The Wall

[Jack Sawyer]

wontsomebodythinkofthechildren.gif

Are we talking about 4 year old children? We also need to ensure they don't get their hands on paint. Or 15-y/o "children"? We also need to ensure they don't get their hands on alcohol and lottery tickets.

I'll tell you this with a high degree of confidence... they aren't many children addicted to heorin, and those that are, well they get taken into care. The laws you speak of exist, they are called child abuse laws.



The right to ingest what one chooses remains the same, regardless of the level of intoxication, or the potential danger. In principle, I am in favour of legalisation of heroin, because to argue that somebody is a criminal for poisoning themself is ludicrous.



I'd grow it and be rich. I'd be worth the risk for £15,000 an ounce. Lots of people would grow it too, which, incidentally, would mean the price would crash. Here's the thing with the black market... values are true. It's £150 an ounce for a reason... markets.



I'm afraid this is just naive. If you stopped the flow of heroin from Mexico, the only thing you're keepin goff the street is heroin. There are other drugs, and these will increase in demand as a direct consequence of the low availability of heroin. You might be able to stop them taking a particular drug, but you will never stop a junkie being a junkie because people like to get wasted, some people don't give a fuck about the consequences, are there are way too many substances that can cause intoxication than can be controlled.

Ongabonga speaking reason? I must be high right now

[BananaStand]

It would solve the prison population thing which the US is now known for around the world for starters

I need several decimal places to illustrate how few people are in prison for lowest-level drug offenses.

Everyone else is in there because they trafficked, distributed, or manufactured drugs. Or, they have some low-level drug charge along with some other more serious charge, usually involving violence.

Do you think these people are all gentle little kittens? Are they all well-meaning, morally upstanding, socially conscious people?

Leaving these people on the street, whether they are involved in drugs or not, is a terrible idea.

[Savy]

I need several decimal places to illustrate how few people are in prison for lowest-level drug offenses.

I'm pretty sure you haven't once posted anything resembling concrete data for the same point that you have made about 5 times.

[Poopadoop]

I wouldn't say it's had little impact. There is certainly a 'balloon effect' to some degree. But crime is down. If drug usage is up, it's because the other side is fighting back with more production, more potent drugs, and cheaper prices. Our war tactics must evolve to counter that. And that means stopping the flow of drugs into this country. Eventually, it will get harder and harder for the bad guys to come up with new ways to get to the market. When that happens, they'll move on to a different market. Let them take their shit to Argentina.

That's not how things work. Dealers don't go 'oh geez there's a 25% chance our mules will get busted, better switch to another market'. They say 'ok 25% of our mules get busted, better raise the price'

We did it in Columbia. We poured 8 billion into efforts to destroy coca fields and prosecute drug lords.

You made hardly a dent in the coke market, if price is any indication. Not exactly a roaring success. Seriously, stop thinking Narcos is a documentary - it's not.

When the poorest of Mexican citizens can't be pushed out of the country and passed off on the US, they'll start demanding reforms, just like the Columbians did

No idea where this argument starts and where it ends.

Then we'll see who wins the war.

We've already been seeing for forty years. Drugs are still everywhere. Believing the whole 'securing the southern border' thing will change that in any significant way is wishful thinking.

[BananaStand]

I'm pretty sure you haven't once posted anything resembling concrete data for the same point that you have made about 5 times.

Are you kidding me? I most definitely have.

The concrete data is....247 people are in federal prison for drug possession.

EDIT: Correction, it's actually 296 based on the most recent data I can find, dated 9/30/12

[BananaStand]

That's not how things work. Dealers don't go 'oh geez there's a 25% chance our mules will get busted, better switch to another market'. They say 'ok 25% of our mules get busted, better raise the price'.

And what happens when 90% of their mules get busted?

Or if each non-busted mule is bringing a far smaller amount?

Let them raise the price. That only depresses demand, which is kinda the goal

[Poopadoop]

And what happens when 90% of their mules get busted?

Good luck making that happen.

Or if each non-busted mule is bringing a far smaller amount?

Why would they do that? You have a way of detecting 50 kilos but not 10?

Let them raise the price. That only depresses demand, which is kinda the goal

They really don't care about your goals. If the supply is less and the price is higher they still make a juicy profit.

[BananaStand]

Here's a fun game....what if we released every single person in state and federal prison who is currently incarcerated for drug crimes...

The number of incarcerated people in the US would drop from 725 per 100,000 to 625 per 100,000. A 15% drop...nothing to sneeze at. But we would still, by far, be the words leader in incarcerations per capita, and it wouldn't even be close.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/...incarceration/

[BananaStand]

They really don't care about your goals. If the supply is less and the price is higher they still make a juicy profit.

Unless the higher price decreases demand. When that happens, they have to raise the price further, or seek a market with more demand.

[Poopadoop]

Unless the higher price decreases demand. When that happens, they have to raise the price further, or seek a market with more demand.

When the supply is lower they don't need as high a demand to sell their product. Use your head.

The point is they don't care about the risk of seizure, they just factor that into their prices.

[BananaStand]

When the supply is lower they don't need as high a demand to sell their product. Use your head.

Use your head! Do you think we will ever live in a world where drug sales are contained among the very wealthy?

If poor people aren't buying in the US, there are other countries with poor people who will.

[Poopadoop]

Use your head! Do you think we will ever live in a world where drug sales are contained among the very wealthy?

This question has nothing to do with the argument about the effects of 'securing the border'. You seem to think you can make it so hard for drugs to enter the country that the dealers will just give up and go elsewhere. My argument is that the most that will happen is the prices go up.

[OngBonga]

What?? Who would they compete with? Are there legit businesses out there with access to poppy crops, and the skills/equipment necessary to process it into heroin?

There would be lots of legit businesses if it were legalised. Cigarette companies would immediately invest huge sums.

If drugs were legalized, it would still be the cartels running shit. They would just operate with immunity from prosecution.

Immunity from prosecution for their drug activites, sure. But not from their intimidation and violence.

Of course they would remain competitive. Legalizing drugs would make their lives a shit-ton easier. They already have a monopoly, and you'd be handing them a massive competitive advantage.

Perhaps. It would make their lives easier in the sense they would no longer be criminals if all they were doing was producing and selling drugs. Why is that a problem? They only have a monopoly because legitimate businesses can't touch drugs. I'm propsing taking that monopoly away. What makes you think they can survive legitimate competition?

[Poopadoop]

Immunity from prosecution for their drug activites, sure. But not from their intimidation and violence.

More importantly, there'd be no reason for them to be trying to kill each other all the time, since they could live much easier lives and avoid all chances of going to jail by just selling their product.

[Poopadoop]

If poor people aren't buying in the US, there are other countries with poor people who will.

No seriously, use your head. The price of drugs depends on supply and demand. Reducing supply increases prices which decreases demand. The increase in price makes up for the decrease in supply for the producer. They don't care if 5 or 10 or 50% of their product gets destroyed in transit to any particular country, they make up for it by increasing the price in that country.

[Jack Sawyer]

What?? Who would they compete with? Are there legit businesses out there with access to poppy crops, and the skills/equipment necessary to process it into heroin?

If drugs were legalized, it would still be the cartels running shit. They would just operate with immunity from prosecution.

Of course they would remain competitive. Legalizing drugs would make their lives a shit-ton easier. They already have a monopoly, and you'd be handing them a massive competitive advantage.

The profits wouldn't be as much where the legal drugs are. Keeping it illegal, makes trade in these highly risky but also extremely lucrative. There is a reason why there's no cartel competing with Marlboro, but e.g. Camel and Nevada are.


Marlboro itself is the cartel, but their shit is like pushing drugs (nicotine) to children in malaysia for example.


Getting the massive profits they get right now legally would take several Shkreli-level shenanigans, which is definitely NOT cartel modi operandi.


Gun manufacturers (remember this? https://www.wikiwand.com/en/ATF_gunwalking_scandal) and drug cartels profit the most from the drug war

[BananaStand]

The profits wouldn't be as much where the legal drugs are.

I don't see how.

One of the major drivers of the heroin epidemic is the fact that the drugs are so friggen cheap. Add to that, the fact that the cartels have a monopoly on production, and ask yourself 'why in the world would they lower the price?'.

If drugs were legal, that would significantly reduce the risk associated with manufacture, shipping, and distribution. Less risk = less cost.

Profit = Revenue - Expenses

If revenue remains constant, and expenses decrease, what happens to Profit?

[MadMojoMonkey]

One reason the drug thugs have such a monopoly on pricing is due to the lack of competition.

If legalized, then the injection of non-criminal businesses into the industry would, presumably, increase supply, driving down prices.

***
IDK where you heard heroine is cheap. IDK why I think it's not. I've never touched the stuff. You?


IDK how to compare illegal drug costs actually. Typical expense per user per day?

What did you mean, exactly, when you said, "the drugs are so friggin cheap?"

[BananaStand]

If legalized, then the injection of non-criminal businesses into the industry would, presumably, increase supply, driving down prices.

Where is this 'injection' coming from? Are there a lot of legit businesses out there clamoring to get in on the heroin market? I haven't heard of any. Also, I think you'd see some reluctance on the part of the corporate world because of the 'moral' argument surrounding illicit drug sales. It's not illegal to test products on animals, but many companies refuse to do it anyway because it protects their image, brand, and stock price.

IDK where you heard heroine is cheap. ......What did you mean, exactly, when you said, "the drugs are so friggin cheap?"

I don't recall specifically. It's a fact commonly cited in virtually every piece of news regarding the heroin epidemic. A simple google search of "heroin" and "cheap" yields a pretty large consensus suggesting that price is not an obstacle for addicts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.87688eaf62a1
http://time.com/4505/heroin-gains-po...flood-the-u-s/
https://source.wustl.edu/2014/05/dru...p-easy-to-get/
https://www.elementsbehavioralhealth...owing-problem/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/heroin-c...kid-next-door/
http://www.narconon.org/blog/heroin-...rns-to-heroin/
http://heroin.net/about/how-much-does-heroin-cost/

[MadMojoMonkey]

Comparing the price of 20 cigarettes to 1 dose of heroine and saying the price is the same, so the heroine costs as much as cigarettes is odd at best.
The fact is that 1 dose of cigarettes costs 5% as much as 1 dose of heroine, according to the first link, which they point out. Unfortunately, they point it out and then say, why don't you decide if this is a scandalous comparison we've made?

2nd link is better, citing that current price is ~20% what it was 10 years ago, with purity much higher. However, it doesn't reference that claim, so not clear what exactly their data said and whether or not they misinterpreted it. Is this a regional shift in price and quality? Is that region indicative of the broader American prices? 1st link had better data.

3rd link has a quote which speaks to my position that this problem can't be solved by eliminating (known) drugs. People will find/create new drugs.
“If you make abuse-deterrent formulations of these drugs and make it harder to get high, these people aren’t just going to stop using drugs,” said Cicero, a professor of neuropharmacology in psychiatry. “As we made it more difficult to use one drug, people simply migrated to another. Policymakers weren’t ready for that, and we certainly didn’t anticipate a shift to heroin."

Which implies that even if you remove heroine from the market entirely, the drug users will simply find another drug to get their high. Unfortunately, where you knew about the heroine and could have controlled, regulated and taxed it... now you have merely displaced the black-market trade onto a new substance which is less well studied and whose dangers are less understood and it is still not taxed, controlled or regulated.

The article's final paragraph is:
“The overdose deaths and hospitalizations are symptoms of a problem that we really need to deal with,” he said. “You can’t effectively treat people or prevent addiction unless you know why they are taking drugs, and we don’t really have a handle on that yet. Unfortunately, the problem with heroin is it’s the most powerful opiate ever created, and even if people think they are being careful, it can kill.”

Which speaks to the fact that, again, people decide to take drugs before they are addicted to those drugs. "They think they are being careful," means they are under-informed about the medical risks. What if these drugs were legal, but you had to get them via prescription? What if you had to have the consent of a medical doctor, who is required by law to educate you on the risks of your choice? It wouldn't be worse than a lack of consultation, at least.

(Nice work citing my own employer on this one. Kudos!)

4th link is exactly the kind of thing I'm advocating for: a public response to a perceived negative situation which amount to a community support group. A+
(No mention of price beyond, "as little as $5" which is literally saying nothing about costs for a daily user.)

5th link is purely anecdotal. That is her experience, and it is representative of other people's experiences, but not indicative of the whole spectrum of experiences.


6th link is basically saying: People become addicted to prescription pain medications, but can't afford the taxed, regulated prices, so they turn to untaxed, unregulated products available on the black market.


Final link: "Someone with a “hard-core” heroin habit may pay $150–$200 per day in order to support his or her habit."
So, IMO, scandalous to call this an inexpensive habit. Certainly scandalous to compare the price of heroine to the price of cigarettes.

[BananaStand]

You can split hairs over these things if you want man. $5-$10 seems supremely cheap to me.

Also, I can't see how you can post the above analysis, and still support legalization. You just highlighted several passages that point to prescription pain-killers as the precursor to a heroin addiction.

Which speaks to the fact that, again, people decide to take drugs before they are addicted to those drugs. "They think they are being careful," means they are under-informed about the medical risks. What if these drugs were legal, but you had to get them via prescription? What if you had to have the consent of a medical doctor, who is required by law to educate you on the risks of your choice? It wouldn't be worse than a lack of consultation, at least.

Didn't you just get through illustrating to me how that exact situation (with prescription pain killers) resulted in the junkies going around the regulations, ignoring the doctors, and seeking a cheaper, more intense high from heroin.

What's gonna happen when you make heroin legal?

In comes fentanyl....easier to produce, and 50 to 100x the intoxicating effect. Then what? You're gonna make that legal too? Then who knows what comes next. What are you gonna do then?

Also......how are you gonna convince doctors to regulate the use of a drug that only has recreational uses?

[MadMojoMonkey]

That $5 - $10 figure is per use. It doesn't give any description to the cost per unit time of a heroine user. We need to equate cost per use to uses over some time period to compare costs.
It doesn't give a sense of how much heroine actually costs unless we have an estimate of how many uses per day we're talking.

The $150 - $200 a day figure for "hard core" users amounts to $54k+ per year on the low end. That's above the median household income for USA.

Saying something is "cheaper" is not the same as saying it's "cheap."

***
What you don't see is that I don't think legalizing drugs is going to make any problems go away. I ask whether the problems we trade for will be addressed with more compassion and humanity if we acknowledge that drugs are an unsolvable problem. I'm asking whether criminalizing the symptoms while we do nothing to stifle the spread of the disease is, in fact, cruel.

***
Did I illustrate? Yes. The fact that their alternatives come exclusively through the black market seems like a failing on the part of the gov't. If the heroine were available with a prescription as well, then who are they circumventing?

**
Will I make XYZ (presumably more potent drug) legal, too. Yes, if my suspicions are confirmed that legalization, regulation and taxation are less destructive ways of dealing with drug issues. What comes next? A clean drug supply which is heavily taxed.
I'm not afraid of confronting what it means to be human without fear and without judgement of those aspects which I do not personally embody.
... and I'm not taken by the slippery slope argument. What is that? If I make a choice today, that compels me to make certain choices in the future? BS. We'll take the circumstances as they come, and make decisions which acknowledge the nuance of human behavior.

***
How will I convince doctors?
Since when is it the job of a physicist to give medical advice to doctors?
What are you suggesting, here?

[BananaStand]

That $5 - $10 figure is per use. It doesn't give any description to the cost per unit time of a heroine user.

Yes it does, 4th link

The Center for Rural Pennsylvania, later says in the article that a packet of heroin that delivers a high lasting up to five hours can cost as little as $5

That's $20 a day if you only sleep 4 hours, and do nothing else but get high.

I'm asking whether criminalizing the symptoms while we do nothing to stifle the spread of the disease is, in fact, cruel.

I don't know what you mean by "criminalizing the symptoms". Drug use is pretty much de-criminalized, as evidenced by the fact that there are so very few people in jail for merely using drugs. Stifling the spread of the disease is exactly the goal when we talk about securing the southern border. I don't think a wall is the way to do it, but I do believe it's possible to strangle the flow of drugs coming in through Mexico, and that will have a huge impact in 'stifling the spread of the disease'.

Did I illustrate? Yes. The fact that their alternatives come exclusively through the black market seems like a failing on the part of the gov't. If the heroine were available with a prescription as well, then who are they circumventing?

This is totally nonsensical. Who the hell is going to write a prescription for recreational use of a dangerous and addictive poison?

Will I make XYZ (presumably more potent drug) legal, too. Yes, if my suspicions are confirmed that legalization, regulation and taxation are less destructive ways of dealing with drug issues.

How could your suspicions ever possibly be confirmed when we've already proven definitively that the opposite is true? Vicotin, Oxycontin, and Percocet are all legal, regulated, and taxed. And yet their prevalence is a leading cause of illicit drug use.

We tried it your way, and it had the opposite effect. Instead of drug users buying from 'legit' businesses, with a doctor's counsel, they are going around the system to patronize a violently enforced black market.

How will I convince doctors?
Since when is it the job of a physicist to give medical advice to doctors?
What are you suggesting, here?

Doesn't a big part of your plan require the drug users to have prescriptions for the drug? Won't a doctor require the patient to prove some kind of medical need? What possible justification could a person have that would convince a doctor to give him heroin to take home and use recreationally?

Sounds like you're advocating legalizing the drug, and then regulating it's use in such a way that ensures no one will ever be able to get it legally. What's the point of that?

[JKDS]

The market price of heroin changes based on location.

But, the reason so many people go from prescription to addiction is because opium in the form of heroin is much cheaper than opium in the form of oxycodone.

[Poopadoop]

The market price of heroin changes based on location.

But, the reason so many people go from prescription to addiction is because opium in the form of heroin is much cheaper than opium in the form of oxycodone.

Yup. Making heroin illegal means that it's cheaper and easier to get an illegal drug of unknown purity than its legal equivalent. War on Drugs ftw!

[OngBonga]

Drug use is pretty much de-criminalized, as evidenced by the fact that there are so very few people in jail for merely using drugs

Jail is not what determines if something is decriminalised. If you can get a criminal record for it, then it isn't decriminalised. Simply getting a fine and a mark on your record means it is not decriminalised. Jail is just the extreme end of the criminal scale.

[Jack Sawyer]

The profits wouldn't be as much where the legal drugs are.

I don't see how.

NP, I already wrote how. You just have to put the pieces together. I can’t think for you

Keeping it illegal, makes trade in these highly risky but also extremely lucrative. There is a reason why there's no cartel competing with Marlboro, but e.g. Camel and Nevada are.

There.

One of the major drivers of the heroin epidemic is the fact that the drugs are so friggen cheap. Add to that, the fact that the cartels have a monopoly on production, and ask yourself 'why in the world would they lower the price?'.

Perhaps cheap to make, but to the addict, it becomes incredibly expensive. Krokodil is also one of those.

If drugs were legal, that would significantly reduce the risk associated with manufacture, shipping, and distribution. Less risk = less cost.


Profit = Revenue - Expenses


If revenue remains constant, and expenses decrease, what happens to Profit?

Which is why the cartels wouldn’t ever want for drugs to be realized. It’s just not in their best interest for drugs to ever, ever, ever be legalized. None they produce, “market” and ship anyway.


I’ll reiterate

Keeping it illegal, makes trade in these highly risky but also extremely lucrative. There is a reason why there's no cartel competing with Marlboro, but e.g. Camel and Nevada are.

Thanks for making my point for me. I made it before though, but still, it’s good to see that you came around to the same conclusion.

[Jack Sawyer]

I don't know what you mean by "criminalizing the symptoms". Drug use is pretty much de-criminalized, as evidenced by the fact that there are so very few people in jail for merely using drugs. Stifling the spread of the disease is exactly the goal when we talk about securing the southern border. I don't think a wall is the way to do it, but I do believe it's possible to strangle the flow of drugs coming in through Mexico, and that will have a huge impact in 'stifling the spread of the disease'.

Hmm, strawmanning much?


“According to the Bureau of Prisons, there are 207,847 people incarcerated in federal prisons. Roughly half (48.6 percent) are in for drug offenses. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are 1,358,875 people in state prisons. Of them, 16 percent have a drug crime as their most serious offense”


Source: https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/...incarceration/


Remember, US incarcerated population is by far the most per capita.


World Incarceration Rates If Every U.S. State Were A Country [Image]
https://i.imgur.com/l9KIi97.jpg
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeaut...us_state_were/


Incarceration rate around the world
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._world_map.png
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeaut...und_the_world/




United States - The Least Free Country if Measured by Incarceration Rates
https://statpedia.com/view/374543dc-...b-0894970aaa44
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeaut...y_if_measured/




People in jail cost money. But, there are also actors needing people to be in jail, which are the Private Prisons. See, if you run a prison for profit, you need to see inmates to generate money obviously.




And that’s the war on drugs for you. Private prisons happy, as it keep their pockets filled. Cartels happy as it keeps their pockets filled. Gun manufacturers happy, as it keeps their pockets filled. Law enforcement happy, as they get shiny new toys and make new three to four letter acronim divisions to “combat crime”. And lose guns to the same people they are trying to fight in the process.


And everyone else: in jail.

[BananaStand]

NP, I already wrote how. You just have to put the pieces together. I can’t think for you

I don't think you put anything together, you just talked yourself in a circle.

Keeping it illegal, makes trade in these highly risky but also extremely lucrative. There is a reason why there's no cartel competing with Marlboro, but e.g. Camel and Nevada are.

Tobacco was never illegal, what are you even talking about?

Perhaps cheap to make, but to the addict, it becomes incredibly expensive

False, scroll up. Heroin use costs $1 per hour.

Which is why the cartels wouldn’t ever want for drugs to be realized. It’s just not in their best interest for drugs to ever, ever, ever be legalized. None they produce, “market” and ship anyway.

Why? The retail price for the drug is already dirt cheap. What risk is there of the market forces bringing about a drop in price?

If the price stays the same, then the cartels won't lose any revenue. In fact, I'd argue that revenue would go up, since they'll have access to more legal methods of distribution. So revenue is flat, or increasing.

Legalizing drugs means I can just drive a U-haul truck over the border filled with all the H it can fit. That's HUGELY less expensive than paying mules to take smaller shipments via much more dangerous routes.

Debt collection becomes easier. Small claims court is way cheaper than hiring a thug with a machine gun to intimidate those who owe you money.

I could go on, but the point is, that costs come down. Legalizing drugs gives the cartels an easier, and cheaper, method to distribute their poison. Where does that cost savings go? Will it go to make an already dirt cheap product even cheaper? Or will the Escobars have an extra-nice Christmas?

I’ll reiterate

So will I. The formula for Profit = Revenue - Expenses

If Revenue remains constant, and expenses go down, what happens to Profit??

Thanks for making my point for me. I made it before though, but still, it’s good to see that you came around to the same conclusion.

What exactly is your point?

That the cartels will be out of a job if you legalize drugs? Who will push them out of the market? Who's got poppy fields and distribution networks ready to compete with a monopoly?

Or is your point that they will have to pay more in taxes and regulatory fees than they currently pay for illegal transport and distribution? If so, show me those numbers.

[BananaStand]

Hmm, strawmanning much?.

ME????? What about YOU!!!!

Source: https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/...incarceration/.

I posted that same link several posts back. I don't think you saw the point of that article.

It's not this:

And that’s the war on drugs for you. Private prisons happy, as it keep their pockets filled.......

The conclusion of the article you just linked was that US incarceration rates would still be far ahead of the rest of the world even if drugs and all associated crimes, were completely legal.

And everyone else: in jail.

^strawman

[MadMojoMonkey]

Yes it does, 4th link

:/
That link is a public service group, not a scientific, survey or data producing organization. That number has no credential backing, like the other links you post do.

Why is that the number you've chosen as your 'standard case' representative value?

That's $20 a day if you only sleep 4 hours, and do nothing else but get high.

I don't currently believe that's a reasonable long-term price for a dedicated junkie, but I only cite your other links for those numbers.
My ignorance aside...

How can you compare a small room with a prisoner and a staff of armed guards and all the services that go with a prison to a small room with a junkie in it and no armed guards for the small fee of $20 a day?

Give him a week's worth of canned food and it might last a month.

The real problem here is that it's going to amount to gov't assisted suicide in a lot of cases, which is a huge counter-argument to my proposition.

I don't know what you mean by "criminalizing the symptoms".

The disease isn't that drugs are available. The disease is a person's want for an escape from reality, to the extreme that even the cost of their physical body is an acceptable fee. The disease is a person's want for drugs, and what has driven them to that want.

This is totally nonsensical. Who the hell is going to write a prescription for recreational use of a dangerous and addictive poison?

A) If a doctor believes that's the fullest and most accurate description of any drug, then they are under oath to never prescribe that drug.
B) All prescription drugs have potentially dangerous side effects. That's why they require a prescription, right?
C) Legal, addictive substances which are called poisons by some, even doctors, are legal already w/o prescription.
D) Doctors prescribe opiates already because the drug's interaction with a human body is more complex than merely, "poison."

But presuming none of that is true, doctor's are a source of Oxycontin for those addicts.
Doctors write prescriptions for marijuana, too. That's on a different level to me, but I think it serves as a counter to the notion that some people calling a thing "addictive poison" is directly relevant to a doctor writing a prescription.

Your trolly outrage is nonsensical.

How could your suspicions ever possibly be confirmed when we've already proven definitively that the opposite is true? Vicotin, Oxycontin, and Percocet are all legal, regulated, and taxed. And yet their prevalence is a leading cause of illicit drug use.

If the illicit drugs are legal options to discuss with their doctor, then why turn to a criminal black market?

We tried it your way, and it had the opposite effect. Instead of drug users buying from 'legit' businesses, with a doctor's counsel, they are going around the system to patronize a violently enforced black market.

I'm certain you don't understand "my way" if you can assert this.

Besides, I don't even understand "my way" because I'm asking questions about what are the options on the table before we commit to one (wall) which has historically proven to be ineffective at accomplishing its goal.

Doesn't a big part of your plan require the drug users to have prescriptions for the drug? Won't a doctor require the patient to prove some kind of medical need?

If it's happening on a federal level, then I imagine prescriptions are gong to be part of the legislation. I'd not be against that. I don't want under-informed teenagers going and getting hooked on [whatever destructive behavior] over their first broken heart.

Doctors are under oath to do no harm. Presumably, that means having a reason for engaging in risky behavior. This is a working standard for prescription drugs, so it seems logical to apply it in this scenario, too.

What possible justification could a person have that would convince a doctor to give him heroin to take home and use recreationally?

It seems starkly out of your character to be asking something this naive.

People have all sorts of reasons. Addicts are reputedly quite clever at fabricating false claims to convince their doctors of their need.
Some doctors are sympathetic to certain needs, and will prescribe. The Oxycontin doctors do/did this.

Sounds like you're advocating legalizing the drug, and then regulating it's use in such a way that ensures no one will ever be able to get it legally. What's the point of that?

Again. I'm certain you don't understand my questions if you think this is what I'm asking about.

[Jack Sawyer]

ME????? What about YOU!!!!

I lay facts, you just straw man and troll


You take the exact same facts, the exact same numbers and somehow can conclude a complete and total different thing than I would.


It’s like you see the whole equation


1 + 1 = 2


And then somehow see 49 and 13 in there. How? It’s fascinating, really.

I posted that same link several posts back. I don't think you saw the point of that article.

And then you got to the conclusion of the article as well, which was the nice graphic at the end. Far and away the most means you have to start somewhere to reduce the numbers, right? Or are you happy with the status quo?


Check the article yourself. The have *numbers*. One of them is the US without drug offenders. Use a calculator to figure out the difference, and then go down the list to any other member of the G8. Compare the numbers. Draw conclusion. Or don’t.

It's not this:




The conclusion of the article you just linked was that US incarceration rates would still be far ahead of the rest of the world even if drugs and all associated crimes, were completely legal.

And you still can’t see why private prisons are happy, as it keep their pockets filled? Ok.

^strawman

Total inmate population of 2.3 million people, of which 1 in 5 are locked up for some kind of a drug offense, does not disagree with me.

[JKDS]

Sorry, haven't clicked the links.

Very few people are in prison for possession offenses. Meaning of that like 20% or whatever number, only like 1% of that 20%. The rest are in for sale, importation of large quantities, manufacturing, their nth offense, or another more serious crime where drugs were also a factor.

[BananaStand]

I don't currently believe that's a reasonable long-term price for a dedicated junkie,

I really don't wanna beat this horse with you. Virtually every single paragraph written on the opioid epidemic in America cites the cheap price of drugs as a major reason for their prevalence. If you're still unconvinced, then it's a lost cause to try and convince you. Believe that only rich people can afford heroin if you like.

How can you compare a small room with a prisoner and a staff of armed guards and all the services that go with a prison to a small room with a junkie in it and no armed guards for the small fee of $20 a day?

Dude....it's not the junkies that are getting locked up. Only 297 of them in the entire federal prison system.

The disease isn't that drugs are available........The disease is a person's want for drugs, and what has driven them to that want.

Yeah...it's called *physical* addiction. It's caused by the drug. You make it sound like these people are just depressed.

A) If a doctor believes that's the fullest and most accurate description of any drug, then they are under oath to never prescribe that drug.

Right, so why would a doctor ever prescribe cocaine, heroin, or meth? What medical purpose could they serve that isn't already addressed by other drugs? Don't you think that doctors already have a consensus saying that is "the fullest and most accurate description" of illicit drugs? Why legalize these drugs if there is no way to get them legally?

B) All prescription drugs have potentially dangerous side effects. That's why they require a prescription, right?

Right, but those potentially dangerous side effects are outweighed by the medical benefit. How could you ever make that case for coke, heroin, or meth?

C) Legal, addictive substances which are called poisons by some, even doctors, are legal already w/o prescription.

I'm really not going to engage in any argument that equates cigarrettes and booze with heroin and meth. I really don't wanna see coke overdose numbers compared to drunk driving deaths, that's all false flag nonsense. Heroin, meth, and cocaine are incredibly more dangerous than the legal substances you're referring to. It's really not even close.

D) Doctors prescribe opiates already because the drug's interaction with a human body is more complex than merely, "poison."

So why do we need heroin?

If the illicit drugs are legal options to discuss with their doctor, then why turn to a criminal black market?

Because it's cheaper with less obstacles!! Are you denying that this is happening? Four out of five heroin addicts start with prescription pain-killers. Those are legal drugs, that they can get from a doctor. Even you admit that addicts can be quite clever at convincing doctors to give them those drugs. And yet, despite that accessibility, they still turn to heroin.

[BananaStand]

And then you got to the conclusion of the article as well, which was the nice graphic at the end. Far and away the most means you have to start somewhere to reduce the numbers, right? Or are you happy with the status quo?

First of all, why do we want to reduce the numbers? If all of those people are in there for doing bad things, then I'm fine with that. In my experience, I've found it's pretty easy to avoid prison. Why is it some badge of honor to have a low rate of imprisonment? Maybe our cops are just better at their jobs.

Second, let's say, hypothetically, that we did want to reduce the numbers, for whatever reason. What did the article say was driving the mass incarcerations? Hint: it's not drugs. So why would legalizing drugs be where you start?

Violent crime in the 70's and early 80's was out of friggen control. We tightened up, and came down hard on the offenders. Alot of them are still alive, and still in prison. Maybe we should discuss clemency for the elderly prisoners who have shown to be reformed. Maybe we should reduce the number of years imprisonment we sentence for crimes. Maybe we should allow prisoners more ways to rehabilitate themselves and earn early release. Maybe there are a dozen other options I haven't thought of.

But legalizing drugs seems like the last thing I would try.

Seems crazy to me that you made the argument for legalizing drugs as a means to end mass incarceration, and you supported that argument with an article titled "Legalizing drugs won't end Mass Incarcerations".

But you accuse me of saying 1 + 1 = 49.

[CoccoBill]

Dude....it's not the junkies that are getting locked up. Only 297 of them in the entire federal prison system.

Enough with the strawmen. You'll need to be caught with several of the following applying to it before it's considered a felony:

- intent to sell
- large quantities
- hard (schedule 1 or 2) drugs
- near a school or certain public places
- repeat offender
- other aggravating circumstances

All of this varies greatly by state, but the vast majority of possession charges are not felonies. And even then, none of this matters since it's not only about possession charges if drugs are legal. Your argument here earlier amounted to something along the lines of "no legit company has come out with wanting to sell heroin if it was legal". Yes, I wonder why a legit business wouldn't advertise wanting to start an illegal business. If drugs were legal, you can't seriously be thinking that no business would start selling them, doing more R&D on them, you know competing in the market? You're letting your feelings completely cloud your judgement.

Yeah...it's called *physical* addiction. It's caused by the drug. You make it sound like these people are just depressed.

So you mean a typical addict had absolutely nothing going wrong with their life before using, they just accidentally the drugs?

The physical addiction is commonly cited as being the least influential when considering addiction potential. A measure called capture rate is used to illustrate the number of users that become dependent on the substance they're using. Here's capture rates for a few common intoxicants:

Drug % of users
Cannabis 9%
Alcohol 15.4%
Cocaine 16.7%
Heroin 23.1%
Tobacco 31.9%

In case you're wondering, that means tobacco is by far the most addictive, alcohol and cocaine are roughly on par and heroin is a fair amount more addictive than them. The main point, which I'd like you to take a good look at is that approximately 23% of heroin users become addicts, not every single one of them after the first hit, as you seem to think.

http://www.nta.nhs.uk/uploads/danger...dh_4086293.pdf

Right, so why would a doctor ever prescribe cocaine, heroin, or meth? What medical purpose could they serve that isn't already addressed by other drugs? Don't you think that doctors already have a consensus saying that is "the fullest and most accurate description" of illicit drugs? Why legalize these drugs if there is no way to get them legally?

A doctor would probably more likely prescribe buprenorphine or something similar to an opiate addict, not heroin. Cannabis is a great pain killer, ketamine, LSD and ecstasy seem promising in the treatment of depression, PTSD and others.

I don't really know why you're talking about prescriptions though, I've never needed one for alcohol.

Right, but those potentially dangerous side effects are outweighed by the medical benefit. How could you ever make that case for coke, heroin, or meth?

I don't know of many medical benefits of alcohol, tobacco and sugar, yet they kill several orders of magnitude more people than illegal drugs.

I'm really not going to engage in any argument that equates cigarrettes and booze with heroin and meth. I really don't wanna see coke overdose numbers compared to drunk driving deaths, that's all false flag nonsense. Heroin, meth, and cocaine are incredibly more dangerous than the legal substances you're referring to. It's really not even close.

LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU is not what I'd call a sound and rational response to data that is not aligned with your beliefs. This whole conversation has been about the FACT, that just making something illegal affects neither supply nor demand, but creates a wealth of other problems, not to mention running a perpetual was of tens of billions of dollars every year. Your moral crusade is not only ineffective, but an enormous burden to the society.

Four out of five heroin addicts start with prescription pain-killers. Those are legal drugs, that they can get from a doctor. Even you admit that addicts can be quite clever at convincing doctors to give them those drugs. And yet, despite that accessibility, they still turn to heroin.

Ok I see, so we should also make legal drugs illegal, THAT would solve the problem.

[CoccoBill]

Seems crazy to me that you made the argument for legalizing drugs as a means to end mass incarceration, and you supported that argument with an article titled "Legalizing drugs won't end Mass Incarcerations".

The funny thing about data is that it's neutral, as opposed to opinion pieces on the web.

[OngBonga]

I'm really not going to engage in any argument that equates cigarrettes and booze with heroin and meth. I really don't wanna see coke overdose numbers compared to drunk driving deaths, that's all false flag nonsense. Heroin, meth, and cocaine are incredibly more dangerous than the legal substances you're referring to. It's really not even close.

We have a name for this in the UK... cloud cuckoo land. It's a place where your imagination is the real world.

Tobacco killed 480,000 Americans in 2013, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Alcohol killed 29,001 in the same year.

By comparison, heroin, prescription drugs, including opiods (pain killers) and benzodiazapines (anti-anxiety medication) and cocaine, the drugs with the highest number of deaths other than tobacco and alcohol, combined to kill 4,202 Americans.

Can't be bothered to check the validity of those numbers, but I'm really not surprised.

Anyone who thinks alcohol and tobacco are safer than things like heroin and coke are deluding themselves. Certainly, it's a joke when it comes to cannabis. I smoke spliffs daily, and the biggest risk to my health I'm taking is thanks to the tobacco. Alcohol is as potentially destructive as heroin and meth. It is more dangerous because society promotes it, which results in widespread socially acceptable use. I'm in favour of full legalisation, but I certainly am not in favour of heroin companies sponsoring sporting events. The fact beer companies may do so is outrageous. This is part of the reason why so many people drink... it's more than just a desire to get wasted, it's ingrained in our culture. Drink beer, watch football.

So I hope you realise every time you drink a glass of wine how much of a hypocrite you are for telling me that I can't smoke a spliff.

[BananaStand]

You're all outside of your minds if you're going to latch on to whatever 'data' seems to suggest that hard drugs are no more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. That's crazy.

Any fair minded person can look at the effects of one dose of alcohol compared to the effects of one dose of meth and easily see which drug is more dangerous. There are no 'casual' heroin users out there.

The idea that tobacco is more addictive than heroin is complete nonsense, I don't care how much 'data' you show me. All of that 'data' relies on the liberally expanded definition of the word 'addiction'. The Reagan-era anti-drug hysteria also sprouted a lesser hysteria dedicated to anti-smoking. Rather than rely on the term 'habit forming', they co-opted the word "addiction" so they could illustrate how bad smoking is, drinking too.

It's not fair to compare legal habit forming substances, to illicit addictive poisons. Don't fall for that garbage.

Is biting your nails an 'addiction'? Grinding your teeth? Chocolate? We're really gonna evaluate all that stuff on the same scale as crack? C'mon

[Savy]

There are no 'casual' heroin users out there.

What makes you say this? There definitely are.

It's funny that you can actually get figures that show that more people quit heroin cold turkey than tobacco.

edit - In fact you really need to realise that the majority of people who try any drug don't become addicts.

[BananaStand]

edit - In fact you really need to realise that the majority of people who try any drug don't become addicts.

Fine, you win, there are 'casual' heroin users. But the prevalence of addicts is still unacceptably high. 1 in 4 is a fucking lot. And who says that's the ceiling? It's not like the drugs available now are the only drugs that will ever be available. The worst drugs now are a lot worse than the worst drugs 20 years ago. How do we know that the next party favor to come along won't hook 1 in 3 people, or 1 in 2?

It's funny that you can actually get figures that show that more people quit heroin cold turkey than tobacco.

It's funny you say that as if tobacco and heroin shared equal levels of prevalence, availability, and social acceptability

[Savy]

It's funny you say that as if tobacco and heroin shared equal levels of prevalence, availability, and social acceptability

What you've done here is created your own criteria for what I said and then argued against it.

[Savy]

Fine, you win, there are 'casual' heroin users. But the prevalence of addicts is still unacceptably high. 1 in 4 is a fucking lot. And who says that's the ceiling? It's not like the drugs available now are the only drugs that will ever be available. The worst drugs now are a lot worse than the worst drugs 20 years ago. How do we know that the next party favor to come along won't hook 1 in 3 people, or 1 in 2?

[CoccoBill]

illicit addictive poisons

"All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dosage makes a thing not poison."
—Paracelsus

[BananaStand]

"All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dosage makes a thing not poison."
—Paracelsus

I wonder if Paracelsus would feel the same way if he ever encountered crack

[CoccoBill]

The LD50 of crack for rats is roughly the same as arsenic, which is half that of sugar jk one tenth of caffeine.

[BananaStand]

The LD50 of crack for rats is roughly the same as arsenic, which is half that of sugar jk one tenth of caffeine.

Are you sure you're interpreting LD50 correctly? The smaller the number, the more deadly the substance.

You're saying here, that crack is 10x more deadly than caffeine. Not surprising, nor is it a compelling argument for caffeine and crack to be equally legal.

[OngBonga]

You're all outside of your minds if you're going to latch on to whatever 'data' seems to suggest that hard drugs are no more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. That's crazy.

I'm happy enough to use my pesonal experience as evidence, and find data that supports it.

I don't know anyone who died thanks to cocaine. I know a few people who are a mess thanks to heroin. I also know a few people who won't live past 50 thanks to alcohol. Then there's the fact that the most likely way I'm going to die is lung cancer because I smoke tobacco, not weed, and not because I sometimes drop acid, and not because I used to eat a facefull of pills at weekends.

There are no 'casual' heroin users out there.

Incorrect.

The idea that tobacco is more addictive than heroin is complete nonsense, I don't care how much 'data' you show me.

Also incorrect. The fact you won't accept "data" merely demonstrates that you are not talking facts here, merely opinions. That's fine, but the distinction is important.

All of that 'data' relies on the liberally expanded definition of the word 'addiction'.

How would you define "addiction"? How are you successfully distinguishing between the addiciton of heroin and that of tobacco, and determining that heroin is more addictive? I would argue they are both as addictive as one another, because both are charactaerised by an increase in tolerance as the user becomes addicted, and both result in unpleasant withdrawal symptom. The vast majority of smokers are addicted... why else do they smoke? It's not so easy to say the same with heroin, because people take heroin occasionally to get wasted, while not doing so regularly because they fear addiction.

It's not fair to compare legal habit forming substances, to illicit addictive poisons. Don't fall for that garbage.

You seem to think that the legal status of a substance is what determines its danger. That's garbage.

Is biting your nails an 'addiction'? Grinding your teeth? Chocolate? We're really gonna evaluate all that stuff on the same scale as crack? C'mon

Chocolate is addictive. Everything you ingest is a potential drug, because it changes the chemistry of your brain. Chocolate releases dopamine, which is exactly the same reason I like smoking weed. Granted, chocolate doesn't quite have the same effect, but it's technically a drug (because it is a substance which has a psychological effect when ingested), and it's addictive (because it releases dopamine). Just because it doesn't fit your view of the word "drug", doesn't make it any less of a fact. Google "is chocolate a drug" and learn about enkephalin.

[CoccoBill]

Are you sure you're interpreting LD50 correctly? The smaller the number, the more deadly the substance.

You're absolutely right. I first made the idiotic error of misreading mg's and g's without thinking, when I realized it I wanted to leave it here for all to see to teach myself a lesson. Then of course I proceeded to do another mistake with the 10x vs 1/10th. Yup, not my brightest moment.

You're saying here, that crack is 10x more deadly than caffeine. Not surprising, nor is it a compelling argument for caffeine and crack to be equally legal.

However, this is where we again diverge quite a bit. If Paracelsus knew of a drug that's as toxic as arsenic, I'd think he would have been unimpressed. Also take note, the lethal dose (for 50% of the ones ingesting it) for cocaine or arsenic is a bit over 1 gram. The same for caffeine, which is completely unregulated, not considered a poison or even that harmful, that amount is a bit over 10 grams. Do you think the current legal status and attitude towards these substances is logical?

[BananaStand]

How are you successfully distinguishing between the addiciton of heroin and that of tobacco,

Common sense

I would argue they are both as addictive as one another, because both are charactaerised by an increase in tolerance as the user becomes addicted, and both result in unpleasant withdrawal symptom.

Not even close to the same thing

It's not so easy to say the same with heroin, because people take heroin occasionally to get wasted, while not doing so regularly because they fear addiction.

The prevalance and availability of heroin compared to cigarrettes has a lot to do with that.

You seem to think that the legal status of a substance is what determines its danger. That's garbage.

I don't think that. I think the danger of a substance is what determines its legal status. Therefore, using that already-determined legal status as an indicator of danger is not 'garbage'.

Chocolate is addictive.

So why isn't chocolate illegal? Could it be that society has determined that people can ingest chocolate, enjoy it's affects, without losing control of themselves? Could it also be that society determined that those who do develop a habit aren't in very much danger?

Everything you ingest is a potential drug,

Do you see the slippery slope you're going down here? You've split enough hairs over the definition of "addiction" so that you can apply it to anything. That allows you to compare heroin to nicotine as if they are even in the same ballpark. They aren't.

[BananaStand]

You're absolutely right......, not my brightest moment.

No worries, I had to look up what LD50 was. Found an interesting footnote:

NOTE: Comparing substances (especially drugs) to each other by LD50 can be misleading in many cases due (in part) to differences in effective dose

Also take note, the lethal dose (for 50% of the ones ingesting it) for cocaine or arsenic is a bit over 1 gram. The same for caffeine, which is completely unregulated, not considered a poison or even that harmful, that amount is a bit over 10 grams. Do you think the current legal status and attitude towards these substances is logical?

Umm, yes.

The drug that's lethal in the smaller quantity, should be considered more dangerous. That sounds totally logical to me.

In addition to that, 1 gram of cocaine is somewhat close to what a person might actually possess and use within a short time. Whereas 10 grams of caffeine is nearly impossible to ingest. There are only 63mg in a 20 oz bottle of soda. You'd have to drink almost 25 gallons of pepsi in order to overdose on caffeeine.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I really don't wanna beat this horse with you. Virtually every single paragraph written on the opioid epidemic in America cites the cheap price of drugs as a major reason for their prevalence. If you're still unconvinced, then it's a lost cause to try and convince you. Believe that only rich people can afford heroin if you like.

I believe the numbers in your other links better represent a factual value for a long-term heroine user. The number you quoted from your 4th link earlier bears no scientific backing, and even that link presents the number "as low as $5 for a dose that could last up to 5 hours." That is not language used to describe a typical or "representative case" amount of either presented quantity.

I stated my reasoning as to why I'm skeptical of this number over your other quoted numbers, so your pretending that I'm ignoring your data or claiming to absurd numbers is simply voluntary ignorance on your part.

You also ignored my question as to why this number, from all the numbers you quoted, is the one that you choose to be the "representative case?"

Dude....it's not the junkies that are getting locked up. Only 297 of them in the entire federal prison system.

I agree with you that there are people whom pose a danger only to themselves imprisoned for non-violent crimes.

Note: It costs, on average, more than the median household income of an American family to imprison a single inmate.

Is it acceptable to you that, in the "land of the free," this cost is being spent on imprisoning non-violent criminals?
If so, then that is our only real disagreement, here. Everything else is a trivial consequence of that core belief.

Yeah...it's called *physical* addiction. It's caused by the drug. You make it sound like these people are just depressed.

The physical addiction can't be the disease, since it is not present when a person uses drugs for the first time.
The physical addiction is a symptom of the disease.

I don't know who told you that there's anything "just" about depression.
If you are lucky enough to not know what depression is firsthand, then your lack of empathy over this disease is understandable, but your criticisms on it are moot.

Right, so why would a doctor ever prescribe cocaine, heroin, or meth? What medical purpose could they serve that isn't already addressed by other drugs? Don't you think that doctors already have a consensus saying that is "the fullest and most accurate description" of illicit drugs? Why legalize these drugs if there is no way to get them legally?

Why? Because they believe it is the best practice in that situation.

What? IDK. I'm a physicist, not a doctor.

Don't I? No. I don't think broad consensus is binding on any individual doctor's actions, though, either. Do you know otherwise?
Not that what you or I think doctors understand is remotely relevant to anything aside from a statement of our own ignorance.

Why? That would be scandalously stupid, and is not what I am anticipating. If that became the reality, though, then I'd admit that I was wrong, that the data is in, and that my model was flawed.


These are great questions, which I am not qualified to answer beyond saying, "I don't know." I am not a doctor, nor do I consult with (medical) doctors. A doctor would be the one to answer these questions, not a physicist.

I wont jump from "I don't know" to "It must be..." without any steps in between... on purpose.

Right, but those potentially dangerous side effects are outweighed by the medical benefit. How could you ever make that case for coke, heroin, or meth?

What data informs your position on your first sentence above. What grey areas are there which motivate you to make a call between a slight medical benefit and a side effect? What strikes a balance where you know that while a side effect is present, it is worth the risk to the patient?

How could I ever make the case? Well, as an experimentalist and physicist, I'd create a model and test it by collecting data and creating falsifiable statements from that data.
If I could show evidence of a single medical benefit to a single person and show that the expected complications with addiction were minor, then I'd consider that the foundation for a case.
I am not one to believe that if I don't know the answer to a question, that it has no answer.

The bigger question, here is:
Why do you think a physicist's opinion should weigh anything on this? I'm not an MD. Are you suggesting that these medical questions should be answered by a majority, whether or not that majority has any medical training?

I'm really not going to engage in any argument that equates cigarrettes and booze with heroin and meth. I really don't wanna see coke overdose numbers compared to drunk driving deaths, that's all false flag nonsense. Heroin, meth, and cocaine are incredibly more dangerous than the legal substances you're referring to. It's really not even close.

Then why bring it up?
Your argument is, in part, that a substance being addictive is enough reason for it to be illegal. I was pointing out that, while that is your opinion, it doesn't represent the greater jurisprudence of the USA.

"More dangerous?" I am under the impression that you lack the credentials to make that claim in a legitimate manner.
Am I wrong? Are you an MD? Have you spent the past decades establishing a body of work which qualifies you to make these claims?

"It's not even close?" Your words do not sway me to think anything other than that you are sharing your opinions, which are not motivated by medical studies or conclusions.

I am not convinced by your appeal to me to condemn or incarcerate broken people.
I am not persuaded to pretend that people I don't understand do not deserve my compassion.

So why do we need heroin?

Exactly.
...
Exactly.

You know the question. You just don't believe that it has a real, honest answer.
I do.

I believe that this answer speaks to a deeply human Truth about ourselves and our cultures.
I do not believe that treating this question is rhetorical will bring anyone a deeper understanding of anything.

Because it's cheaper with less obstacles!! Are you denying that this is happening? Four out of five heroin addicts start with prescription pain-killers. Those are legal drugs, that they can get from a doctor. Even you admit that addicts can be quite clever at convincing doctors to give them those drugs. And yet, despite that accessibility, they still turn to heroin.

My premise is, "if the drugs are legal options to discuss with their doctor."
I deny that illicit drugs are legal options to discuss with their doctor, yes. Do you not?

"They still turn to heroine"
Why is this a problem for you?

'Cause my question's premise is, "If there are no illegal drugs..." so turning to heroine wouldn't be turning to an illegal drug. It would be no different than if you told your doctor that your current pain meds weren't enough and that you need something more.
Whether or not a drug has medical benefits is between a doctor and patient on a case by case basis.
Neither of us is qualified to 2nd guess the professional opinion of an MD on healthcare.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You're all outside of your minds if you're going to latch on to whatever 'data' seems to suggest that hard drugs are no more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. That's crazy.

Any fair minded person can look at the effects of one dose of alcohol compared to the effects of one dose of meth and easily see which drug is more dangerous. There are no 'casual' heroin users out there.

The idea that tobacco is more addictive than heroin is complete nonsense, I don't care how much 'data' you show me. All of that 'data' relies on the liberally expanded definition of the word 'addiction'. The Reagan-era anti-drug hysteria also sprouted a lesser hysteria dedicated to anti-smoking. Rather than rely on the term 'habit forming', they co-opted the word "addiction" so they could illustrate how bad smoking is, drinking too.

It's not fair to compare legal habit forming substances, to illicit addictive poisons. Don't fall for that garbage.

Is biting your nails an 'addiction'? Grinding your teeth? Chocolate? We're really gonna evaluate all that stuff on the same scale as crack? C'mon

This cements your position as a troll.

When you discount any data which belies the validity of your position, then you are merely a voluntarily ignorant chatterbox.

[CoccoBill]

Umm, yes.

The drug that's lethal in the smaller quantity, should be considered more dangerous. That sounds totally logical to me.

Exactly, and we can see proof of that here:

Substance LD50
Water 90g/kg
Alcohol 7060mg/kg
Cannabis 1000mg/kg
Methamphetamine 980mg/kg
Ibuprofen 636mg/kg
Caffeine 192mg/kg
Cocaine 96mg/kg
Vitamin D3 37mg/kg
Heroin 21mg/kg
Nicotine 6.5-13mg/kg
Sodium cyanide 6.4mg/kg

Yup, obvious to anyone that lethality is exactly why some substances are considered illegal.

In addition to that, 1 gram of cocaine is somewhat close to what a person might actually possess and use within a short time. Whereas 10 grams of caffeine is nearly impossible to ingest. There are only 63mg in a 20 oz bottle of soda. You'd have to drink almost 25 gallons of pepsi in order to overdose on caffeeine.

That's a good one. How much Coke do you need to drink to reach the LD50 of cocaine? You do know that you can buy over-the-counter caffeine pills?

[Savy]

I also think we're missing the point that just because something is bad for you doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to do it.

[CoccoBill]

Nah, we've established that banana is the proper authority to determine what substances people shouldn't ingest, which words they shouldn't use and which life decisions are inappropriate.

[BananaStand]

You also ignored my question as to why this number, from all the numbers you quoted, is the one that you choose to be the "representative case?"

I didn't ignore it. I deliberately chose not to respond. Heroin use is up, because, among other reasons, heroin is cheap. If you disagree with that conclusion, debate yourself. Beyond that, I have no interest in splitting hairs over whether is $5, or $10.

I agree with you that there are people whom pose a danger only to themselves imprisoned for non-violent crimes.

I think you misunderstood me. The number of these people, relative to the entire prison population, is microscopic.

Note: It costs, on average, more than the median household income of an American family to imprison a single inmate.

Demonstrably false.

Is it acceptable to you that, in the "land of the free," this cost is being spent on imprisoning non-violent criminals?

First of all, yes. Second of all, who said they are non-violent?

The physical addiction can't be the disease, since it is not present when a person uses drugs for the first time.

False again. Many users migrate to heroin seeking a more satisfying high because they are already physically addicted to something else.

The physical addiction is a symptom of the disease.

Not necessarily. It could also be a consequence. Possibly an unforseen or unintended consequence. The more physically addictive a substance is, the more likely that is to occur.

I don't know who told you that there's anything "just" about depression.
If you are lucky enough to not know what depression is firsthand, then your lack of empathy over this disease is understandable, but your criticisms on it are moot..

Probably best if we don't go down this road. I'm not denying that depression is a real thing, but I do think it's way way way fucking overblown. It wasn't a 'thing' until we had drugs for it that we could sell. The criteria for diagnosis is extremely loose and subjective, and seems to hinge on whether or not the patient has insurance or cash to buy drugs. Psychiatrists are closer to drug dealers than they are scientists.

Why? Because they believe it is the best practice in that situation.

Could you please speculate as to what situation might call for meth use as a 'best practice'? What affliction currently baffles medical science that might be solved by prescribing crack?

Why? That would be scandalously stupid, and is not what I am anticipating. If that became the reality, though, then I'd admit that I was wrong, that the data is in, and that my model was flawed.

What are you, a physicist, anticipating that doctors will do?

I wont jump from "I don't know" to "It must be..." without any steps in between... on purpose.

I will. The idea that doctors would use already tested and proven drugs to treat medical afflictions, rather than prescribe recently legalized heroin, is a pretty safe conclusion to jump to.

What data informs your position on your first sentence above. .... What strikes a balance where you know that while a side effect is present, it is worth the risk to the patient?

The informed opinion of an educated medical professional.

How could I ever make the case? Well, as an experimentalist and physicist, I'd create a model and test it by collecting data and creating falsifiable statements from that data.

So you would experiment on human beings by prescribing them dangerous drugs?

Your argument is, in part, that a substance being addictive is enough reason for it to be illegal.

False. My argument is that there is a distinction between a substance that is habit-forming, and one that causes life-altering addiction. If you're using the same definition of "addictive" to evaluate caffeine as you are using to evaluate cocaine, then your conclusions are not convincing.

"More dangerous?" I am under the impression that you lack the credentials to make that claim in a legitimate manner.
Am I wrong? Are you an MD? Have you spent the past decades establishing a body of work which qualifies you to make these claims?

Fair enough. I challenge you to ask 100 MD's whether they would prefer one of their patients indulge in a glass of wine every day, or a bump of cocaine every day. Let me know your results.

"It's not even close?" Your words do not sway me to think anything other than that you are sharing your opinions, which are not motivated by medical studies or conclusions.

Fine, I'll reserve judgement until you publish the results of your survey. What should we say is "close"? 55/45? 60/40? I'll bet you don't get 5 doctors to pick cocaine.

I am not convinced by your appeal to me to condemn or incarcerate broken people.
I am not persuaded to pretend that people I don't understand do not deserve my compassion.

You're certainly free to feel that way. However, I choose to withhold my compassion from folks who exploit other people's addictions for profit.

You know the question. You just don't believe that it has a real, honest answer.
I do.

Ok professor, what's the answer. Why do we need heroin?

My premise is, "if the drugs are legal options to discuss with their doctor."
I deny that illicit drugs are legal options to discuss with their doctor, yes. Do you not?

In your premise, who's paying these doctors??

"They still turn to heroine"
Why is this a problem for you?

Because it proves that all it takes is a better/cheaper high to convince a user to completely circumvent the legal market for drugs. Whatever benefit you glean from legalizing drugs goes out the window once something else is invented.

'Cause my question's premise is, "If there are no illegal drugs..." so turning to heroine wouldn't be turning to an illegal drug..

Your question's premise presumes that there wouldn't be a black market for heroin. If you're legalizing drugs, but at the same time creating costs and obstacles to getting them, you really aren't doing much to motivate the cartels to stop doing business their way.

It would be no different than if you told your doctor that your current pain meds weren't enough and that you need something more.

You're presuming that it's even possible that a doctor might then prescribe crack because vicodin isn't enough. The medical community already has a solution to this. There are pain-care clinics where people can go and get cortisone shots, morphine, or other IV drugs if it's determined that they are in extreme and chronic pain.

Does the American Medical Association already have an opinion on the risks/benefits of cocaine? Shouldn't that be a guide in determining whether or not we permit the drug to be legal? Legalizing them all and then seeing what happens is pretty fucking bad science Mr. Physicist.

[Savy]

Does the American Medical Association already have an opinion on the risks/benefits of cocaine? Shouldn't that be a guide in determining whether or not we permit the drug to be legal? Legalizing them all and then seeing what happens is pretty fucking bad science Mr. Physicist.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...id-nutt-sacked

[OngBonga]

Could it be that society has determined that people can ingest chocolate, enjoy it's affects, without losing control of themselves?

This isn't what determines legal status, otherwise alcohol would definitely be illegal, and weed would not be a problem.

I think the danger of a substance is what determines its legal status.

If this were true, tobacco would be considered more serious than cannabis. Are you really going to pretend that you think cannabis is more dangerous than tobacco? Or are you going to concede that the danger of a substance does not determine its legal status?

[MadMojoMonkey]

[...]

Troll.

[BananaStand]

Troll.

So when all your data, and studies, and drug-dangerousness-rankings get called out as inconclusive because they don't differentiate between a habit that's hard to break, and a dangerous addiction, you resort to name-calling

That's a very convincing argument.

[Savy]

Odds on bananastand being spoon?

[BananaStand]

Odds on bananastand being spoon?

Didn't we play this game once already

[Savy]

Didn't we play this game once already

Odds are constant?

[OngBonga]

Odds on bananastand being spoon?

Nah. banana is not nearly condescending enough. Also, while banana's English is excellent, he's not touching spoon when it comes to grammar. That's not something that's easy to hide, people tend to make obvious typos when they're trying to post in a different style. The sentence structure is different. spoon really did have a near-perfect grasp of written English, certainly to the point I couldn't find fault.

[OngBonga]

Also, spoon as a fake member would definitely go out of his way to troll me the most.

[MadMojoMonkey]

So when all your data, and studies, and drug-dangerousness-rankings get called out as inconclusive because they don't differentiate between a habit that's hard to break, and a dangerous addiction, you resort to name-calling

That's a very convincing argument.

I haven't presented any data or any studies or rankings, so whatever you called out has nothing to do with me.

You haven't effectively offered any substantive information which has answered any of my questions about the actual comparative harm of imprisonment vs. any alternative. Your position is an un-nuanced "illegal drugs are bad and people who use them are bad." This is a disengagement from my line of questioning, and I don't feel I'm learning anything from you on this topic.

I'm not insulting your character or questioning your lineage, nor metaphorically comparing you to any body parts. I'm not discrediting you or your choice to troll this thread and forum. I'm merely citing that I've had enough of playing what it now perfectly clear to me is some game whose rules I don't understand.

I am saying that you renounce that any data could change your position. You attribute ideas and positions to me which I do not espouse. You ask questions which are non-sequitur requests for me to guess what people I've never met will do as though that can possibly be relevant. In short, you side-tracked a million times, and not once helped me to understand my questions.

So calling a troll a troll is not name-calling. It's disengaging from a fruitless conversation with more explanation than you deserve.

***
Oh. I came back to admit that you're right about the average cost to keep an inmate being less than median household income (~54k). It's not.
I went to post the links and saw that I confused the New York state cost per inmate (~$60k) with the national average (~35k).

'Cause when I'm wrong, and the data shows it, I admit it, and I change my position.
If you are unwilling to do the same, then you're a troll in this thread and on this forum.

And no, I'm not asking you to leave.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Nah. banana is not nearly condescending enough. Also, while banana's English is excellent, he's not touching spoon when it comes to grammar. That's not something that's easy to hide, people tend to make obvious typos when they're trying to post in a different style. The sentence structure is different. spoon really did have a near-perfect grasp of written English, certainly to the point I couldn't find fault.

First sentence is spot on. Although.. if this is spoony trolling me, then I have to give the man credit where it's due.
Epic.
Truly epic.
I'd have to admit that he baits me much better than I gave him credit for.
He'd truly be the master at baiting. I'd owe him a trophy.

You're probably right on the rest, too, though.

[OngBonga]

So when all your data, and studies, and drug-dangerousness-rankings get called out as inconclusive because they don't differentiate between a habit that's hard to break, and a dangerous addiction, you resort to name-calling

That's a very convincing argument.

Note the missing full stop. No way does spoon make that typo. He writes for a living, so it's very unlikely he's making these kind of typos. It could be deliberate, but who's going to notice other than me? I didn't notice it at first.

It's definitely not spoon.

Also, how long do you think spoon can type words for without going on a rant about feminism?

[OngBonga]

I reckon spoon could only fool me in this manner if he pretended to be an idiot. That's not as easy as it seems when you're so skilled in writing.

[BananaStand]

I haven't presented any data or any studies or rankings, so whatever you called out has nothing to do with me.

I didn't know this was a private conversation between us. I thought this was a group discussion and a large portion of that group is waving stats in my face to prove totally nonsensical garbage like 'cigarettes are worse than meth'. If you're butt hurt about being caught in the crossfire, you have my deepest, most sincere, apologies.

You haven't effectively offered any substantive information which has answered any of my questions about the actual comparative harm of imprisonment vs. any alternative.

Yes I have. Not the least of which was to illustrate that if you released every imprisoned drug offender right now, it wouldn't do very much to curb the United State's world-leading incarceration rate. Again, I didn't realize you and I were having a private conversation. I assumed you read the back and forth I had with Jack explaining this very thing.

If your problem is 'too much imprisonment' in America, there are ways to possibly reduce that by addressing certain policies. For example, 'Truth in Sentencing' laws passed in 1994 (long after drugs were declared illegal), has a lot to do with the the world-leading incarceration rate. The illegality of drugs....not so much.

Your position is an un-nuanced "illegal drugs are bad and people who use them are bad." This is a disengagement from my line of questioning, and I don't feel I'm learning anything from you on this topic.

If you're not learning, it's because you're not listening.

Correct me if I'm wrong but your 'line of questioning' goes like this: What if drugs were legal, but heavily controlled through the use of doctor's prescriptions?

Do I have that right?

It doesn't take a very nuanced position to refute that line of thinking. I believe I've done so, quite eloquently, but if you need a recap, here it is:
1) I think it's safe to say that the medical community already has a massive majority consensus on the dangers of illicit drugs. However, I have already committed to reserve judgement on this until you come back with the results of a survey where you ask 100 M.D.'s whether they would prefer their patients drink a glass of wine every day, or take a bump of cocaine every day. Let me know what you find out.

2) I don't believe there is any widespread affliction plaguing mankind that could be solved by prescribing crack. Again, if I'm wrong on this, please tell me exactly what disease can be treated ONLY by an illicit drug, and how many people the CDC claims suffer from this affliction in the United States.

3) Assuming that I'm correct on #1 and #2, the idea that a doctor would ever write a prescription for these drugs is an insane fantasy. What is the point of legalizing drugs, if you've provided no realistic legal method to access them? You haven't done anything to curb the black-market sales of these drugs, which is ruled by violent cartels and street gangs.

4) I'm further convinced that your suggestion is completely untenable by the reality that we live in today regarding prescription pain-killers. These are only accessible for legitimate medical needs and their distribution is controlled by a medical doctor. They exist under the exact set of conditions you propose for illegal drugs. Yet they are still abused. That abuse leads to addictions that leads to further destructive behavior, such as seeking out a better high from heroin. Adding more dangerous substances to that equation, can't possibly make things better.

I am saying that you renounce that any data could change your position.

False. I am open minded and neutral. I espouse a position when data and convincing logic lead me there. But I thought you and I were having a private conversation where you cited no data. I don't want your feelings hurt again, so plug your ears while I explain to the group, yet again, why I renounce the 'data'.

The numbers are cooked. All the data cited in this thread illustrating the dangers of alcohol/nicotine vs other illicit drugs relies on a ridiculous, subjective, vague definition of "addiction". Psychologists have basically listed what they think the symptoms of addiction are, and it's a pretty long list that includes various withdrawal symptoms, development of a tolerance, or simply making bad decisions that you might believe are related to drug use. You only need a few things from the list to qualify for an "addiction". No two 'addictions' present with the same set of symptoms. It's just a nebulous affliction that can be molded like play-dough into whatever form best suits your purpose.

So there is no differentiation between a substance that is 'addictive' and one that is merely 'habit-forming'. I believe that seriously taints the numbers. I believe that smoking and drinking, in the extreme majority of cases, are merely habits that have minimal impact on people's lives.

I believe the idea that 'cigarettes are harder to quit than heroin' is a myth. The accessibility of cigarettes (you can buy em anywhere) and the social prevalence of them increases temptation. So it might *seem* like it's harder to quit, but physically, it's not. Quitting heroin is a totally different animal.

I don't see how it's troll-y to set aside data if you can explain, as I just have, why you think it's invalid.

If I asked you to describe a duck, and you listed all the characteristics of a duck that you could think of. It might be a long list, but if any animal met three criteria from the list, it would be classified as a "duck". What if I then painted a dog's fur white, it's feet orange, and taught it to quack? I could present that animal as a duck because it meets multiple criteria on your list of duck characteristics. It still doesn't have webbed feet, it still doesn't lay eggs, it definitely doesn't have duck DNA. It still barks, lifts it's leg to pee, and chases the mailman, but because of the pliability of the definition....this animal is a duck

That's all that's being done in this thread when people try to use these statistics to illustrate how illegal drugs really aren't that bad compared to booze or cigarettes. All you're doing is showing me a painted dog, and telling me it's a duck.

You attribute ideas and positions to me which I do not espouse.

Jesus man, whine some more, see if it helps.

You ask questions which are non-sequitur requests for me to guess what people I've never met will do as though that can possibly be relevant.

Your whole position revolves around doctors prescribing heroin. Is it non-sequitur to then follow up with questions about why you think the medical community might possibly entertain that idea?

[BananaStand]

Nah. banana is not nearly condescending enough.

Really?

[OngBonga]

Spoon really was a condescending motherfucker.

That's not the word I'd use to describe you. I think you're just misguided.

[OngBonga]

cigarettes are worse than meth

They are by one measure... deaths.

If there were as many meth users as there are smokers, then meth would be far worse. Fortunately, meth isn't quite as much a social problem as cigarettes are.

[BananaStand]

Fortunately, meth isn't quite as much a social problem as cigarettes are.

This ignores geography. Maybe when you zoom out and look at an entire country per-capita, things don't look so bad. But there are pockets of populations where meth is a vicious scourge.