be in jail for the rest for the rest of his life. A couple are dead, OD'd, some even went through several rounds of rehab and jumped thru all the hoops to get back in the game. Although I don't feel that my life has been particularly close to drugs or drug culture (well, no more so than anybody else who lived thru the '60s), I've seen some pretty bad results. My wife can tell you more of the real horror stories, being more on the inside of a medical profession.

Someday in the not-too-distant future I am going to need a couple of knees and hips replaced, that shit scares me silly but I know that to do proper PT you need serious pain relief.

Yes I agree, we will always have addiction. Yes I agree that the USA's current drug enforcement system needs reforming, urgently and profoundly. I also believe there are classes of drugs that should not simply be poured out onto the open market.

-DSK

[edit to add] Very much agree with your statement above "Treat drug addicts as patients who needed help" because it is not a moral judgement..... OTOH addicts who robbed or harmed other people should be punished for their crimes IMHO, being drunk is not an excuse neither is being an addict. But they shouldn't be turned loose into society to try and self-treat their addiction

FYI - Anyone can become dependent on narcotics. It is basic biology, take enough for long enough and you will feel like shit when you stop. Addiction is another thing entirely. Some people have a switch flip in their brains and will sell their grandmother's kidneys for another hit of whatever. If you have ever dealt with junkies, it isn't that they can't quit. They go through withdrawal for various reasons all the time.  It isn't that they can't get off drugs, they don't WANT TO.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Portugal didn't legalize drugs, they decriminalized them.

It's different.

And it works.

I've been pointing that out for years in the prohibition thread.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, bacq2bacq said:

 

I find it interesting that so far, no one has agreed with the principle that without a victim, we cannot have a crime.  Have we really all been "educated" that far towards totalitarian mindsets?  It's an incredibly important consideration in making law.  The thing we must consider in all law is "who am I trying to help (ie, who is the "victim"), and is helping them worth the social cost?"

If the drugs taken were safe, you might be right: drug use might be “victimless”, but several points are overlooked when making this innocuous sounding argument.

First, the state can declare substances hazardous, and restrict their use. As a physician, I go through substantial training before I am authorized to administer narcotics. Same with a demolition tech and their tools.

Secondly, there are quality, storage, packaging and transportation issues which can affect the safety to consumers. A mislabeled drug can cause serious problems, so can potency change with improper storage. Kids can gain access, and suffer as a result. 

Third, there is the “taxes” argument. The state is a victim with illegal markets.

 Fourth is predicting the societal harm from widespread  availability of narcotics. Making them accessible to everyone minimizes the societal impact of such a decision. “Legalization” may not make the drugs defacto “available “, but it certainly reduces barriers. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Portugal didn't legalize drugs, they decriminalized them.

It's different.

And it works.

It can work, it would not be accurate to say it -always- works or that it would definitely work, guaranteed.

For one, the devil is in the details. For two, the USA is a much bigger, much more diverse, country; and the culture is very much different. America is a culture that celebrates excess and celebrates defiance. Allow any amount of any drugs to be sold in grocery stores would be a recipe for disaster.

For example, I spent some time on Royal Navy ships. They had a beer vending machine on the mess decks. Feel like a beer, fine. I asked one of the engineering chiefs if any of the lads showed up for watch drunk. He said it hadn't happened on that ship, or at least not for a long long time, but elsewhere it occasionally happened. The punishment would be something like restriction and assignment to a yucky clean-up detail.

Picture that on a US Navy ship. The first 5 guys to get to the machine would empty it, and get roaring drunk. Nobody else could have beer anyway, so we just don't have it from the start. Yes it's a case of the few ruining it for the many.

As I've said several times before, the USA's drug enforcement policies & programs badly need reforming. But just throwing the door open and saying "OK do whatever you want" is not going to have good results. At least, not for the first hundred years or so, once all the dopers have offed themselves, the rest of us could do OK.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@Steam Flyer it sounds like you have more direct experience with addicts of hard drugs amongst your peer group than I.  None of my close friends have destroyed their lives by turning themselves into addicts like yours have.  My experience comes from my wife having been prescribed various noxious pharmaceuticals for years (including a fentanyl patch) in failed attempts to manage pain.  She does better now using cannabis, but has also suffered in the past from cannabis-induced hyper-emesis.  Cannabis is not without side effects.  Interestingly, this side-effect was discovered by a clever doctor who asked about seeking relief from the nausea by sitting in hot showers.  My daughter and son-in-law are also doctors, so I get a different perspective from them as well (including from the emerg room).   

I have found you to express sensible opinions in the past, Steam, but here you are so far off base here you are not even in the stadium any more - no steam, just hot air: 

On 6/1/2019 at 12:27 PM, Steam Flyer said:
On 6/1/2019 at 12:16 PM, bacq2bacq said:

You have absolutely no right to dictate how my wife or anyone else self-medicates.  

I disagree with the bolded statement.

OK, I'll descend with y'all to the PA playing field: Well, fuck you steamflyer, you libertarian left-wing label label label.
Your position is untenable.  You seem to have confused your life amongst your addict-peers with mine.  There, with that out of my system: are you a "victim" of your friends' decisions to destroy their lives with drugs?  My wife is a clear and direct victim of the war on drugs, and of BigPharma.

This may be where our opinions differ, on exactly the issue that participants in this board seem largely unwilling to address: who is the victim that creates the rationale for the legislation?  Does the legislation actually help the target victim in practice?  Does it create other collateral victims?  The legislation that is the WOD creates far more victims than it helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, bacq2bacq said:

 

@Steam Flyer it sounds like you have more direct experience with addicts of hard drugs amongst your peer group than I....    ...    ...

OK, I'll descend with y'all to the PA playing field: Well, fuck you steamflyer, you libertarian left-wing label label label.
Your position is untenable.  You seem to have confused your life amongst your addict-peers with mine.  There, with that out of my system: are you a "victim" of your friends' decisions to destroy their lives with drugs?  My wife is a clear and direct victim of the war on drugs, and of BigPharma.

This may be where our opinions differ, on exactly the issue that participants in this board seem largely unwilling to address: who is the victim that creates the rationale for the legislation?  Does the legislation actually help the target victim in practice?  Does it create other collateral victims?  The legislation that is the WOD creates far more victims than it helps.

Well, which is it: I don't know what I'm talking about, or I have more direct experience with hard drug abuse than you?

I would agree that your wife, as a medical professional involved with pain management, is a victim of the "War On Drugs."

If you actually read what I've written, and try to understand it, perhaps you would see that I do not support this idiocy, far from it. You apparently have read just far enough to see I do not agree with the "whatever you want" fantasy, so you must attack! and that's not looking smart either.

As K-I-S says, it's not a matter of moral fiber, character, intelligence.... it is a medical issue. Pain management is a big problem, the War on Drugs makes it professionally difficult (or flat impossible) while increasing the likelihood of turning patients into addicts.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2019 at 7:31 PM, bacq2bacq said:

I think government policy for involvement in drugs should be something like:
- if it just grows, it is pretty much none of your business.
- if it is processed and sold from something that grows, and is addictive (heroin, cocaine, crack...) you might want to do some regulation, public rehab, etc
- if it is some fully synthetic invention of BIgPharma, you better look very, very closely at what is going on... maybe throw some execs in jail.

@Mismoyled Jiblet. Does wanting extremely tough regulation of BigPharma, regulation of addictive drugs with public rehab, and freedom of choice in personal health-care make me the loonie libertarian you imagine?  I am occasionally amazed that the same windmills seem to be tilted-at, axes ground, instead of reading and responding to what is written... 

@phillysailor finally starts to get to the details... but, please, I never said drug use was victimless.  I think the principle is a good one to have in mind when considering drug legislation.

On 6/1/2019 at 12:51 PM, Steam Flyer said:

the people around you who are negatively impacted by your drug use....... those are "victims"

That is one position.  I think SF sees himself as a victim of his friend's addictions.  I think that is a bit of a selfish perspective, but WTF, it's at least an expressed on-topic position, though I think wrong.  I do not believe I am *entitled* to the love, affection, care, etc of friends to the extent that I would endure the social cost of having the government try to interfere in their choices to change the outcomes.  I think I have to earn it, and that it cannot be enforced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Steam Flyer  You seem to have more friends' lives' destroyed by currently-illegal hard drugs.  I seem to win the big-pharma has messed up a life, and WOD prevented better self-care side.  Call it even.

My beef is that you explicitly said, quite directly - I even re-quoted it for you - that you would support state intervention in my wife's choice of medication.  Stop dancing away.  Retract that and we could continue.  It's a very stupid position, and I don't think it is actually one you support.

30 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

If you actually read what I've written... I would agree that your wife, as a medical professional...

Ditto, my three-point summary re-quoted for you above.  I don't think I am the libertari-droid you are looking for...  my wife was prescribed these drugs, does not prescribe them, my daughter and son-in-law do the prescribing... whatever.  You begin to fail the Turing test... increase the refresh rate on your DRAM, droid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, bacq2bacq said:

@Steam Flyer  You seem to have more friends' lives' destroyed by currently-illegal hard drugs.  I seem to win the big-pharma has messed up a life, and WOD prevented better self-care side.  Call it even.

My beef is that you explicitly said, quite directly - I even re-quoted it for you - that you would support state intervention in my wife's choice of medication.  Stop dancing away.  Retract that and we could continue.  It's a very stupid position, and I don't think it is actually one you support.

 

How's this: Eat shit and die, dumbfuck

The bolded underlined statement above is fairly accurate, although "cannot read for comprehension and cannot write clearly and consistently for expression."

When you make an actual attempt to understand what I have actually written, it may be worth discussing issues with you. Kind of a shame but good sailors quickly learn that wishful thinking doesn't get you very far

-DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"ESAD,DF": Classy.  Here, yet again, is where I am reading and trying to understand your written words, which I believe you have asked me to do, and I have already done:

1 hour ago, bacq2bacq said:
  On 6/1/2019 at 12:27 PM, Steam Flyer said:
On 6/1/2019 at 12:16 PM, bacq2bacq said:

You have absolutely no right to dictate how my wife or anyone else self-medicates.  

I disagree with the bolded statement.

I interpreted your written words to mean "I, @Steam Flyer, have a right to dictate how your, @bacq2bacq, wife chooses medication."  Or maybe for my wife it's ok, but not anyone else?  I don't think your words are much open to alternate interpretation, though disagreement with a disjunctive clause might mean only disagreement with either/or.

How am I misinterpreting this, SteamFlyer?  I don't believe I quote you out of context.  It was your very first response to me on this thread, dealing with a subject about which I have some passion, for very good reasons.  I think I understand your words clearly, and I disagree with them, and took some slight offense as well.  I'm not moving to understand more, better, until we clear up this little spat.  I don't understand the relevance of your last sentence (by which I mean it was a bit silly to include it).

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

wishful thinking doesn't get you very far

Yes.  This.  And most of the "war on drugs" is based on it.  With sprinklings of self-interest, greed, etc...

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bacq2bacq said:

@Mismoyled Jiblet. Does wanting extremely tough regulation of BigPharma, regulation of addictive drugs with public rehab, and freedom of choice in personal health-care make me the loonie libertarian you imagine?  I am occasionally amazed that the same windmills seem to be tilted-at, axes ground, instead of reading and responding to what is written... 

@phillysailor finally starts to get to the details..