Baltimore getting "progressive"

[panamaican]

I'm sure there's plenty of that out there. I also think there's a ton of sensible people who realize the benefits of prohibition or sketchy and feel it's time to try something different and marijuana is the perfect place to put the efficacy of past policies to the test. So I get a little froggy over the thought of painting with that brush too broadly.

I try to avoid broad brush strokes but I do see more overlap than I would have expected.

To me, discussing the issue of legalization without it being part of an economics or social direction conversation is extremely incomplete.

For those people who use recreationally and just want it to more socially accepted, fine. But there's an entire other side of this conversation that involves the why's and wherefore's of how people end up dealing drugs or how it impacts social structures.

As I said to Dochter, I get the feeling some people ignore or downplay the social and economic issues that create drug dealers and ruin communities. Because those social and economic issues aren't going to disappear just because we legalize 1 drug here or 1 drug there. My bigger concern is that those people are simply going to continue being scorned and marginalized once the consumer no longer has to acknowledge that some sketchy dude/dudette is part of the supply chain.

 

[UpaLoompa]

If you're disenfranchised, poor, and therefore dealing drugs you're going to be left with people that are still disenfranchised and poor after legalization. Hence, my earlier post:

If you take the money out of drug dealing you have to deal with the factors that contributed to the decline of the inner city and the adoption of drug dealing in the first place. If there continue to be no legal economic opportunities, yes some other crime will be necessary. Currently we're in a negative feedback loop where legal economic opportunities were taken away, a drug black market emerged, was encouraged, and took root. That black market engendered considerable crime (which is what black markets do) which prevents the emergence and persistence of legal economic opportunities.

Of course it is easier to attribute this to racial differences in propensity toward violence, as has been indirectly done in this thread, and general discrimination against people born into poverty, than to think about any of this shit with any depth.

 

[panamaican]

If you're disenfranchised, poor, and therefore dealing drugs you're going to be left with people that are still disenfranchised and poor after legalization. Hence, my earlier post:

Of course it is easier to attribute this to racial differences in propensity toward violence, as has been indirectly done in this thread, and general discrimination against people born into poverty, than to think about any of this shit with any depth.

Which is pretty much where my thought process is. The whole cycle that results in drug dealers gets marginalized or minimized as if the illegality of drugs is somehow the primary reason we have poor people dealing drugs.

 

[clmetal]

All of that happens due to alcohol as well.

People get addicted to heroin the 1st time they use it because of dope sickness. Has that ever happened with alcohol? It also happens with meth.

Also most people drink and dont have a problem, I doubt there are many social or periodic heroin and meth users.

I can't even imagine either of those 2 being legal or sold in stores. So the comparisons to alcohol should be limited. Alcohol compared to a non addicting drug like pot or even cocaine would make more sense

 

[Denter]

Lots of people, clearly.

But much fewer, right?

I'm sure there is a correlation with the slow creep of anti-smoking laws and the fact that fewer and fewer people smoke every year.

 

[panamaican]

But much fewer, right?

I'm sure there is a correlation with the slow creep of anti-smoking laws and the fact that fewer and fewer people smoke every year.

Or just look to those countries that aren't as aggressively anti-smoker as us.

I recall reading that despite the drop in U.S. sales, tobacco companies are cleaning up overseas in countries where the governments haven't take a stand against it. I agree with you that legalization will increase use.

I know the pro-pot people have a bunch of studies that say the effects are negligible but I don't recall how long the research was conducted for.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I try to avoid broad brush strokes but I do see more overlap than I would have expected.

To me, discussing the issue of legalization without it being part of an economics or social direction conversation is extremely incomplete.

For those people who use recreationally and just want it to more socially accepted, fine. But there's an entire other side of this conversation that involves the why's and wherefore's of how people end up dealing drugs or how it impacts social structures.

As I said to Dochter, I get the feeling some people ignore or downplay the social and economic issues that create drug dealers and ruin communities. Because those social and economic issues aren't going to disappear just because we legalize 1 drug here or 1 drug there. My bigger concern is that those people are simply going to continue being scorned and marginalized once the consumer no longer has to acknowledge that some sketchy dude/dudette is part of the supply chain.

I don't think anyone believes ending prohibition will eliminate poverty or anything. Some social issues will certainly disappear when a large segment of people are no longer persecuted/incarcerated. Of course people will still look down on people, but that's minor compared to being an actual criminal. I guess I'm not sure what you want people to say. There's a number of arguments to be made and most people are going to pick one or two instead of arguing the entirety of the spectrum. The bottom line is there's no integrity in our system of legality/prohibition/scheduling and anyone who isn't lying to themselves can see it.

People get addicted to heroin the 1st time they use it because of dope sickness. Has that ever happened with alcohol? It also happens with meth.

Is this what you're basing your opinion on? If so then you can go ahead and change it.

http://luxury.rehabs.com/heroin-addiction/withdrawal-symptoms/

People who use heroin only once, or who use the drug on an intermittent basis, may never experience heroin withdrawal. Only people who have developed a tolerance for the drug are susceptible to the withdrawal syndrome. Changes in chemistry due to drug abuse are to blame.

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, heroin withdrawal symptoms are rarely fatal and they typically peak in severity within 48 and 72 hours after the last dose of heroin. Many people who go through heroin withdrawal report that the physical symptoms of withdrawal feel a lot like a terrible case of the flu.

 

[panamaican]

I don't think anyone believes ending prohibition will eliminate poverty or anything. Some social issues will certainly disappear when a large segment of people are no longer persecuted/incarcerated. Of course people will still look down on people, but that's minor compared to being an actual criminal. I guess I'm not sure what you want people to say. There's a number of arguments to be made and most people are going to pick one or two instead of arguing the entirety of the spectrum. The bottom line is there's no integrity in our system of legality/prohibition/scheduling and anyone who isn't lying to themselves can see it.

See, I disagree that any social issues will actually disappear. Before we go further down this road - I'm undecided on legalization. Okay, back on topic.

I'm doubtful that the majority of people persecuted/incarcerated for drug offenses are involved in the drug game while taking a break from regular middle class jobs. As you mentioned several posts ago, most users aren't that worried about going to jail - so who is being persecuted/incarcerated? The dealers, more often than not.

So then the question becomes: Why are these people dealing drugs? The second question is: To what extent is the decision to deal drugs related to the legality of drugs?

The answer to the first question is complex but can probably be summarized as some response to reduced economic/social opportunity elsewhere. The answer to the second question is probably a simple "probably not much".

So, does legalizing drugs change the circumstances that lead to drug dealing and I would hypothesize that it doesn't. That suggests that after legalizing drugs, the dealers will still have the same economic/social problems they had before and will still pursue a life of crime. So what do we do next? Legalize whatever crime they migrate to? Of course not.

So, I always return to the same general point of view - if we legalized drugs would it actually help the people most likely to be arrested? No one's shown me anything to that effect on the economic/social side. I understand how the consumer win and the state wins and the prison industrial complex loses. I don't understand how people who turn to crime for economic reasons win.

Let me put it in another simple question: What does an undereducated, unemployed drug dealer do for money when he can no longer sell drugs for a living?

 

[James Keith]

Which is a bigger public health concern, heart disease or heroin overdoses? If you say heroin you're an idiot.

You're so full of self-righteousness and hypocrisy I can smell you, no I can't, we're typing. If your argument for keeping these drugs illegal are health and crime based, you do not have a coherent argument unless you also think that a hell of a lot of other things should be made illegal too.

Of course, your argument presumes that trans fats specifically cause heart disease.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I'm doubtful that the majority of people persecuted/incarcerated for drug offenses are involved in the drug game while taking a break from regular middle class jobs. As you mentioned several posts ago, most users aren't that worried about going to jail - so who is being persecuted/incarcerated? The dealers, more often than not.

So then the question becomes: Why are these people dealing drugs? The second question is: To what extent is the decision to deal drugs related to the legality of drugs?

The answer to the first question is complex but can probably be summarized as some response to reduced economic/social opportunity elsewhere. The answer to the second question is probably a simple "probably not much".

So, does legalizing drugs change the circumstances that lead to drug dealing and I would hypothesize that it doesn't. That suggests that after legalizing drugs, the dealers will still have the same economic/social problems they had before and will still pursue a life of crime. So what do we do next? Legalize whatever crime they migrate to? Of course not.

So, I always return to the same general point of view - if we legalized drugs would it actually help the people most likely to be arrested? No one's shown me anything to that effect on the economic/social side. I understand how the consumer win and the state wins and the prison industrial complex loses. I don't understand how people who turn to crime for economic reasons win.

Let me put it in another simple question: What does an undereducated, unemployed drug dealer do for money when he can no longer sell drugs for a living?

I don't think your assumptions are solid. I'd bet the majority of "dealers" are part-timers who got involved because of their own usage and decided to make a business of it after hooking up too many friends and friend's friends. I'm sure it's totally different with weed vs. coke since anybody can and does grow weed but coca plants not so much. Until you have some reliable demographics I doubt your speculation hits the mark.

Since hardly anybody rises out of poverty via drug dealing I doubt it's going to be terribly hard for them to replace that income. I think it was Freakonomics that argued only a handful of dudes at the top really made bank in the drug trade.

Just a simple thought here to undermine your entire point. The act of dealing drugs is a market activity that almost always involves two parties happy with the transaction. That's no the case with theft or most other crimes. To think that an individual operating outside the law in a black market would turn to any old crime to make money (after choosing not to get a job in the newly legalized market) doesn't stand up to any sort of reasonable scrutiny. It's like saying that because Kevorkian assisted suicides that he'd turn to murder for hire if euthanasia was no longer a crime.

 

[K1levelgrappler]

See, I disagree that any social issues will actually disappear. Before we go further down this road - I'm undecided on legalization. Okay, back on topic.

I'm doubtful that the majority of people persecuted/incarcerated for drug offenses are involved in the drug game while taking a break from regular middle class jobs. As you mentioned several posts ago, most users aren't that worried about going to jail - so who is being persecuted/incarcerated? The dealers, more often than not.

So then the question becomes: Why are these people dealing drugs? The second question is: To what extent is the decision to deal drugs related to the legality of drugs?

The answer to the first question is complex but can probably be summarized as some response to reduced economic/social opportunity elsewhere. The answer to the second question is probably a simple "probably not much".

So, does legalizing drugs change the circumstances that lead to drug dealing and I would hypothesize that it doesn't. That suggests that after legalizing drugs, the dealers will still have the same economic/social problems they had before and will still pursue a life of crime. So what do we do next? Legalize whatever crime they migrate to? Of course not.

So, I always return to the same general point of view - if we legalized drugs would it actually help the people most likely to be arrested? No one's shown me anything to that effect on the economic/social side. I understand how the consumer win and the state wins and the prison industrial complex loses. I don't understand how people who turn to crime for economic reasons win.

Let me put it in another simple question: What does an undereducated, unemployed drug dealer do for money when he can no longer sell drugs for a living?

Yes. You would help these people immensely by not throwing them in jail.

 

[UpaLoompa]

People get addicted to heroin the 1st time they use it because of dope sickness.

I know Nancy Reagan told you that but it isn't necessarily true.

Also most people drink and dont have a problem, I doubt there are many social or periodic heroin and meth users.

There are social coke users because it was socially acceptable (and still is) in some circles. Your point is not evidence of those drugs being especially addictive.

I can't even imagine either of those 2 being legal or sold in stores. So the comparisons to alcohol should be limited. Alcohol compared to a non addicting drug like pot or even cocaine would make more sense

I think you're rather unclear on addiction.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Of course, your argument presumes that trans fats specifically cause heart disease.

If you want to quibble, fine, cigarettes.

Oh wait, you take scientific advice from people that question the links between cigarettes and cancer.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Oh wait, you take scientific advice from people that question the links between cigarettes and cancer.

What's this now?

 

[UpaLoompa]

What's this now?

The research think tanks that put out and support climate change "skepticism" are either the same ones or the progeny of ones that supported "skepticism" about links between cigarettes and cancer, CFCs and the ozone hole, DDT and wildlife damage, asbestos and cancer, etc. They're all paid for and supported by corporate interests.

Pick up Naomi Oreske's "Merchants of Doubt" it is a fantastic and meticulous piece of scholarly investigation of these groups and how they've manipulate public perception and research to generate doubt about scientifically settled topics. It is an academic book with copious sourcing but very well written so it isn't dry and difficult to read.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The research think tanks that put out and support climate change "skepticism" are either the same ones or the progeny of ones that supported "skepticism" about links between cigarettes and cancer, CFCs and the ozone hole, DDT and wildlife damage, asbestos and cancer, etc. They're all paid for and supported by corporate interests.

Pick up Naomi Oreske's "Merchants of Doubt" it is a fantastic and meticulous piece of scholarly investigation of these groups and how they've manipulate public perception and research to generate doubt about scientifically settled topics. It is an academic book with copious sourcing but very well written so it isn't dry and difficult to read.

Thanks. So where's Keith come into this (he's quoting climate change skeptics on trans-fats?) and can I download that book for free?

 

[Denter]

The research think tanks that put out and support climate change "skepticism" are either the same ones or the progeny of ones that supported "skepticism" about links between cigarettes and cancer, CFCs and the ozone hole, DDT and wildlife damage, asbestos and cancer, etc. They're all paid for and supported by corporate interests.

.

Dude banning DDT killed millions in Africa.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Thanks. So where's Keith come into this (he's quoting climate change skeptics on trans-fats?) and can I download that book for free?

He objected to trans fats, for whatever reasons. My first thought was, fine, if you want to quibble we can talk about cigarettes and cancer. Then I remembered his sources for scientific information might balk at that as well. Basically, given who he uses as sources on scientific topics, we pretty much won't agree on acid rain, the ozone layer, lead, cigarettes, etc. I could be wrong about Keith in this instance but I'm not wrong about his sources.

I'm sure you can find the book... somewhere. It is not, however, open access. Quite fascinating. Oreskes is a historian of science and many years ago wrote a very nice book on how the scientific consensus emerged regarding plate tectonics. It was not at all according to some Popperian ideal, instead it was via weight of evidence.

Remembering that book always makes me laugh when I see climate change "skeptics" hold themselves out as being in the right versus the weight of the scientific community. They're actually the old, stodgy, geologists that denied plate tectonics until retirement.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Dude banning DDT killed millions in Africa.

That is what they'll tell you.

 

[UpaLoompa]

A couple of years ago I read a fascinating book about the public health researchers/practitioners/? involved in fighting malaria, DDT, and mosquitos. It was really interesting and showed an interesting application of a post ww2 American mindset. These guys really thought they were saving the world and undoubtedly saved a whole hell of a lot of people. They also imposed such high selection that DDT resistance popped up everywhere very rapidly, an observation many of the key players denied until the end. DDT was ineffective except in contact applications (for which it is still used) long before its use in the US was banned.