The Wall

[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.

[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?