The Wall

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.