Announcement

**Ted Striker** · January 10, 2003, 01:02

So where are the 19th Century drug usage numbers?

**Ramo** · January 10, 2003, 01:06

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

That's right. I asked you for something you said you had, and you didn't deliver. I'm sure I can find web pages with all the "statistics" I need, but it doesn't mean anything if the methodology is faulty. It's been my experience that most studies don't do appropriate regression analysis. Particularly those that don't mention anything about regression analysis.

Another thing to keep in mind is that drug markets by nature lead to more crime precisely because they are not legal. People can be disciplined by violence if they don't pull through with business deals, etc. Obviously, you're going to reduce this crime if you reduce the drug trade, but the same thing will happen if you legalize the drug trade.

As for your links, I'll get back to them later, but frankly I don't have the capacity to do it now. I just skimmed through them again, and couldn't find anything.

If they're so easy to find, why aren't you able to quote them?

WHAT? The whole point of the argument was that opium was judged by the entire world community to be harmful.

No it wasn't. I was writing that the real problem with the conclusion of the opium wars were the one-sided trade barriers, you responded that opium was part of those agreements, I asked you to clarify, and then you were saying that opium was extremely addictive, etc. and so it was de facto force. Then you went on a tangeant on the dangers of opium.

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

Because you were confused?

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

Riiiight.

**Berzerker** · January 10, 2003, 01:10

Ted -

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

The studies you cited weren't about 1990's America and crack cocaine, they were about opium use.

WHAT? The whole point of the argument was that opium was judged by the entire world community to be harmful.

No it wasn't, you've cited several countries, not the world.

Actually, the Chinese were probably the first ones to realize the danger.

Quite amazing since opium has been used for more than 5,000 years. It took a Chinese emperor to discover opium needed to be banned? Yeah, those caring Chinese emperors.

It was devastating Chinese society.

Acording to him, a slaveowner.

Chinese said they didn't want the opium in their country and the British forced the market back open.

No, Chinese dictators said they didn't want Chinese people using it.

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

Because you seem to think people should not be allowed their freedom if people like you decide they are destroying society.

**Berzerker** · January 10, 2003, 01:17

Ted - look at the end of page 20, in response to your request, Obiwan cited numbers for 1900 and I cited numbers for 1914. The links he provided also cited numbers from the post Civil War era. They corroborate that addiction rates were not higher when all drugs were legal.

**Ted Striker** · January 10, 2003, 01:18

Originally posted by Ramo
I asked you for something you said you had, and you didn't deliver.

Again, you asked me for a source. I gave you 2. I know the game you're up to though.

If they're so easy to find, why aren't you able to quote them?

Why should I have to repeat myself when you can read them yourself?

No it wasn't. I was writing that the real problem with the conclusion of the opium wars were the one-sided trade barriers, you responded that opium was part of those agreements, I asked you to clarify, and then you were saying that opium was extremely addictive, etc. and so it was de facto force. Then you went on a tangeant on the dangers of opium.

I really don't have any idea what the point is you're trying to make.

1) Opium was devastating to Chinese society
2) Chinese wanted to ban it
3) British forced the markets open

**Ted Striker** · January 10, 2003, 01:21

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ted -
No it wasn't, you've cited several countries, not the world.

Those countries just happened to be the most powerful in the world.

Acording to him, a slaveowner.

No, according to pretty much any historical account of the time that you read.

**Ted Striker** · January 10, 2003, 01:28

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ted - look at the end of page 20, in response to your request, Obiwan cited numbers for 1900 and I cited numbers for 1914. The links he provided also cited numbers from the post Civil War era. They corroborate that addiction rates were not higher when all drugs were legal.

Well, alot of those numbers include wounded Civil War soliders hooked on morphine, as the post indicates. Morphine, by the way, is a by product of Opium. That shows the power of its addiction.

The study with every single stat at 1.3% is pretty good, though it does puzzle me how the stat is magically at 1.3% EVERY TIME. If it was like 2% one year, 6% the next year, then like 3% the next, that would make it sound more legitamite.

By the way, Ramo do these statistics count, since they don't have regression studies with "all of the proper variables" (whichever ones those are, though I have a feeling only Ramo can decide which variables are "proper")

**Ramo** · January 10, 2003, 03:00

Again, you asked me for a source. I gave you 2. I know the game you're up to though.

You asserted a cause-effect relationship. You've only cited a coorelation. And what game am I up to?

Why should I have to repeat myself when you can read them yourself?

You wouldn't be repeating yourself as you've never posted this information in the first place. You've posted several links, one of which might have the information you're referring to, but have never actually quoted that information.

Can you at least tell me what the distribution of opium use in 19th century China across socio-economic levels looks like?

I really don't have any idea what the point is you're trying to make.

**** it.

By the way, Ramo do these statistics count, since they don't have regression studies with "all of the proper variables" (whichever ones those are, though I have a feeling only Ramo can decide which variables are "proper")

Do you know what a regression analysis is? Do you even realize that poverty is connected to both crack use and overall crime?

**Berzerker** · January 10, 2003, 03:09

Ted -

Well, alot of those numbers include wounded Civil War soliders hooked on morphine, as the post indicates.

True, although Obiwan's last link (straightdope) has a link in it disputing if the "Soldier's Disease" was true or inflated for political reasons, but I'm sure there were plenty of people ravaged by the war using a variety of drugs to drown their sorrows just as Vietnam had that effect. The numbers he had said 400,000 opiate addicts I believe shorty after the Civil War but only 200,000 in 1900 so either the numbers are askew or there was a jump after the Civil war followed by a decline. I wonder if WWII saw an increase since morphine was used extensively, but I've never heard that it did.
Maybe post war addiction depends in part on the morality and success of the war. A Civil War would produce the most addicts because even with a winner, there is a loser too.

The study with every single stat at 1.3% is pretty good, though it does puzzle me how the stat is magically at 1.3% EVERY TIME. If it was like 2% one year, 6% the next year, then like 3% the next, that would make it sound more legitamite.

It's hard to know the accuracy, when drugs are illegal, many drug users won't admit their behavior, and when drugs were legal, who was doing surveys? It's amazing how hard it is to even track down any numbers for that period, I'm having a tough time finding numbers for today. But I'm sure that 1.3% is an estimate and not ~exact, but the numbers for 1900 are well within range since 200,000 was roughly 1/3 of a percent of the population which would approach 1.3% as other drugs like cocaine were included. Obviously drug consumption and addiction fluctuates, but American Heritage magazine did an analysis a few years back on drugs in American history and noticed that consumption swings back and forth from one generation to the next and that social sanctions/temperence movements, not government rules, had the biggest effect. The biggest decline in tobacco use has been over the past 3 decades as people began speaking out. I guess it's the pendulum effect, one generation gets bombed so to speak, the next tempers consumption, and back to getting bombed.

**Berzerker** · January 10, 2003, 03:21

Btw, the decline in crack consumption can be the result of more crack users in jail, but if drug consumption overall - every drug and every user - didn't decline, then many crack users may have switched to other drugs. That's the problem with isolating trends for one drug and making conclusions about overall use. We often hear cocaine use declined in the 80's and early 90's, but how many people just switched to X or heroin...

**TCO** · January 10, 2003, 12:13

Posts. Too. Long. And. Boring.

Post that USA Britney-like softcore shot, D2K.

**Agathon** · January 10, 2003, 12:37

would you murder 100 people to prevent the murder of 101 people?

Of course, if there was no better alternative, wouldn't you? Sure 100 deaths is real bad, but 101 is worse.

**Ben Kenobi** · January 10, 2003, 19:28

"The study with every single stat at 1.3% is pretty good, though it does puzzle me how the stat is magically at 1.3% EVERY TIME"

Ted Striker

Let's assume the stat is correct. What can we conclude from this statistic?

We can go 'round and 'round in circles otherwise.

**Berzerker** · January 10, 2003, 20:56

Agathon -

Of course, if there was no better alternative, wouldn't you? Sure 100 deaths is real bad, but 101 is worse.

So you would murder 100 people to prevent someone else from murdering 101 people? YIKES!!!!!!! Sorry, but chastising David for not wanting to commit murder to prevent a holocaust when you would commit a holocaust to prevent a slightly worse holocaust displays a strange view of morality. I'm of course assuming that if murdering 100 people is preferable to someone else murdering 101, then you'd murder 10 million to prevent 10 million and 1 from being murdered.

Obiwan -

Let's assume the stat is correct. What can we conclude from this statistic?

We can go 'round and 'round in circles otherwise.

The conclusion seems to be that drug laws, at least in this country, have little or no effect on addiction.

Ted -

By the way, Ramo do these statistics count, since they don't have regression studies with "all of the proper variables" (whichever ones those are, though I have a feeling only Ramo can decide which variables are "proper")

The numbers Obiwan and I provided are raw data estimating the number of addicts for a given population, Ramo's question requires a more in depth analysis since he's asking why there was a fluctuation within a segment of the drug using population.

**Ben Kenobi** · January 10, 2003, 21:21

Berzerker, I was looking for Ted's response. He seems strangely quiet.

(+0)

Announcement

The Problem with Libertarians...

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment