The Problem with Libertarians...

[Ramo]

Read the studies. Crack-cocaine is what they studied, not poverty.

Did they do a regression analysis to isolate crack from poverty? Where are the actual statistics? I'd like to see some hard evidence...

Already mentioned them, and #1 is Western interference.

Oh no, I'm not playing that game. It's hard to miss, it's around the pictures of strung out Chinese opium users.

I'm looking at the pictures and don't see the statistics on the demographics of opium users in 19th century China. I just see stuff saying that opium is bad, something that I don't disagree with.

I see where you are going with this. Nice lure but it won't work. Actually, if you have noticed, a caffeine-like compound called Ephedra has been banned.

Does this mean you agree with this decision?

Caffeine hasn't been proven to be dangerous like opium.

Why does that matter? It's still not good for you, and there is no consumer choice involved which was the original point. The coffee bean and cola producers are forcing us to drink it, right?

Actually, there were some Americans in on it. But the fact of the matter is that the British Clippers sailing into those major ports were the equivalent of huge oil tankers sailing into harbor full of opium on board.

Huh? Individual opium shipments need to have high volumes?

[DinoDoc]

The coffee bean and cola producers are forcing us to drink it, right?

No.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Ramo
Did they do a regression analysis to isolate crack from poverty? Where are the actual statistics? I'd like to see some hard evidence...

Again, I'm not playing that game. You asked for a source. You got 2.

I'm looking at the pictures and don't see the statistics on the demographics of opium users in 19th century China. I just see stuff saying that opium is bad, something that I don't disagree with.

Wow, you sure are quick reader to say that. Read the links and you will find the statistics.

Does this mean you agree with this decision?

Yep. Ephedra was not a safe product.

Why does that matter? It's still not good for you, and there is no consumer choice involved which was the original point. The coffee bean and cola producers are forcing us to drink it, right?

It matters because you are completely ignoring the DEGREE of danger involved with using each product. Again, that's a one-dimensional assessment.

Huh? Individual opium shipments need to have high volumes?

I agree, there is not much difference between 2 tons and 200,000 tons.

[Ramo]

Sure they are. I even get caffeine withdrawals when I don't have coffee for too long so I have a physical addiction. And I need coffee to stay up at night to get work done. So I don't have much of a choice, right?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ted -
You call it babble, but it is fact. Opium, cocaine and marijuana were banned by people using racist fears of Chinese, blacks, and Mexicans.

5 + 5 =10 is a fact. That is an opinioned analysis. Which is not a fact.

And you are still missing the more recent posts Obiwan and I (page20?) made about drug consumption rates prior to the Harrison Act.

Good lawd Quick Draw. Unlike you I don't have the rest of my life to respond to posts on Apolyton so give me some damn time to go back and check! I already said I would look for them, damn.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
So I don't have much of a choice, right?

You can drink decaffinated coffee and coke if caffine is a big problem for you.

[Ramo]

Again, I'm not playing that game. You asked for a source. You got 2.

It's an important aspect of any such study. Any coorelation study is meaningless without a regression including all important variables.

Wow, you sure are quick reader to say that. Read the links and you will find the statistics.

I skimmed the links, and didn't see anything. I really can't be arsed to read the entire thing that closely for something that may or may not be there when I'm dizzy off by ass from taking (legal ) drugs.

It matters because you are completely ignoring the DEGREE of danger involved with using each product. Again, that's a one-dimensional assessment.

But the original issue was force. The danger of the product didn't enter into the original criticism (looping them into the other settlements of the Opium wars - the one sided trade restrictions).

I agree, there is not much difference between 2 tons and 200,000 tons.

Not if there is only one 200,000 ton shipment every 10 years, and 10,000 2 ton shipments every year.

[Ramo]

You can drink decaffinated coffee and coke if caffine is a big problem for you.

No I can't. They wouldn't satisfy my addiction, or keep me up when I need it, etc.

[Berzerker]

Ted - here is my post:

1 Excellent work, you aren't learning. We are talking about a slaveowner who didn't want his slaves using a drug to relax from the burden imposed by the slaveowner. If this slaveowner banned booze, tobacco, pot, or even bathroom breaks because they detracted from the amount of labor the slaveowner could extract from his slaves, I wouldn't place value on the slaveowner's claims about the horrors of booze, tobacco, pot, or bathroom breaks.

2Excuse me, but we are talking about opium, not general "drug use". I used opium and knew people who used, do you? Nope. And you don't know all the factors effecting these people. They may have been messed up before they ever used a drug. God knows many people who use drugs do so because of emotional problems stemming from other occurences in their lives (like slavery under Chinese emperors). Confusing symptoms of emotional trauma with the trauma isn't enlightenment.

3Then why didn't it happen with every country that had legalised opium throughout it's 5,000+ history?

4So you have figured out there was no contradiction when I said Coca-Cola and Bayer sold cocaine and morphine/heroin?

5When during the period you've cited in China's history did they cease having emperors? And now you are assuming western governments made altruistic decisions regarding drugs. That's BS. When the US banned opium, it was called "the Yellow Peril" and the cited fear was chinese men seducing/raping white women in opium dens. When cocaine became the target, it was black men raping white women. When marijuana became the target, it was those Mexicans. Notice a pattern? You don't know Sh!t about how prohibition came about, and even the people who weren't racists but worked toward prohibition didn't live to see how their "experiment" turned out. You seem to think that the enactment of a policy depends solely on the reason for the policy and that the results are irrelevant. People in 1900 didn't live to see the results of the path they chose, we are seeing the results. The people who enacted alcohol prohibition didn't know they were creating the gang warfare/Mafia and black market (they were shortsighted too) resulting from prohibition, but it didn't take long for the support they had to wither away after people began seeing the results.

6You're changing the debate again from China to other countries, does that mean you now understand that the motives of Chinese emperors are questionable? This same period has seen the rise of socialism. And in this country and others, socialists sought the centralization of power. What better way to destroy federalism and the Constitution than finding excuses to nationalise policy. As for those whose motives were pure (albeit immoral nonetheless), they saw what they considered to be a problem needing government intervention, but they were too ignorant to see what would happen down the road.

7Does that mean you accept that my response was not a "dodge"? That propaganda from the tobacco industry has come back to haunt them since lawsuits are being filed on the basis that the tobacco industry lied about it's product. The alcohol industry doesn't have that liability.

8You would support them. They are deceitful and hypocritical. But Hollywood was in on the act for a very long time, ala Reefer Madness et al. The commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics - Harry Anslinger - told Congress in 1937 that marijuana turned users into psychotic murderers, in 1952, he told Congress marijauna was a communist plot to turn users into pacifists. In 1937, the AMA opposed the prohibitive tax on marijauna saying prohibition just creates more problems. From 1937-39, 3,000 doctors were convicted by Anslinger's dept of illegally prescribing narcotics. In 1939, the AMA reversed it's position to support the ban on pot, and from 1939-1952, only 3 doctors were convicted by Anslinger of illegally prescribing narcotics. There's your altruistic government in action.

9I've debated "Doc" before, does he treat all the people wounded by black market violence?

10That's what you get for complaining about me asking Strangelove for a link and then telling me to look up links to support your arguments. Wallow in your hypocrisy.

11No, you just applauded a "parody" that made fun of me asking for a link and have continued the joke by repeatedly asking me for links. The fact you do this after telling me to look up links to support your arguments shows what a hypocrite you are. Btw, when I did offer a link, you attacked it as invalid because of the organization that published the article even though you didn't even try to refute anything in the article. So why should I provide you with any links when you're such a scumbag? Instead of asking me for links, take the advice you gave me when I asked you for a link, use google.

And your "response"?

1That's your own wack theory. You have any other sources that corroborate this theory?

?I said late 1700s through modern times. Did you ever hear of the Communists?

5I think you are the ONLY one noticing a pattern, but that doesn't surprise me.

5What the hell are you talking about? We never mentioned Prohibition in this thread. Without a doubt, this is a textbook case of setting up a strawman. Here you are telling me I don't know anything about Prohibition and then you tell why I am wrong. All of this without me ever even saying a word about the topic. That's pretty good!

6Nice misinterpretation (though I suspect you really knew what I meant but once again skewed it). The point is that many other countries came up with the conclusion that Opium usage was bad, and decided to ban it. Their collective wisdom means nothing to you? Or are they all oppressive tyrnannical governments?

11Link?

11So find one that is from a neutral source. It's not that hard.

?19th Century drug numbers please

That wasn't a response to my arguments, it was a dismissal. Your longest "response" was to accuse me of introducing a subject - prohibition - not even being discussed. But we not only were discussing prohibition, you were the one who introduced it. You were the one who said that because other countries banned opium, their motives somehow affirms the motives of Chinese emperors, When I exposed some of the US' motives for banning drugs, you didn't respond with anything resembling a rebuttal.

[Ted Striker]

I skimmed the links, and didn't see anything. I really can't be arsed to read the entire thing that closely for something that may or may not be there when I'm dizzy off by ass from taking (legal ) drugs.

So you just asked me for detailed correlation studies but now you don't want to read enough to find details?

But the original issue was force. The danger of the product didn't enter into the original criticism (looping them into the other settlements of the Opium wars - the one sided trade restrictions).

WHAT? The whole point of the argument was that opium was judged by the entire world community to be harmful. Actually, the Chinese were probably the first ones to realize the danger. It was devastating Chinese society. Chinese said they didn't want the opium in their country and the British forced the market back open.

Why do you think I posted all those links about the dangers of opium?

Not if there is only one 200,000 ton shipment every 10 years, and 10,000 2 ton shipments every year.

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha I could respond in so many ways to that one but I think it speaks for itself.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ted - here is my post:



And your "response"?



That wasn't a response to my arguments, it was a dismissal. Your longest "response" was to accuse me of introducing a subject - prohibition - not even being discussed. But we not only were discussing prohibition, you were the one who introduced it. You were the one who said that because other countries banned opium, their motives somehow affirms the motives of Chinese emperors, When I exposed some of the US' motives for banning drugs, you didn't respond with anything resembling a rebuttal.

You are unbelievable man! The depths of desparation that you will reach never ceases to amaze me.

[orange]

no offense, either of you, but can we just omit the "nuh uh" "yuh huh" parts of the posts? They're getting to be quite an eyesore when trying to read the content...

[Ted Striker]

NUH UH!!!!!

[orange]

[Berzerker]

Ted - Nevermind, I'll just re-post the info.

It is probably not a good idea to tell our children the truth; that would clearly be sending them the wrong message. How, for example, could they deal with the fact that in 1914 when drugs were available on grocery store shelves and without prescription at the local pharmacy, 1.3% of the population was addicted. In 1979, just before the so-called "War on Drugs" crackdown, the addiction rate was still 1.3%. Today, while billions of dollars are spent to reduce drug use, the addiction rate is still 1.3%.

http://www.lindesmith.org/library/judge_kane2.cfm

5 + 5 =10 is a fact. That is an opinioned analysis. Which is not a fact.

It wasn't an opinion, it is a fact that people seeking a ban on opium, cocaine, and marijuana used Chinese, blacks, and Mexicans to achieve their goal.

Good lawd Quick Draw. Unlike you I don't have the rest of my life to respond to posts on Apolyton so give me some damn time to go back and check! I already said I would look for them, damn.

You make it sound like I just asked you when I've been asking you for more than a day now.

You are unbelievable man! The depths of desparation that you will reach never ceases to amaze me.

Everyone can see your pathetic "response" for themselves. If MRT wasn't so much of a hypocrite, he'd chime in too.